1. Everett Public Schools Madison Elementary School LMS Department August 28, 2014

2. Who are these LMS people ?

3. LMS: Who we are and what we do Jo Anne Buiteweg, Director System Support: Newel Rice, Data Systems Manager Pete Dronzek, Student Data Systems Coordinator (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC, Teacher Insight) Linda Holtorf, Student Data Systems Coordinator (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC) David Passey, Systems Analyst Pat Jones, Systems Support Analyst (Scantron Teacher Insight, Gradebook) Noreen Wintch, Systems Support Analyst (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC ) REACH US at LMS@everettsd.orgLMS@everettsd.org

4. Learning Management Systems CognosGradebook Student Information Systems WebsiteInsight Elementary Progress Parent AD User Access Data Analysis Tools Assessment Management Content Management

5. LMS: Who we are and what we do Curriculum, Assessment and Instructional Technology Support: Sonja Delafosse, Instructional Technology Specialist Lauribeth Hull, Internet Technology Specialist Paul Edwards, Curriculum Specialist (Curriculum Portal, Assessment for Learning Tavis Miller, Curriculum Specialist (Grading, Proficiency Scaling, Common Assessments) REACH US at LMS@everettsd.orgLMS@everettsd.org

6. Partnership with Curriculum Specialists Proficiency Scaling DOK Leveling Tasks Assessment for Learning Student- Involved Assessment Grading for Learning Common Assessments Data Analysis and Reporting Instructional Technology

7. Task Name one content area where you believe you are more expert than novice. - Describe something you can do now that you believe would be difficult for you to do in the first three months of learning that content.

8. How does Depth of Knowledge (DOK) fit within engaging students and having them think through content in different ways? How is the “Depth of Knowledge” a foundation for the construction of a proficiency scale to “unpack” clusters/ standards? What do teachers experience in building proficiency scales? How are scales use to design both assessment items and instructional tasks? How can all teachers access the most up to date maps, scales, assessments and more? Initial Session Overview

9. Backwards Design Model Identify/Select Course Standards “Common Core” Scale Standards Design/Use Common “Leveled” Assessments Instructional Plan/Map Determine Reporting Variables Develop Interventions/Enrichment

10. Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Adapted from the model used by Norman Webb, University of Wisconsin, to align standards with curriculum and assessments. The degree of depth or complexity of knowledge reflected in the content standards and assessments How deeply a student needs to understand the content for a given response/assessment

11. Created based on work of Webb, Norman L. and others. “Web Alignment Tool” 24 July 2005. Wisconsin Center of Educational Research. University of Wisconsin- Madison. 2 Feb. 2006

12. Depth of Knowledge depends on more than the verb. The complexity also depends on what the verb is acting on. For example, “draw” is in the DOK level 1 sector. But a student who draws a blueprint of a new building is doing more than recall of information. Explain also can be at different levels--explain by repeating a definition (DOK level 1), explain by putting a paragraph into your own words (DOK level 2), or explain by describing an analysis of the factors contributing to the economic down turn of the US (DOK level 3).

13. Depth of thinking required Context in which the verb is used DOK Level

15. What comes after the verb is more important than the verb itself. “Analyze this sentence to decide if the commas have been used correctly” does not meet the criteria for high cognitive processing. Rationale: The student who has been taught the rule for using commas is merely using the rule

17. DOK Snapshot DOK is a scale of cognitive demand DOK is not an exact science DOK is about the item/standard not the student The context of the item/standard must be considered to determine the DOK level not just a look at what verb was chosen. DOK is lowered when too much information is given DOK is not about difficulty but how much thinking is required for the student to complete the prompt/task

18. Bloom’s and Webb’s Different models to describe cognitive rigor Bloom – What type of thinking are needed to complete the task? Webb – How deeply do you have to understand the content to successfully interact at a given depth? How complex is the content?

19. Cognitive Rigor Matrix This matrix from the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications for Mathematics draws from both Bloom’s (revised) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Levels below.

20. Addresses the content being assessed and the depth to which we expect students to demonstrate understanding of a particular content area Is a reference to the complexity of mental processing that must occur to answer a question, perform a task or generate a product Is not grade contextualized- all about the expertise in a content area DOK Further Clarification

21. Recall/ Reproduction DOK 1 Skills/ Concepts DOK 2 Strategic Thinking DOK 3 Extended Thinking DOK 4 Proficiency Proficiency Scale level does not equal DOK level

22. Determining DOK How would you describe the progression from 1 st grade to 4 th grade? As a small group discuss and have one member record what each standard’s DOK level might be and provide a rationale for your thinking. Include any questions your discussion raised or disagreements you encountered.

23. How can we be consistent in applying DOK at our grade level? Depth of Knowledge = Cognitive Demand = Rigor How much and what kind of “thinking” is called for in each CCSS cluster, for classroom instruction and on assessments? What kinds of “thinking” is called for approaching the cluster and beyond the cluster?

24. Proficiency Scaling The process of identifying and developing the cognitive demand or level of rigor for a given standard. -Starting with the standard: educators use a framework … (Webb’s DOK) …as way to build a rigorous proficiency-based approach in the interest of valid and reliable assessing which informs both teacher and student -If Proficient is the standard: -What is Advanced? -What is a Basic? Marzano, Robert J. Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading 2010

25. Advanced Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts Proficient Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught. Basic Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary. Foundational Various cognitive steps before Basic.

26. K-Math Advanced Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts  Count backwards from a given number by ones.  Write numbers from various starting points beyond 20 and continue the number pattern.  Write given numbers out of sequence above 20. Proficient Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught. Know number names and the count sequence. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS)  Count to 100 by ones (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)  Count to 100 by tens (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)  Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)  Write numbers from 0 to 20. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)  Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.3) Basic Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary  Uses the pattern of 1-9 to count within a decade (e.g. in twenties, in thirties, etc)  Writes numbers from 0 to 20 using a tool (e.g. number line, 100s chart)  Represents a number of objects with a visual tool 0-20 (refer to a number line or number card).  Recognizes the numbers from 0 to 20. Foundational Various cognitive steps before Basic.

27. Common Core Grades KGrades 1Grades 2 Understand addition as putting together and adding to, and understand subtraction as taking apart and taking from. 1. Represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings2, sounds (e.g., claps), acting out situations, verbal explanations, expressions, or equations. 2. Solve addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract within 10, e.g., by using objects or drawings to represent the problem. 3. Decompose numbers less than or equal to 10 into pairs in more than one way, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each decomposition by a drawing or equation (e.g., 5 = 2 + 3 and 5 = 4 + 1). 4. For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation. Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction. 1. Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.2 2. Solve word problems that call for addition of three whole numbers whose sum is less than or equal to 20, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem. Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction. Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two- step word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

28. Recall/ Reproduction DOK 1 Skills/ Concepts DOK 2 Strategic Thinking DOK 3 Extended Thinking DOK 4 Proficiency Proficiency Scale level does not equal DOK level

29. Leveraging Scales Scaling and Leveling 29 Curriculum & Instruction Rigorous, Informative Assessment Reporting Variables/ Grading Practices

30. Applying the cognitive level using the proficiency scale to each item on an assessment and activity in the instructional map. –build an assessment map determining the number of leveled items/prompts required to create a valid/reliable assessment –level through reverse engineering – examine what is already in the curriculum or provided by a publisher and assign a level of rigor to the item/lesson/prompt Leveling in Assessment

31. Sufficient number of items to have evidence of student’s understanding of a standard. Research shows 5-9 items is optimal. Items grouped by standard Sufficient number of items at Basic and Proficient levels Start with lower cognitive demand Basic and build up Proficient and on to Advanced Balance of Basic and Proficient items with Advanced item or performance task connected to assessment Best “type” of assessment item to measure level. Strength of item to distinguish both correctness and misconceptions for instruction Assessment Design

32. Begin curriculum adoption process – creating or examining scales – Is the range of cognitive demand evident in the materials under consideration? Create an instructional plan showing leveled activities and leveled checks for understanding Apply the cognitive level using the proficiency scale to each activity in the instructional map. Leveling in Curriculum and Instruction

33. Proficiency scales clearly define each level of proficiency for a specific standard. Proficiency based leveled assessments need to be scored differently When assessments are no longer about points but evidence of proficiency a need for grading differently is created Policies and practices must be examined for any conflicts with a standards based mindset Proficiency Scales Impact on Grading