1. Director of School Improvement and Accreditation
Leadership Academy
Dr. Jorge Peña
Director of School Improvement and Accreditation
March 21, 2018

2. Topic: Understand how to dig into student work
Objective 1- Discuss your progress with the norm focus area Objective 2- Understand the Instructional Core as a framework to improve instruction and learning Objective 3- Use the Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work rubric to assess tasks and student work

3. Focus Area Norm Check-in
Take an inquiry stance.
Ground statements in evidence.
Assume positive intentions.
Stick to protocol.
Start and end on time.
Be here now.

4. Norm Focus Area: Partner Pair-Share
Partner 1: 3 minutes
How have you used this norm?
How are you understanding this norm as your focus area?
In the limited time we have, what feedback can your partner provide that may help you with this norm?
Partner 2: 3 minutes

5. Topic: Understand how to dig into student work
Objective 1- Discuss your progress with the norm focus area Objective 2- Understand the Instructional Core as a framework to improve instruction and learning Objective 3- Use the Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work rubric to assess tasks and student work

6. Improving Instruction and Student Learning
There are only three ways to improve student learning. The first is to increase the level of knowledge and skill the teacher brings to the instructional process. The second is to increase the level of complexity of the content that students are asked to learn. And the third is to change the role of the student in the instructional process. That’s it. If you are not doing these three things, you are not improving instruction and learning. Source: Instructional Rounds in Education (2009). Pg. 24
Table Talk: what resonates with you with this quote?

7. Instructional Task

8. Harvard Graduate School of Education researchers analyzed tasks for each grade level
X-axis is the grade level, 0 is Kindergarten
Y-axis is the average assignment rating for the tasks assigned to student

9. We expect students to be assigned tasks that match the grade level, in other words grade 5 students are assigned tasks for grade 5

10. The orange line shows ratings for the task
The orange line shows ratings for the task. In grade 5, the average task was rated a 4.34 which is grade 4, in the third month
What do you notice about the average assignment rating for the grade levels?

11. I notice that primary grade tasks match the grade level

12. I also notice gaps in grade level tasks ratings emerge in grade 4 through grade 8. As we know students are taught how to read in grades K through 3, then instruction shifts in grade 4 to read to learn.

13. I also notice when students enter high school, the grade level task rating increases by a year and half

14. Tasks predict student performance
Think of the task as the “ceiling” of what we would expect students to know
Tasks with low cognitive demands generate low cognitive student responses
Tasks with high cognitive demands generate high cognitive student responses
Task are high leverage because they predict student performance
University of Chicago’s Consortium on School Research

15. Consider Levels of Complexity: Higher Order Thinking Skills

16. Consider Levels of Complexity: Bloom’s Taxonomy

17. Consider Levels of Complexity: Webb’s Depth of Knowledge

18. What is learning? When does learning happen?
Remembering
Understanding

19. Topic: Understand how to dig into student work
Objective 1- Discuss your progress with the norm focus area Objective 2- Understand the Instructional Core as a framework to improve instruction and learning Objective 3- Use the Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work rubric to assess tasks and student work

20. Rate the task: Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work
Analyze the task

21. Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work
Three standards for tasks
Knowledge Construction
Elaborate Written Communication
Connections to Students’ Lives
Three standards for student work
Construction of Knowledge: Interpretation, Analysis, Synthesis, or Evaluation
Elaborated Written Communication
Grammar, Usage, Mechanics, and Vocabulary

22. Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work: Tasks
Standard 1: Knowledge Construction: The task calls for interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation of information.
3 = The task’s dominant expectation is for students to interpret, analyze, synthesize, or evaluate information, rather than merely to reproduce information.
2 = There is some expectation for students to interpret, analyze, synthesize, or evaluate information, rather than merely to reproduce information.
1 = There is no or virtually no expectation for students to interpret, analyze, synthesize, or evaluate information. The dominant expectation is that students will merely reproduce information gained by reading, listening, or observing.

23. Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work: Tasks
Standard 2: Elaborate Written Communication: The task asks students to draw conclusions or make generalizations or arguments and support them through extended writing. 4 = Explicit call for generalization and examples. The task asks students, using narrative or expository writing, to draw conclusions or to make generalizations or arguments, AND substantiate them with illustrations, details, or reasons. 3 = Call for generalization or examples. The task asks students, using narrative or expository writing, either to draw conclusions or make generalizations or arguments, OR to offer illustrations, details, or reasons, but not both. 2 = Short-answer exercises. The task or its parts can be answered with only one or two sentences, clauses, or phrasal fragments that complete a thought. 1 = Fill-in-the-blank or multiple-choice exercises.

24. Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work: Tasks
Standard 3: Connections to Students’ Lives: The task asks students to connect the topic to their lives. 3 = The task explicitly asks students, to connect the topic to experiences, or situations in their lives. 2 = The task offers the opportunity for students to connect the topic to experiences, feelings, or situations in their lives, but does not explicitly call for them to do so. 1 = The task offers no or virtually no opportunity for students to connect the topic to experiences, feelings, or situations in their lives.

25. 4 minutes
Rate the quality of authentic intellectual work of tasks Rate as many tasks in the amount of time
4 minutes

26. 4 minutes
Discuss your ratings: Do your ratings match? Why? Why not? Provide answers that are low on the Ladder of Inference. Push partners to convert inferential statements to specific and descriptive statements.
3 minutes

27. Rate the student work: Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work
Analyze student work

28. Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work: Student Work
Standard 1: Construction of Knowledge: Interpretation, Analysis, Synthesis, or Evaluation. The writing demonstrates interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation in order to construct knowledge, rather than merely to reproduce information. Such interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation must appear to be reasonably original. This standard is intended to measure the extent to which the student writing goes beyond mechanically recording, reporting, or otherwise reproducing information. The essential question is whether students demonstrate construction of knowledge by means of thinking and organizing information, versus reproduction of knowledge by means of restating what has been previously given to them. 4 = Substantial evidence of construction of knowledge. Almost all of the student’s work shows interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. 3 = Moderate evidence of construction of knowledge. A moderate portion of the student’s work shows interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. 2 = Some evidence of construction of knowledge. A small portion of the student’s work shows interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. 1 = No evidence of construction of knowledge. No portion of the student’s work shows interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation; OR virtually all construction of knowledge is in error.

29. Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work: Student Work
Standard 2: Elaborated Written Communication. The writing demonstrates an elaborated, coherent account that draws conclusions or makes generalizations or arguments and supports them with examples, illustrations, details, or reasons. Elaboration consists of two parts: a conclusion, generalization, or argument AND support for it, in the form of at least one example, illustration, detail, or reason. Elaboration is coherent when the examples, illustrations, details, or reasons do indeed provide appropriate, consistent support for the conclusions, generalizations, or arguments. To use the criteria, the scorer should identify specific points in the student work that are elaborated and should make a judgment about their coherence. 4 = Substantial evidence of elaboration. Almost all of the student’s work comprises an elaborated, coherent account. 3 = Moderate evidence of elaboration. A moderate portion of the student’s work comprises an elaborated, coherent account. 2 = Some evidence of elaboration. A small portion of the student’s work comprises an elaborated, coherent account. 1 = No evidence of elaboration. No portion of the student’s work comprises an elaborated, coherent account.

30. Quality of Authentic Intellectual Work: Student Work
Standard 3: Grammar, Usage, Mechanics, and Vocabulary. The writing demonstrates proficiencies with grammar, usage, mechanics, and vocabulary appropriate to the grade level. This standard is intended to measure the degree to which students attempt to, and succeed at, using language structures at the sentence and work level to make their meaning understandable to readers. Scorers should take into consideration the efforts students might make at trying out new language structures that represent a “stretch” for someone at their grade level and not fault students if these “stretch” efforts are not carried off with complete success. Illegible handwriting could result in a score of 2 or 1. 4 = The student writing is an excellent demonstration of grammar, usage, mechanics, and/or vocabulary appropriate for the grade level. There are no errors, or if there are a few errors, the errors present no problem for understanding the student’s meaning, nor does the performance compromise the student’s credibility. 3 = The student writing is a satisfactory use of grammar, usage, mechanics, and/or vocabulary for the grade level. There are some errors, but they present no problem for understanding the student’s meaning. 2 = There are many errors in grammar, usage, mechanics, and/or vocabulary, OR the errors in grammar usage, mechanics, and/or vocabulary make it difficult, but not impossible, to understand the student’s meaning. 1 = The use of grammar, usage, mechanics, and/or vocabulary is so flawed that it is not possible to understand the student’s meaning.

31. Rate the quality of authentic intellectual student work Rate as many samples of student work in the amount of time
5 minutes
End

32. Debrief with SUMI Protocol
What Surprised you about analyzing tasks and student work?
How are you Understanding this approach to analyzing tasks and student work?
What is Marinating for you?
What Impact does analyzing tasks and student work have on you as leader of learning?
5 minutes
End

33. Sure as Sunlight by Ronald Ferguson
There’s a child here in your caring Who may someday cure all cancer But you’ve got to lay the groundwork So that it can come to pass. She’s a child who hasn't blossomed So you cannot see her brilliance But as sure as there is sunlight, She’s here. Now. In your class. I can’t tell you what her name is Nor her height, nor weight, nor color, Only that she is potentially A history-making lass.

34. Review Next Steps Continue your journey of discovery and learning
Revisit your “why”
Book Recommendations:
Data Wise by Boudett et al.
Meeting Wise by Boudett and City
Instructional Rounds by City et al.
Brain Rules by Medina
Leadership on the line by Heifetz and Linsky
The Checklist Manifesto by Gwande