 The rubric uses a 4 point scale  3.0 represents what you want the student to know and be able to do  This means that a student can do all of the processes.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Writing constructed response items
Advertisements

Marzanos Presentation 4-Point Rubric Proficiency is a rubric score of 3.
DRA Training Lyndhurst Public Schools K- 3 Elba Castrovinci September 2013.
David C. Yanoski Director of Standards Development Marzano Research Laboratory.
Elementary Scales and Growth-Based Report Card
Based on the model used by Carlton Comprehensive in Prince Albert we are using a 4 point rubric to structure and assess our Math 9 classes. Balfour Outcome.
Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products (EQuIP) Using the Tri-State Quality Rubric for Mathematics.
The Marzano Framework Design Question 1
We accept learning as the fundamental purpose of our school and therefore are willing to examine all practices in light of the impact on learning.. - DuFour,
Learning Goals, Scales and Learning Activities
Center for Teacher Certification at ACC Lesson Planning 101 What you need to know about planning for students to learn.
Classroom Assessment A Practical Guide for Educators by Craig A
Teaching Functions.
Deconstructing Standards Summer Training Clear Targets: I can deconstruct standards to better understand and integrate contents. I can develop clear.
Determining Essential Learnings or Essential Outcomes September 14, 2010.
MATHEMATICS LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT POD TRAINING #2.
Clear Standards/Curriculum Framework Licia Lentz Woodland Hills High School February 12, 2010.
Day 3: Rubrics as an Assessment Tool. "There are only two good reasons to ask questions in class: to cause thinking and to provide information for the.
Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. Oregon Response to Intervention Vision: Every child.
Guidelines for Developing Lesson Plans EX
Top 10 Instructional Strategies
Standards-based grading What does it look like?.
Elementary & Middle School 2014 Mathematics MCAS Evaluation & Strategy.
Day 3 (1:00 – 2:00) Room 5 Presented by: Heidi Fulcher.
Classroom Assessment A Practical Guide for Educators by Craig A
Timber Trace Elementary School October 4, Introduction Module # 1 Structure of the Handbook Design Questions and Modules Sample Activity Box How.
Standards-based assessment and reporting An Overview for Parents.
Measuring Complex Achievement
Creating Rubrics. Information taken from Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading Robert Marzano 2010.
Day 4: Using Assessment Data to Inform Decision Making.
. Topic: Writing Scales. Courtney Kavanaugh Geneva Elementary School Val Brown Jackson Heights Middle School Kim Dansereau Hagerty High School.
Courtney Kavanaugh Geneva Elementary School Val Brown Content Support Team Kim Dansereau Hagerty High School.
Leap Into Literacy Centers By Leigh Ann Roderick And Buffalo Jones Staff.
Performance-Based Assessment HPHE 3150 Dr. Ayers.
CASD Librarians: Do You Speak SAS? What We Need to Know October 25, 2011.
EQAO Assessments and Rangefinding
MISD Bilingual/ESL Department
Work Sample Seminar1 Developing a Pretest & Posttest for the Literacy Work Sample Portland State University.
Student Learning and Growth Goals Foundations 1. Outcomes Understand purpose and requirements of Student Learning and Growth (SLG) goals Review achievement.
September 12, 2012 Standards Based Grading: Information Meeting for Parents.
THE OFFICE OF ACADEMICS, TALENT DEVELOPMENT AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Learning Goals and Performance Scales A District Initiative.
Learning Goals and Learning Scales
Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model*
Interventions Identifying and Implementing. What is the purpose of providing interventions? To verify that the students difficulties are not due to a.
Fidelity of Implementation A tool designed to provide descriptions of facets of a coherent whole school literacy initiative. A tool designed to provide.
END OF KEY STAGE TESTS SUMMER TERM 2016.
Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model Marzano is an educational researcher who has developed a teacher evaluation model that has been adopted by most of the.
 Marzano is an educational researcher who has developed a teacher evaluation model that has been adopted by most of the school districts in the United.
Student Growth Goals for Coaching Conversations. Requirements for Student Growth Goals Time line Reference to an Enduring Skill Proficiency and Growth.
Prevention to Avoid Intervention Tier 1: the most important tier!
Using Multiple Measures ASSESSING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.
1. Welcome 2. Working with the WIKI 3. Discussion of Assessment in curriculum development 4. Break 5. Divide into curricular areas – discuss: A.Standards.
Student Growth Goals Work Session. Goals for the day 1.Develop questions to ask teachers to determine if the SGG meets the criteria established in the.
Grading based on student centred and transparent assessment of learning outcomes Tommi Haapaniemi
Writing Learning Outcomes Best Practices. Do Now What is your process for writing learning objectives? How do you come up with the information?
1. Welcome 2. Working with the WIKI 3. Discussion of Assessment in curriculum development 4. Break 5. Divide into curricular areas – discuss: A.Standards.
Learning Objectives for Senior School Students. Failing to plan is planning to fail. / Psychology of Achievement /
Standards-Based Grading Olympic Middle School School Board Presentation August 25, 2009.
LEARNING GOALS AND SCALES. LEARNING GOALS FOR TODAY Teachers will understand the characteristics of learning goals. Teachers will understand the difference.
Inspiring today’s children for tomorrow’s world Early Years Foundation Stage Assessment Procedure 2016.
Learning Goals & Targets
Classroom Assessment A Practical Guide for Educators by Craig A
Assessment and Reporting Without Levels February 2016
Research and Theory, Introduction to the Scale or Rubric, Writing Measurement Topics, Score 3.0 and Sample Tasks Ravalli County Curriculum Consortium.
The Scoring Guide Writing 2.0 & 3.0 And The new Taxonomy.
Teaching and Learning with Technology
We have defined what the student should be able to do.
Writing Learning Outcomes
Research and Theory, Introduction to the Scale or Rubric, Writing Measurement Topics, Score 3.0 and Sample Tasks Ravalli County Curriculum Consortium.
MRHS Math Department Course Registration Information
Presentation transcript:

 The rubric uses a 4 point scale  3.0 represents what you want the student to know and be able to do  This means that a student can do all of the processes and knows all of the knowledge that was explicitly taught over the course of a unit

 2.0 means the student gets and can do the simpler details and processes that were taught  But, the student is not able to do the more complex processes and does not know the more complex information  So, the student gets and can do the simpler stuff, but not the harder stuff

 Score 2.0 uses the following stem: “ There are no major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes as the student: ◦ recognizes or recalls basic terminology such as: ◦ performs basic processes such as:

 At this step, define the basic vocabulary that the student needs to know  Complete the rubric by listing samples of the vocabulary appropriate to understand the Score 3.0 content  Not every rubric has to have vocabulary

 2 types of knowledge  Procedural  Knowing how to do something  Declarative  Knowing something  If the Score 3.0 is procedural, than the 2.0 should be as well  If the Score 3.0 is declarative, then the Score 2.0 is declarative

1. Use the hierarchy of procedural knowledge 2. Simpler Version of a Complex Procedure 3. Application vs. Demonstration of the procedure 4. Behavioral Scale – using prompts 5. Performing the steps of a procedure 6. Procedural Declarative

Procedural knowledge has a hierarchy  Processes  Macroprocedures  Skills  Tactics  Algorithms  Single Rules COMPLEXITY

 Macroprocedures  Highly complex procedures, with many subcomponents  Tactics  Complex procedure, with fewer subcomponents  Algorithms  Procedures with very specific steps and very specific outcomes  Single rules  One step procedure, one IF-THEN rule

 When you write procedural 2.0’s, you may move down the hierarchy from the procedural 3.0  If the 3.0 involves a macroprocedure:  For example: Write a short constructed response  You may move to a lower complexity procedure, like an algorithm  For example: complete a graphic organizer of a short constructed response

 Typically, the expectation or learning goal for Score 3.0 fairly complex, with more complex steps and challenging numbers, or concepts For Example: graphs problems in the slope intercept form (e.g., 5x-2y=10)  Score 2.0 may involve doing simpler versions of the same procedure–think of practice problems designed to practice and master the procedure. These can be used as Score 2.0 type problems. For Example: graphs simple equations in the slope intercept form (e.g., y=2x+3)  Use examples of the type of problem on both the 2.0 and 3.0 to differentiate between them.

 When the Score 3.0 involves the application of a procedure (e.g., solving a word problem or editing a for capitalization)…  The score 2.0 could be a demonstration of the procedure (e.g., solving a problem or demonstrate the proper capitalization of…)

 When the procedure is behavioral in nature, you may choose to use a slightly different form of the scale:  Score 4.0 – performs the procedure in a new context or assists others in performing the procedure  Score performs the procedure independently without prompting  Score 2.0 – performs the procedure with a group or class prompt  Score 1.0 – performs the procedure with an individual prompt

 When the student is performing a skill that is the sum of a set of steps performed fluently:  Score 3.0 could be that the student performs the skill fluently (e.g., long division, throwing a football)  Score 2.0 could be that the student performs the steps of the procedure in isolation (e.g., performs the steps of long division or throwing a football one at a time but cannot put it together and do it fluently )

 If the procedure is so simple that it cannot be broken down any further, the 2.0 could be that the student knows information about the procedure  Score 3.0 – the student does long division  Score 2.0 – the step lists the steps to long division  This could also be true when writing Score 4.0 – Declarative knowledge about the procedure could be used to go above and beyond

1. Writing the expectation at a lower taxonomic level 2. Identifying the foundational knowledge necessary to achieve score Using vocabulary as foundational knowledge

 Typically, Score 3.0 is written at a Comprehension, Analysis or Knowledge Utilization level  Score 2.0 can be written at a lower taxonomic level, typically Retrieval  This looks like: the student can “recognize or recall isolated details about or examples of the knowledge” expected at Score 3.0

 Score 2.0 can also be written to identify the foundational knowledge that a student needs to have in order to successfully meet the expectation at score 3.0  Keep in mind that score 2.0 should represent new knowledge for the student. Do not repeat learning from previous grade levels.

 At times, knowing the vocabulary may be all the foundational knowledge that a student needs  In this case, do not write any basic processes, just complete the vocabulary section of the scale

 Score 4.0 elements involve anything that a student does that is above and beyond what is taught in class  This can include finding out new information, making new generalizations from learned knowledge, applying the information in a new way and demonstrating knowledge in a way that is more than what is expected from other students or ANYTHING above and beyond what was taught

Include score 4.0 in the rubric ProsCons Puts emphasis on learning beyond what was taught by setting a target for the student Provides guidance for gifted student and teachers of gifted students Makes assessment clear for the teacher Tendency to limit student and teacher to what rubric says, easy to forget that element is only a suggestion Rubric is designed to limit and focus instruction at the score 3.0 and 2.0 level; use of the rubric shouldn’t change in the middle Don’t include score 4.0 in the rubric ProsCons Allows student and teacher to use creativity to design task/assessment Doesn’t limit student and teacher to only what is written on the rubric Allows for just about anything to be used to demonstrate knowledge Lack of guidance may cause teachers to forget gifted students May limit the use of the rubric to only score 3.0 and 2.0 Teachers may have difficulty assessing a demonstration of knowledge that is not clearly defined by the rubric

 If the district decides to include score 4.0, it must be made very clear, in the rubric and in implementation training, that the included elements ARE ONLY SUGGESTIONS!  Students must have the guidance and opportunity to go above and beyond in any way that the teacher approves