1. Analyzing Student Work & Formative Jurying
Welcome to LDC!
Day 3:
Analyzing Student Work & Formative Jurying

2. Our Facilitators Stacy Noah Effectiveness Coach, KDE
@stacybryantnoah
Kelly Philbeck
LDC Instructional Specialist
Twitter: @kellyphilbeck
FB: Kelly R. Philbeck
Mike York Effectiveness Coach,

3. Analyzing Student Work Instructional Implications
Goals & Outcomes
Task/
Expectations
Standards/
Instruction
Analyzing Student Work
Instructional Implications
Reflection/
Revision

4. Analyzing Student Work: Critical Friends

5. Preparing for the Tuning Protocol
Presenting teacher(s) have an opportunity to share the context for the student work:
Information about the students and/or the class—what the students tend to be like, where they are in school, where they are in the year
Assignment or prompt which generated the student work
Student learning goals or standards that inform the work
Samples of the work
Rubric
Focusing question for feedback

6. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Introduction (5 minutes)
Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, guidelines, and schedule
Participants briefly introduce themselves

7. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Presentation (15 minutes)
Presenting teacher(s) have an opportunity to share the context for the student work:
Information about the students and/or the class—what the students tend to be like, where they are in school, where they are in the year
Assignment or prompt which generated the student work
Student learning goals or standards that inform the work
Samples of the work
Rubric
Focusing question for feedback
Participants are silent; no questions are entertained at this time

8. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Clarifying Questions (5 minutes)
Participants have an opportunity to ask “clarifying questions” in order to get information that might have been omitted in the presentation
Clarifying questions are matters of “fact”
The facilitator should be sure to limit the questions to those that are “clarifying”—judging which questions more properly belong in the warm/cool feedback section

9. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Examination of Student Work (15 minutes)
Participants look closely at the work, taking notes on where it seems to be in tune with the stated goals/standards/task and where there might be a problem, misconception, or need for clarification
Presenter is silent, participants do this work silently

10. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Pause to reflect on warm/cool feedback (2-3 minutes)
Participants take a couple of minutes to reflect on what they would like to contribute to the feedback session
Presenter is silent
Participants do this work silently

11. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Warm and Cool Feedback (15 minutes)
Facilitator reminds group of focusing question
Participants share feedback with each other while the presenter is silent
Begin with warm feedback (focus on task, standards, scoring elements of rubric student work provides evidence of mastery) Each participant shares
Then move to cool feedback (misconceptions, gaps, need for clarification/further instruction)
Presenter is silent and takes notes

12. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Reflection (5 minutes)
Presenter speaks to the comments/question he or she chooses while the participants are silent
This is not a time to defend oneself, but instead a time for the presenter to reflect aloud on those ideas or questions that seemed particularly interesting
Facilitator may intervene to focus, clarify, etc.

13. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Next Steps/Instructional Implications (10 minutes)
Group discusses strategies to strengthen work

14. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Next Steps/Instructional Implications (10 minutes)
Group discusses strategies to strengthen work

15. Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol
Debrief (5 minutes)
Facilitator recaps main ideas
Discusses suggestions for next meeting
Explores ways to apply strategies across content areas

16. Reflection on Protocol & Module

17. CoreTools: Log On www.ldc.org 17 Introduce CoreTools
Search for content specific tasks 17
© 2009 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 17

18. Jurying Screencast

19. Reflection/Formative Jurying

20. Teacher Talk Based on what you know now about LDC . . .
What would you expect to see if you walked into a classroom that was implementing LDC at what you consider a high level of impact ?
Provide time for talking about this with an elbow partner. Then ask lead teachers in listing on a chart the attributes of quality LDC implementation. Post.

21. Domain 1: Planning & Preparation Domain 2: Classroom Environment
Ask who has seen the FfT. The FfT provides us a common language and criteria for what it means to be an effective teacher. Although there are other Frameworks out there, this is the one chosen by the Teacher Steering Committee for use by Kentucky. We can use this framework to reflect on our own practice. Teachers participating in the pilot are using the framework to reflection on their practice and identify areas of focus for their own professional growth.
Domain 1: Planning & Preparation
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
Domain 3: Instruction
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Domain 5: Student Growth

22. The TPGES System
Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
Observation
Peer Observation
formative
Professional
Growth
Self-Reflection
Student Voice
Student Growth
These provide different lenses for looking at teacher effectiveness.
The TPGES is designed to look at teacher effectiveness through a variety of lenses. You can see these different “looks” on this slide. While the FfT provides us the language and specific rubric for effectiveness, these provide us a variety of ways to view effectiveness.
State Contribution:
Student Growth %
Local Contribution:
Student Growth Goals

23. Common Language
Let’s look a the design of the FfT.

24. Note that the rubric is the top part of the pages – the component identification and description along with the indicators within the 4 performance levels. The critical attributes and possible examples provide more information for clarity.

25. & other Common Core Standards when appropriate
LDC Framework
TEMPLATE TASKS
Target the 3 modes of writing
in the Common Core State Standards
Teacher/Student-Selected
Texts or or
Appropriate, grade-level texts that support selected content
Argument
(opinion at the elementary grades)
Informative/ Explanatory
Narrative
& other Common Core Standards when appropriate
Use this slide?
The Literacy Design Collaborative provides a framework that fits within a unit for integration and implementation of the Common Core Academic Standards for reading and writing.
The template tasks target the 3 modes of writing in the Common Core State Standards: Argument, Informative/Explanatory, or Narrative. (1 & 2)
Beginning with a template task, teachers fill in the content to be addressed and select texts that are appropriate to meet grade-level complexity as well as the content to be learned. (3)
Although the template tasks are designed around the first three writing standards, application of several other reading and writing standards is built-in to the framework.
Appendix B (p. 49) in the LDC Guide for Teachers charts this integration of reading and writing standards within the template tasks as well as how other standards may be applied when appropriate. (Participants can pause here to read over Appendix B.) (4, 5 & 6)
Once teachers fill in the template task, creating a teaching task, they are ready to design instruction. They choose the skills students will need to complete the task and the mini-tasks for building each skill. LDC provides us with sample skills and mini-tasks. The skills are clustered in a way that make sense teaching the skill. We are at liberty to use them, revise them, or develop new skills and mini-tasks.
LDC has also provided rubrics specific to the mode of writing – not shown on this graphic.
(Later, when participants take a look at the sample skills, point out the way they are clustered in a way that makes sense for teaching the task.)
Supported by an Instructional Ladder
Skills students need to complete the task
Mini-tasks for building each skill

26. Digging Deeper into the FfT
Analyze your assigned component of the FfT.
Highlight language that connects to LDC implementation.
Communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom.
We want to take a few minutes to dig deeper into the FfT to get a clear picture of the connections between the LDC strategy and the framework. Remember, LDC is a strategy for implementing the literacy standards at a level of rigor in which they are intended.
You will work with a group of about 3 to analyze a single component within the framework. You’ll first study the language in the Framework and highlight language that you think connects to what you do as a LDC teacher. The attributes you brainstormed a few minutes ago can be a reference for you.
Next, you will communicate what this might look like in a LDC classroom. Let’s look at an example.

27. First, highlight language that connects to LDC implementation.
Share the language I highlighted as an example.

28. Next, communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom.
Share how extended upon the language to communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom

29. Digging Deeper into the FfT
Analyze your assigned component of the FfT.
Highlight language that connects to LDC implementation.
Communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom.
Decide who will share.
Give teams of 3 the appropriate page from the FfT, highlighters, and a 11x17 page to post.
Domain 2: 2B and 2C
Domain 3: 3B, 3C, and 3D

30. Why is this important?
Because these initiatives align – they are interconnected. One impacts the other: TPGES and strategies for implementing standards
Both lead to student achievement/success

31. Let’s revisit your brainstorming.
What would you expect to see if you walked into a classroom that was implementing LDC at what you consider a high level of impact ?
Overall, did you see what you brainstormed in the Framework?

32. Meeting Materials are on www.kellyphilbeck.com
© 2009 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation