Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Training Session: ELA/Literacy Grades 6 – 8

Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts (ELA)/literacy. During this session, reviewers will: Develop a common understanding of the EQuIP quality review process Develop a common understanding of the EQuIP Rubric including its criteria and rating scale Practice using the EQuIP quality review process and rubric to evaluate and provide feedback on CCSS-aligned instructional materials

EQuIP Quality Review: Principles & Agreements
CCSS: Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar with the CCSS. 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. Constructive: 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 the CCSS.

EQuIP Quality Review: Process & Rubric Dimensions
The EQuIP quality review process is a collegial process that centers on the use of criteria- based rubrics for English language arts (ELA)/literacy and mathematics. The criteria are organized into four dimensions: The Four Rubric Dimensions 1. Alignment to the depth of the CCSS; Key shifts in the CCSS; 3. Instructional supports; and 4. Assessment. As educators examine instructional materials against the criteria in each dimension, they are able to use common standards for quality and generate evidence-based commentary and ratings on the quality and alignment of materials.

Using the Electronic Quality Review Rubric PDF Form

Using the Quality Review Rubric PDF Form
For each dimension: Select the checkbox for each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found. Make observations and suggestions related to criteria and evidence. Determine a rating for each dimension based on checked criteria and observations. For Dimension I: Use alignment rating to determine whether to proceed with review.

EQuIP Quality Review Process The Five Steps
Step 1. Review Materials Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimensions II – IV Step 4. Apply Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments Step 5. Compare Overall Ratings and Determine Next Steps Notes to the Facilitator: The Five Steps This is an overview of the five steps. Remind participants that each step includes discussion and collaboration. The next two slides provide details for each step.

EQuIP Quality Review Process
Step 1. Review Materials Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the Quality Review Rubric PDF Scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance Study and measure the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit, analyzing text complexity, quality, scope and relationship to instruction Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS Identify the grade-level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Indicate each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record input on specific improvements needed to meet criteria or strengthen alignment Compare observations and suggestions for improvement Determine if the lesson/unit warrants a full review

EQuIP Quality Review Process
Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimensions II–IV Examine the lesson/unit through the “lens” of each criterion Indicate each criterion met and record observations and feedback When working in a group, individuals may choose to compare observations and suggestions for improvement after each dimension or wait until each person has rated and recorded all input for Dimensions II–IV. Step 4. Apply an Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments Individually review comments for Dimensions I–IV, adding/clarifying comments as needed Individually write summary comments on the Quality Review Rubric PDF When working in a group, individuals should record summary comments prior to conversation. Step 5. Determine Next Steps for Your Learning Community What additional practice is needed on the EQuIP Review Process and Rubric? What communication and support will the developer receive? What other ways can the EQuIP processes and materials influence and be incorporated into your practice.

EQuIP Quality Review Process The Flowchart
Discussion and collaboration must occur after Dimension I and then again either for all dimensions after Dimension IV or … … separately after each dimension and … … always during the overall rating process and summary comments. Notes to the Facilitator: The Five Steps This slide provides visual learners with different view of the process. As you click through the slide point out the important places where discussion and collaboration take place.

EXAMPLE: Common Unit for Review — ELA/Literacy
Grade 6— A Close Reading of The Great Fire by Jim Murphy (excerpt)

EXAMPLE: Step 1. Review Materials
Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the Quality Review Rubric PDF A Close Reading of The Great Fire by Jim Murphy (excerpt) Scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized Overview TOC Annotated text and graphs A lesson with instructional notes and assessment opportunities Evidence Collector Chart for the writing assignment Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance Text Directions for teachers (pg. 8) The Lesson – Questions, Activities, and Tasks Culminating and optional writing assignments and assessment Evidence Collector Chart

EXAMPLE: Step 1. Review Materials
Study and measure the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit, analyzing text complexity, quality, scope and relationship to instruction Read the short text on pages 4-6.

Criteria for Dimension I: Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS
The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of grade-level ELA/literacy standards . Includes a clear and explicit purpose for instruction. Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-level text complexity band and are of sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose (i.e., present vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-level exemplars in Appendices A and B). A unit or longer lesson should: Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills. (Grades 3–5) Build students’ content knowledge and their understanding of reading and writing in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension I, it may be helpful to ask the following questions regarding criteria 1, 2 and 3: For criterion 1: Does the teacher/developer articulate alignment to a reasonable number of standards? Do the assignments, tasks and activities suggest a set of standards has been targeted for instruction? Does the teacher/developer make a distinction between targeted and supporting standards? Do the instruction, assignments and activities make sense given the standards listed? For criterion 2: Where in the lesson/unit is the instructional purpose communicated? Is the purpose for instruction well-aligned to the standards identified and/or the assignments and activities? Remember there are different ways to capture “clear and explicit purpose”; the rubric is template-agnostic. For criterion 3: Is the text of sufficient quality and scope for the instructional purpose? Does the text present characteristics similar to the exemplars in the CCSS Appendix B? For grade 2 – 12, does the text measure within the grade-level complexity band?

Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment
INDIVIDUALLY: Identify the grade-level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials? Reviewers should: Select the box for each criterion where there is clear and substantial evidence. Leave the box blank if there is insufficient or no evidence of a criterion. Explain that criteria may be checked only if there is clear and substantial evidence of the criterion (there are no “half-checks”). There may be instances when reviewers find clear and substantial evidence of a criterion and constructive suggestions still can be made. In such cases, reviewers may provide feedback related to criteria that have been checked. Each team member should engage in the criterion-based analysis of the example’s CCSS alignment individually (and silently) before any discussion occurs.

EXAMPLE: Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment
The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: 1. Targets a set of grade-level ELA/literacy standards. 2. Includes a clear and explicit purpose for instruction. 3. Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-level text complexity band and are of sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose (i.e., present vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-level exemplars in Appendices A and B). A lesson or longer unit should: 4. Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills. 5. (Grades 3–5) Build students’ content knowledge and their understanding of reading and writing in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts. NOTE: Reviewers should be able to refer to evidence to support pattern of checkboxes selected.

Dimension Rating and Descriptive Scales To Synthesize Judgment
Rating Scale for Dimensions I–IV: 3: Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension 2: Meets many of the criteria in the dimension 1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension 0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension Descriptors for Dimensions I–IV: 3: Exemplifies CCSS Quality — meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension, as explained in criterion-based observations 2: Approaching CCSS Quality — meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations 1: Developing toward CCSS Quality — needs significant revision, as suggested in criterion-based observations 0: Not representing CCSS Quality — does not address the criteria in the dimension

Rating: 2 Approaching CCSS Quality — meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations

Providing Feedback Writing effective feedback is vital to the EQuIP Quality Review Process. Below are the four qualities of effective feedback. Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comment are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions.

Observations/Feedback and Rating In this lesson students learn about the Great Fire of Chicago while developing career and college-ready skills by engaging in close reading with text-dependent tasks and questions. Students read The Great Fire by Jim Murphy an informational piece with a narrative structure, and use a map and bar graph. The lesson addresses a large set of ELA grade-level standards: 6.1 (textual evidence), 6.2 (central idea), 6.3 (analyze key details), 6.4 (meaning of words), 6.5 (text structure) 6.6 (author's point of view), 6.8 (evaluate argument). The large number of listed standards and the broad objective of "close reading" impede the clarity and focus of instruction. Furthermore, the alignment to the listed standards in the unit rests on the nature of the questions and not on any direct instruction. Instructional alignment and clarity of purpose could be improved by limiting the focus to RI.2 and RI.3 (which the EOU writing prompt addresses). This focus on determining the central idea of a text could then be made clearer to the students. The explicitness of the questions could also decrease as the reading progressed, requiring more independence in student analysis. Bold text indicates where evidence is cited. * Indicates an opportunity to provide more evidence, for example, “students share ideas and information through speaking and listening activities like on Day 2 of the lesson where think pair share about responses to text-dependent questions.”

Providing Feedback for Dimension I: Alignment
Identify where you see evidence of the first two qualities of effective feedback Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comment are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions.

Criteria for Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS
The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence and discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction. Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking and text- dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video and media). Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses or formal essays). Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on building students’ academic vocabulary in context throughout instruction. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension II, it may be helpful to ask the following questions regarding criteria 1-4: For criterion 1: Is a text and the evidence contained within it the central focus of the lesson? Is it clear from the lesson that a majority of class time is to be spent reading, writing, or speaking directly about a text or texts? Are students being asked to read and reread (or listen to) the text, think deeply about it, participate in thoughtful discussions, and grapple with the particulars of the text? For criterion 2-3: Is there a series of questions that require evidence from text that work together to facilitate rich conversations and writing? If these types of questions are present, reviewers should check the criteria. (Note: There may be instances when reviewers find clear and substantial evidence of this criterion and constructive suggestions can still be made. In such cases, reviewers may provide feedback related to criteria that have been checked.) For criterion 4: Does the lesson/unit explicitly focus on building students’ academic vocabulary and concepts of syntax?” Academic vocabulary is important in K-2 and there may be instances where lessons/units focus on academic vocabulary more overtly than others. If there is clear evidence that academic language is taught within the lesson/unit, this criterion should be checked.

Criteria for Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS
A unit or longer lesson should: Increasing Text Complexity: Focus students on reading a progression of complex texts drawn from the grade-level band. Provide text-centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the college- and career-ready level. Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provide opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-specific texts. Balance of Texts: Within a collection of grade-level units a balance of informational and literary texts is included according to guidelines in the CCSS (p. 5). Balance of Writing: Include a balance of on-demand and process writing (e.g., multiple drafts and revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension II: Key Shifts
INDIVIDUALLY: Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials?

EXAMPLE: Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension II: Key Shifts
The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence and discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction. Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking and text- dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video and media). Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses or formal essays). Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on building students’ academic vocabulary in context throughout instruction. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension II, it may be helpful to ask the following questions regarding criteria 1-4: For criterion 1: Is a text and the evidence contained within it the central focus of the lesson? Is it clear from the lesson that a majority of class time is to be spent reading, writing, or speaking directly about a text or texts? Are students being asked to read and reread (or listen to) the text, think deeply about it, participate in thoughtful discussions, and grapple with the particulars of the text? For criterion 2-3: Is there a series of questions that require evidence from text that work together to facilitate rich conversations and writing? If these types of questions are present, reviewers should check the criteria. (Note: There may be instances when reviewers find clear and substantial evidence of this criterion and constructive suggestions can still be made. In such cases, reviewers may provide feedback related to criteria that have been checked.) For criterion 4: Does the lesson/unit explicitly focus on building students’ academic vocabulary and concepts of syntax?” Academic vocabulary is important in K-2 and there may be instances where lessons/units focus on academic vocabulary more overtly than others. If there is clear evidence that academic language is taught within the lesson/unit, this criterion should be checked.

A unit or longer lesson should: Increasing Text Complexity: Focus students on reading a progression of complex texts drawn from the grade-level band. Provide text-centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the college- and career-ready level. Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provide opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-specific texts. Balance of Texts: Within a collection of grade-level units a balance of informational and literary texts is included according to guidelines in the CCSS (p. 5). Balance of Writing: Include a balance of on-demand and process writing (e.g., multiple drafts and revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.

Observations/Feedback and Rating Students read The Great Fire in three chunks, digging deeply into one section per day. The lesson featured a large set of questions, many of which required students to reread and support their answers with text-based evidence. Other questions served a variety of purposes in attempt to address multiple standards, such Day #3 Q#2 inferring author's purpose (RI.6.6). The developer did not specifically identify how the students are to respond to the questions, so it is difficult to determine if and when students are writing during the instructional sequence. Are they to individually answer the questions or are oral strategies to be used? Are there opportunities to have students share their ideas with peers before sharing whole class? The developer leaves these questions open to teacher choice. The developer might consider providing a more structured model for working through the questions. The model developed should focus on the teacher being able to elicit formative feedback from each student to assess comprehension. Bold indicates an example of useful suggested feedback for improvement.

Observations/Feedback and Rating The final writing prompt is challenging for sixth grade students in that they have to clearly understand the factors that led to the severity of the fire and then choose reasonable solutions that may mitigate future fires: “Which two changes to the Chicago fire code might have helped lessen the impact of the Great Fire of 1871?” Such a challenging writing activity should be well -supported during instruction that leads to it. The developer might consider whether all students will be able to fairly approach this prompt with the support offered. The chart that links details about Chicago to the potential solutions is a necessary first step for this writing. Completing this chart might be easier if the prompt topic had been introduced to students earlier and parts of the chart were completed each day. If the focus of this part of the lesson is on argumentative writing rather than or reading then this sort of scaffolding appropriately supports the writing focus and mitigates the reading issues that may interfere with students demonstrating their ability to write. The developer might consider the format in which the modern building codes are presented to students: one possibility is providing a copy of these codes for students Bold indicates an example of useful suggested feedback for improvement.

Observations/Feedback and Rating Although Appendix C provides a comprehensive vocabulary list, there is little guidance from the developer as to appropriate vocabulary instructional strategies. How does the teacher use the rich vocabulary analysis in Appendix C to enhance instruction? How does this Appendix C translate into instructional opportunities for students? The developer might consider including a model of vocabulary-focused instruction as an example for teachers that are hoping to replicate this lesson. One could include examples of how to teach an 'quicker to learn' word as opposed to a 'harder to learn' word. Bold indicates an example of useful suggested feedback for improvement.

Providing Feedback Identify where you see evidence of the last two qualities of effective feedback: Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comment are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions.

Criteria for Dimension III: Instructional Supports
The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing and speaking about texts. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text. Focuses on challenging sections of text(s) and engages students in a productive struggle through discussion questions and other supports that build toward independence. Integrates appropriate supports in reading, writing, listening and speaking for students who are English language learners, have disabilities or read well below the grade level text band. Provides extensions and/or more advanced text for students who read well above the grade level text band. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension III, it may be helpful to ask the following questions: For criterion 2: Does this set of materials address instructional expectations? Is it easy to understand and follow? Are the teacher resources (annotated responses, supports for ELLs, SPED, etc.) clear? For criterion 3: Does this lesson/unit integrate targeted instruction in multiple areas such as grammar and syntax, writing strategies, discussion rules and aspects of foundational reading? For criterion 6: Does this lesson/unit focus on sections of rich text(s) (including read alouds) that present the greatest challenge? Do discussion questions and other supports promote student engagement? Rich text(s) are texts that are worthy of rereading, include Tier 2 words, incorporate layers of meaning, and serve as mentor texts for writing. Challenging sections often require scaffolding for close reading.

Criteria for Dimension III: Instructional Supports
A unit or longer lesson should: Include a progression of learning where concepts and/or skills advance and deepen over time (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Gradually remove supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-directed inquiry, analysis, evaluation and/or reflection. Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3–5. Indicate how students are accountable for independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension III: Instructional Supports
INDIVIDUALLY: Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence Write feedback using the four qualities for one of the criterion that you checked/not – checked COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations and feedback reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials? Choose one piece of feedback for the group to share with entire room IMPORTANT NOTE: During table work time, participants will also write one piece of specific feedback.

EXAMPLE: Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension III: Supports
The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing and speaking about texts. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text. Focuses on challenging sections of text(s) and engages students in a productive struggle through discussion questions and other supports that build toward independence. Integrates appropriate supports in reading, writing, listening and speaking for students who are English language learners, have disabilities or read well below the grade level text band. Provides extensions and/or more advanced text for students who read well above the grade level text band. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension III, it may be helpful to ask the following questions: For criterion 2: Does this set of materials address instructional expectations? Is it easy to understand and follow? Are the teacher resources (annotated responses, supports for ELLs, SPED, etc.) clear? For criterion 3: Does this lesson/unit integrate targeted instruction in multiple areas such as grammar and syntax, writing strategies, discussion rules and aspects of foundational reading? For criterion 6: Does this lesson/unit focus on sections of rich text(s) (including read alouds) that present the greatest challenge? Do discussion questions and other supports promote student engagement? Rich text(s) are texts that are worthy of rereading, include Tier 2 words, incorporate layers of meaning, and serve as mentor texts for writing. Challenging sections often require scaffolding for close reading.

A unit or longer lesson should: Include a progression of learning where concepts and/or skills advance and deepen over time (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Gradually remove supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-directed inquiry, analysis, evaluation and/or reflection. Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3–5. Indicate how students are accountable for independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

Observations/Feedback and Rating Although the author provides a rationale, the cold reading strategy paired with the lack of any sort of anticipatory set to explain the purpose of the lesson or set a purpose for reading does little to cultivate student interest. All students are provided multiple opportunities to hear and engage with the text. The developer should consider ways to engage students in the lesson helping them want to engage with the text for a clear purpose of preparing students to do the work of reading closely. The developer should consider introducing the writing purpose, preventing future fires from the outset of the lesson. (See comments in dimension 2).

Observations/Feedback and Rating Adequately articulated extensions and supports for readers who excel or struggle are not included in this lesson. Recommendations include grouping strategies and more scaffolded supports for written work. The developer should consider providing clear, explicit directions and instructional strategy models about how the teacher is to work with these students. An opportunity for this would be to provide the writing assignment chart that includes a few completed examples for students The two additional texts provided in the optional homework might provide the raw material to create powerful options for extension for students reading above grade level. Additionally, the developer might consider ways of varying the complexity of the writing assignment for stronger students. (See comments in Dimension 4)

Providing Feedback Each group shares their selected piece of feedback.
Identify where you see evidence of the qualities of effective feedback: Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comment are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions. Analyze one example of feedback from each table. Participants should identify where we see/hear evidence of the qualities of effective feedback from each example.

Criteria for Dimension IV: Assessment
The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the major targeted grade-level CCSS standards with appropriately complex text(s). Assesses student proficiency using methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students. Includes aligned rubrics or assessment guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance. A unit or longer lesson should: Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures. As reviewers apply the criteria for Dimension IV, it may be helpful to ask the following questions: For criterion 2: Do students have multiple ways to show what they have learned? For criterion 3: Do assessments produce a description of how close students have come to meeting expectations (e.g., annotated student work, descriptive rubrics/checklists).

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension IV: Assessment
INDIVIDUALLY: Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials?

EXAMPLE: Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension IV: Assessment
The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate foundational skills and targeted grade level literacy CCSS (e.g., reading, writing, speaking and listening and/or language). 2. Assesses student proficiency using methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students. 3. Includes aligned rubrics or assessment guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance and responding to areas where students are not yet meeting standards. A unit or longer lesson should: 4. Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures.

Observations/Feedback and Rating There is an alignment between the standards and the assessments that extends through the formative assessment to the summative writing and multiple choice assessments. Formative assessment measures include the text dependent questions that can be monitored by the teacher during discussions. In the 'flexibility' section, teachers are asked to vary the use of these questions and how students respond either orally or in writing. In Dimension III it was noted that no additional supports were provided for ELL's, struggling readers, and students with disabilities. In light of the limited opportunities for these students to access the text and the assessments are not unbiased. For additional assessment support, the developer could offer teachers an alternative way to use the evidence collection chart, page 21. It was provided in the teacher's section and also in the student resources. This could be used during the four/five days of the lessons and then used to provide evidence during the writing assignment. Depending on how this collection tool is used the teacher can monitor how and what evidence students are providing from the text.

Observations/Feedback and Rating A mini-assessment designed as a culminating activity for students to complete after the lesson set was provided. The questions are aligned to the CCSS reading standards and illustrate implications of the CCSS for assessment. The questions included in the mini-assessment are text-dependent and require close reading and analysis of the excerpt. An answer key is provided for the teacher of the mini-assessment. The text dependent questions all provide a suggested response.

Observations/Feedback and Rating A writing prompt is also used for assessment. Students reread a section of the text and brainstorm answers to the prompt. A note-taker captures the thinking of the group and post their responses. During a subsequent class period the students complete the argument essay. The direction to “construct an argument with a clear beginning, middle, and end describing the two changes you would make,” will be confusing to students who normally associate a beginning, middle and end with narrative writing. The developer must consider whether this is truly argumentative writing or explanatory writing and then choose appropriate prompt language for the writing type. Further, this prompt lends itself to several levels of writing, from a full essay to simply listing two changes and supporting each with reasons as to why they would help. The developer might consider options for differentiation here. This is particularly true if the writing is simply to be the draft piece of writing suggested by the minute timeframe. The writing prompt does provide suggestions of possible approaches students could take in the essay. For the students to monitor their writing, it is recommended a rubric be included.

Overall Rating and Summary Comments
Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar – Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in dimensions II, III, IV (total 11 – 12) E/I: Exemplar if Improved – Aligned and needs some improvement in one or more dimensions (total 8 – 10) R: Revision Needed – Aligned partially and needs significant revision in one or more dimensions (total 3 – 7) N: Not Ready to Review – Not aligned and does not meet criteria (total 0 – 2)

Determining an Overall Rating
Go back through dimensions and add up total to initially determine the rating category. Consider how your rating based on the total points matches your overall sense of the quality of the materials. Consider if you have your judgments and feedback are placed within the appropriate dimensions. Consider how your dimensional feedback supports your judgments. Consider if the lesson falls in the category you feel is appropriate.

Developing Summary Comments
Highlight the strongest aspects of the unit Succinctly summarize key areas for improvement articulated in the dimensional comments Explain to reviewers that the summary comments should highlight the most critical issues that have emerged over the course of the review. Summary comments should acknowledge what the developer has done well, identify the criteria that were not checked, and provide suggestions for improving the alignment and quality of instructional materials

EXAMPLE: Step 4. Apply an Overall Rating
E/I: Exemplar if improved This lesson received a total of 8 points on the rating scale which indicates that with revision this lesson could be considered an exemplar. Specific areas and suggestions for revision are in the narrative feedback section included with each dimension. The strengths of this lesson include the following: -focuses instruction on a well-written and appropriately complex text -makes reading text closely and providing evidence from this text central to instruction -focuses on challenging sections of the text using close reading and text-dependent questioning strategies -includes opportunities to develop formative assessments to inform and drive instruction -includes a summative assessment aligned to the targeted standards and purpose of instruction Suggestions for revision are as follows: -a smaller selection of focus standards, or a differentiation between target and supporting standards -strategies to cultivate students' engagement or provide a purpose for learning --careful consideration of the desired genre of writing prompt response -more support throughout the instruction to support the summative writing assignment -inclusions of appropriate supports in reading, writing, speaking and listening for students reading below grade-level -extensions and/or alternate texts for students reading above the grade level

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 5: Discuss Summary and Next Steps
Compare overall ratings and synthesize feedback: How do our overall ratings compare? Does this example serve as a model of CCSS instruction? What are its strengths? Areas for improvement? What communication and support will the developer receive? What are the next steps for this material? Notes to the Facilitator: Next Steps for the Materials Have teams compare their overall ratings and come to agreement then determine what the next steps for the materials ought to be.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Reflection
What additional practice is needed on the EQuIP Review Process and Rubric? What other ways can the EQuIP processes and materials influence and be incorporated into our practice? How will we plan for applying the EQuIP Quality Review Process? Who will be involved? Notes to the Facilitator: Reflection on the Process These questions should be used to guide a discussion of how the process will be carried forward from this training session. The next slide offers some suggestions for building review teams.

EQuIP Quality Review Process The Review Team
When forming and/or working with a review team: Make sure all team members have training in the process and know the CCSS (at least for their grade level). Have a review plan that considers the experience and expertise of all team members. Team members may choose to compare individual ratings after each dimension or wait until each person has individually rated and recorded all input for Dimensions II–IV before beginning discussion. Individuals should record their overall rating prior to discussion. Adjustments to ratings and/or commentary should take place as a part of the group discussion. Notes to the Facilitator: The Review Team As participants prepare to take what they will learn in this presentation home with them, they need to think about how they will form review teams. These bullet points will help them think about team-building.

Achieve th Street, NW / Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036

Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback