Mathematics Session Goals Develop reviewers ability to Use the EQuIP Student Work Protocol to examine student work and provide evidencebased feedback for both the task and also its ID: 758313
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "EQuIP Student Work Protocol" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
EQuIP Student Work Protocol — MathematicsSlide2
Session GoalsDevelop reviewers’ ability to:
Use the EQuIP Student Work Protocol to examine student work and provide evidence-based feedback for both the
task
and
also its
lesson/unit.
Develop a common
understanding among
reviewers of task
alignment and
quality.
Develop
a common understanding of the
alignment rating descriptors
for the EQuIP Student Work
Protocol
.Slide3
EQuIP Quality Review: Principles & AgreementsAlignment:
Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar
with
the
Common Core State Standards for
the grade band targeted.
Inquiry:
Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are organized in steps around a set of guiding questions.
Respect & Commitment
:
Each member of a review team is respected as a valued colleague and contributor who makes a commitment to the EQuIP process.
Criteria & Evidence:
All observations, judgments, discussions and recommendations are criterion and evidence based.
Respectful and Constructive Feedback:
Lessons/units to be reviewed are seen as “works in progress.” Reviewers are respectful of contributors’ work and make constructive observations and suggestions based on evidence from the work.
Individual to Collective:
Each member of a review team independently records his/her observations prior to discussion. Discussions focus on understanding all reviewers’ interpretations of the criteria and the evidence they have found.
Understanding & Agreement:
The goal of the process is to compare
and
eventually calibrate judgments to move toward agreement
about quality with respect to college- and career-readiness. Slide4
Introduction to the Student Work ProtocolThe objectives of the EQuIP Student Work Protocol are:
To analyze student work from a task within a lesson or unit to establish evidence of task alignment with the targeted
CCSS
.
To provide
suggestions
for improving the task and related instructional materials.Slide5
When selecting the task: Select a task from a CCSS-aligned lesson/unit.Make sure the task is significant to the central purpose of the lesson/unit.Collect several samples from a cross-section of the student group.
If from a longer lesson or full unit, consider selecting multiple tasks that represent different aspects of the lesson/unit.
Introduction to the
Student Work ProtocolSlide6
The collaborative process:Teams of reviewers are preferred.Work from individual to collective.Discuss and collaborate.
NOTE: The lesson/unit developer may or may not be a member of the team.
Introduction to the
Student Work ProtocolSlide7
STEP 1: Analyze the Task
STEP 2:
Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment
STEP 3:
Analyze Individual Student Work
STEP 4:
Analyze the Collection of Student Work
Step 5:
Provide suggestions for Improving the Materials
Steps for Reviewing Student WorkSlide8
Without consulting the standards or the supporting materials in the lesson/unit, analyze the purpose and demands of the task as evidenced by the directions
and/or prompt(s).
Record the grade, lesson/unit, and task title on the
EQuIP
Student Work Protocol
Form.
Use only the directions and prompts to analyze the requirements of the task without consulting the instructional context and supporting materials in the
lesson/unit.
Study the task thoroughly, making notes about its purpose and demands and noting apparent aligned standards.
[
For mathematics this requires actually working the problem(s) and answering the question(s) included in the task.]
STEP 1: Analyze the TaskSlide9
Without consulting the standards or the supporting materials in the lesson/unit, analyze the purpose and demands of the task as evidenced by the directions and/or prompt(s). Guiding Questions
What content and performance demands does the task make on students?
What is the purpose of the task?
Which Common Core standards seem to be targeted by the task?
What types of student reasoning are required by the
task?
Which
Standards for Mathematical Practice might be assessed by the task
?
STEP 1: Analyze the Task
Record Notes & ObservationsSlide10
Notes & Observations Regarding the Demands of the Task:The task addresses whole number operations, particularly addition and multiplication
.
Students will need to multiply,
or skip
count,
by 3s, 4s and 5s and add whole
numbers. They need to be able to decipher and
solve word problems and reason mathematically
.
Question #4 requires that students interpret their results – reason quantitatively. They need to be able to add whole numbers and, at a minimum, interpret multiplication as repeated addition and to navigate a missing factor problem.
The task provides all units of measure.
STEP
1
: Analyze the Task
Grade
3 – Cookie DoughSlide11
Scan the entire lesson/unit, noting its purpose, content, and organization. Notice the placement of the task within the lesson/unit
.
Identify the standards targeted in the lesson/
unit and compare to those identified in Step 1.
Examine
the answer keys, scoring guidelines, and/or
rubrics related to the task.
STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the TaskSlide12
Scan the lesson/unit to see what it contains and how it is organized. Grade 3 Math: Cookie Dough*
Overview and Standards
page 1
Performance Task: Cookie Dough
pages 4–5
Rubrics and Scoring Guides
pages 6–8
Annotated Student Work
pages 9–18
Instructional Supports
pages 19–88
Unit Outline
pages 20–26
Full Lesson Plan
pages 27–85
References
pages 86–88*Page number references match the online PDF version of the unit.
STEP 2:
Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the
Task – Grade 3: Cookie DoughSlide13
13Use the alignment descriptors to evaluate the alignment between the targeted standards and the task.
STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the Task
* Partial alignment is possible when a standard contains multiple concepts and/or performances in a single standard. In these standards one part may play a more central role in the overarching requirements of the standard. It is possible, for example, that the requirements of one part subsume the requirements of the other part(s).
**Limited alignment occurs when the most central aspects of standards containing multiple concepts and/or performances are not clearly addressed by the expectations of the task, but there is sufficient alignment to the less central aspects that continuing the review process is warranted. This could be the case if multiple standards are targeted and other standards have a strong alignment. Reviewers may want to suggest improvements to alignment.Slide14
Guiding QuestionsWhere does the task occur within the instructional sequence? What have students already learned from the lesson/unit when they approach the task? What will they learn after? Does the lesson/unit include sufficient and effective instruction and scaffolding leading up to the task?
Do the expectations described in the scoring guidelines correspond with your analysis of the task in Step 1? Is the task central to the learning goals of the lesson/unit?
STEP 2
: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the
Task
Cont. Slide15
Guiding Questions (cont.)Which standards targeted, including the Mathematical Practices, in the lesson/unit match the content and performance demands of the task?
Do the directions, prompts, and/or scoring guidelines for the task
adequately provide
or indicate opportunities for students to demonstrate
the requirements of
the targeted
standard(s)
for the task?
STEP 2
: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the
Task
Record Notes & ObservationsSlide16
Notes & Observations Regarding Alignment:This task is the centerpiece of the unit and used as the summative assessment. Materials in the unit provide support for both the teacher and the student and include enough scaffolding to support success for the student. Answer keys and scoring rubrics are present and helpful, with extensive scoring information in the annotations.
The standards that align with the performance task are 3.OA.1, 3, 4, and 5 and MP.1, MP.2, and MP.3. The task and relevant targeted standards both address operations with whole numbers.
There
are gaps in
alignment between the demands of the task and several
of the standards targeted for the overall
unit. Several of those standards representing gaps in alignment are
addressed elsewhere in the
unit, including
3.OA.2, 6, 8, and 9 and MP.4.
Only
3.OA.7 is not fully addressed in the task or in the unit.
STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the Task – Grade
3: Cookie Dough
Cont. Slide17
STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the Task – Grade 3: Cookie Dough
Cont. Slide18
STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the Task – Grade 3: Cookie DoughSlide19
Use the table provided to analyze each individual student sample of work, asking the following questions about each:What does the student’s work demonstrate about his/her understanding of the task?What does the student’s work demonstrate about
his/her proficiency
with the requirements of the targeted CCSS?
What does the student’s work demonstrate about the depth of
his/her understanding
and reasoning abi
lity, including understanding the context of the question(s) and/or proficiency with the Standards for Mathematical Practice
?
How does the application of the scoring guidelines/rubrics related to the task support an understanding of the student’s proficiency?
STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student WorkSlide20
Use the table provided to analyze each individual sample of work by asking the following questions about each:STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student Work
Record Notes & Observations in the Rows of the TableSlide21
Notes & Observations Regarding the Student Responses to the Task:
High-level achieving student (Level 4):
Student responses meet the demands of the entire task with few errors and also include explanations that are clear and complete
. This student was
able to find the correct answers using the most efficient operation, multiplication or division, and make the connection between the two operations.
At-standard achieving student (Level 3):
For most of the task the students’ responses show the main elements of the performance demands of the task and is an organized attack on the core of the problem. In some cases there were errors in calculations or in interpretation of
their own
work. Work shown may be limited but appears to show mathematical understanding
. In
one
case,
the correct answer is given but not supported by the work shown. In most
cases,
the student was able to explain the path to
his/her solution
.
STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student Work
Grade 3 – Cookie DoughSlide22
Notes & Observations Regarding the Student Responses to the Task:
Below-standard performing student
(Level
2):
Students show partial understanding of the problem but either misread or misinterpreted some parts of the problem.
They were able to get a correct answer for parts 1 and 2 but found an unreasonable answer for part 3.
In some cases students were unable to work backward — or understand the inverse relationship between multiplication and division. Explanations
are missing, incomplete, or not helpful
.
Minimally-successful student
(Level
1):
Students at this level have minimal success. In some cases even when questions are answered correctly, the work shows misunderstandings.
Their reasoning is flawed in part 2 of the task and does not support
their
correct answer. They misinterpreted the question in part 4
.
Students appear to be stuck at the level of conceptual understanding of multiplication.
STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student Work
Grade 3 – Cookie DoughSlide23
STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student Work
Cont.
Look for trends across the collection of samples of student work.
Guiding Questions
On
what aspects of the task have students
generally performed
well?
What are the most frequent and fundamental problems students appear to be having with the task? Are there common errors made across the
collection
of student work?
What does the range of student work demonstrate about the clarity of the task, directions, and supporting materials?
In what ways do the scoring guidelines/rubrics aid in the evaluation of student proficiency on the targeted standards?Slide24
Guiding Questions (cont.)What do the patterns across multiple student work samples indicate about alignment of the task to the targeted standards?
In what ways does the task allow (or not allow) students to demonstrate various levels of proficiency* with the targeted standards?
Is there evidence of consistent levels of reasoning and understanding across the samples of student work?
What does the pattern of student responses show about their common understanding of the
mathematical context of the task?
STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student Work
Record Notes & Observations
*Note: A range of student understanding of the requirements of the task and its targeted standards,
from merely
“proficient” to “deep conceptual understanding and reasoning,” might be evident in the
student work.Slide25
Notes & Observations Regarding the Students’ Responses to the Task:There is a full range of response levels in the student work associated with this task.
Most students
in the collection were able to calculate
correctly at least some of the time,
either by repeated addition or multiplication.
Most were
able to justify their results using either diagrams or by showing the calculations
. However some explanations were incomplete. Students were least successful with part 4, some not able to reason quantitatively when the answer had to be rounded appropriately.
The task provided all measurement units (dollars or tubs) for the student. The scoring guidelines were extensive and helpful.
STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student Work
Grade
3 –
Cookie
DoughSlide26
Implications for future task development:Prompts and directions for this type of task should be clear and clearly aimed at the requirements of the standards. For this task, that might include clearly asking for an equation or a specific operation to be used. MP2 would be better assessed if the units were not provided and were, instead, required to be included with the solution.
As struggling students move forward, they need to be encouraged to think about using the most efficient strategy and to attend to their process. All students need practice with making clear and complete explanations and justifications. They might benefit from reading and critiquing other students’ (or sample) explanations.
Students performing below the standard were often unable to demonstrate an understanding of the inverse relationships between operations. Further development of this concept would be beneficial.
STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of
Student Work
Grade 3 – Cookie DoughSlide27
Use insights from the alignment process and examination of student work to suggest improvements to the instructional materials.
Guiding Questions
Are the task instructions clear to students? How could they be modified to increase student understanding of the task expectations?
Is
the task properly placed within the overall lesson/unit plan? If not, how might it be repositioned?
Does the task allow a variety of students to demonstrate their own level of proficiency? What modifications might be made to the
task
to elicit evidence of various levels of proficiency
?
STEP 5: Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials
Cont. Slide28
Guiding Questions (cont.)Do the task prompts, directions, and requirements provide students with a clear opportunity to demonstrate proficiency for the targeted standards? What modifications to the task might elicit better evidence
of proficiency on the targeted standards?
Does
the task allow students to demonstrate deep understanding and reasoning about the related concepts, topics or texts? What modifications to the task might allow students to demonstrate the deep reasoning and understanding ?
What modifications to scoring guidelines/rubrics would improve guidance for evaluating student proficiency on the targeted standards?
STEP
5:
Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials
Record Suggestions for ImprovementSlide29
Suggestions for Improvement for the Task and the Lesson/Unit:At all levels student performance would be improved by making complete explanations and justifications. Better and more detailed prompts could alleviate that problem somewhat.Interpretation
of quotients, the most critical aspect of
3.OA.2, is
not specifically required in the performance task. However, there is a possibility that students would use this type of thinking for
parts 3 and 4. Revising the prompt to specifically require using a quotient would provide alignment with this standard.
In
this performance task students must use abstract reasoning to solve the
problems (MP.2).
They decontextualize the verbal description
to
manipulate the numbers and then
re-contextualize
when presenting their solution and reasoning. If the units were not provided with each answer line, but were instead expected as part of the answer,
alignment to MP.2 would be improved.As it stands, this task does not require modeling (MP.4). If the directions “Write an equation to represent the problem” were added to
“
Show how you figured it out” on parts 2, 3, and 4, alignment to MP.4 would be improved.
Scoring rubrics provided in the unit are strong and useful.
STEP 4: Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials – Grade 3: Cookie DoughSlide30
Suggestions for Improvement for the Task and the Lesson/Unit:At all levels student performance would be improved by making complete explanations and justifications. Better and more detailed prompts could alleviate that problem somewhat.
Interpretation of
quotients, the
most critical aspect of
3.OA.2, is
not specifically required in the performance task. However, there is a possibility that students would use this type of thinking for
parts 3 and 4. Revising the prompt to
specifically require using a quotient
would provide alignment with this standard.
In
this performance task students must use abstract reasoning to solve the
problems (MP.2).
They decontextualize the verbal description
to manipulate the numbers and then re-contextualize when presenting their solution and reasoning. If the units were not provided with each answer line, but were instead expected as part of the answer, alignment to MP.2 would be improved.
As it stands, this task does not require modeling (MP.4).
If the directions
“Write an equation to represent the
problem” were added
to
“
Show how you figured it out” on parts 2, 3, and 4, alignment to MP.4 would be improved.
Scoring rubrics provided in the unit are strong
and useful.
STEP 4: Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials – Grade 3: Cookie DoughSlide31
Did we develop a common understanding among reviewers of:
How examining student work, using the Student Work
Protocol,
can provide another lens through which
we can
view and provide feedback for a task and its lesson/unit
?
How to assess the quality and alignment of an individual task in a lesson/unit?
How t
he alignment descriptors are used in the Student Work Protocol?
Reflect on Session GoalsSlide32
http://www.achieve.org/
EQuIP