Common Core State Standard: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

Common Core State Standard: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
Vertical Articulation OSPI /ESD LLC TEAM

Common Core State Standards Our goals for today…
Participants will… Deepen their understanding of the vertical articulation of the standards Deconstruct a standard and begin to evaluate its rigor as defined by Hess’s Cognitive Rigor matrix Consider implications for their work Learn more about the Smarter Balanced Assessment System Learn about Text Complexity

Career and College Ready learning expectations for K-12
All students leave high school college and career ready Vision Purpose Core Values Every Washington Student and Educator Our Vision: Every student will have access to the CCSS standards through high quality instruction aligned with the standards every day; and every educator is prepared and supported to implement the standards in their classrooms every day. Our Purpose: To develop a statewide system with resources that supports all school districts in their preparation of educators and students to implement the CCSS.

Implementation Timeline
Phase 1: CCSS Exploration Phase 2: Build Awareness & Begin Building Statewide Capacity Phase 3: Build State & District Capacity and Classroom Transitions Phase 4: Statewide Application and Assessment Ongoing: Statewide Coordination and Collaboration to Support Implementation

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
A Peek at the Assessment System

The Purpose of the Consortium
To develop a comprehensive and innovative assessment system for grades 3-8 and high school in English language arts and mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards, so that... ...students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching [The assessments shall be operational across Consortium states in the school year]

Smarter Balanced Assessment System: A National Consortium of States
27 states representing 43% of K-12 students 21 governing, 6 advisory states Washington state is fiscal agent WestEd provides project management services

Common Core State Standards
Define the knowledge and skills students need for college and career Developed voluntarily and cooperatively by states; more than 40 states have adopted Provide clear, consistent standards in English language arts/Literacy and mathematics Depending on the group’s familiarity with the standards and previous presentations, slides 4-14 may be hidden or revised. Source:

Washington State’s Implementation Timeline
Phase 1: Awareness and Understanding, Alignment, and Adoption Phase 2: Build Statewide Capacity, Collaboratively Develop and Align Resources and Materials Phase 3: Classroom Transitions Phase 4: Statewide Implementation through the Assessment System

A Balanced Assessment System
Summative assessments Benchmarked to college and career readiness Teachers and schools have information and tools they need to improve teaching and learning Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness All students leave high school college and career ready Teacher resources for formative assessment practices to improve instruction Interim assessments Flexible, open, used for actionable feedback

English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School
System Highlights English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School BEGINNING OF YEAR END OF YEAR Last 12 weeks of year* DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools. INTERIM ASSESSMENT INTERIM ASSESSMENT Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks PERFORMANCE TASKS Reading Writing Math END OF YEAR ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined Re-take option Optional Interim assessment system— Summative assessment for accountability * Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions. Source:

Support for Special Populations
Accurate measures of progress for students with disabilities and English Language Learners Accessibility and Accommodations Work Group engaged throughout development Outreach and collaboration with relevant associations “ Common- Core Tests to Have Built-in Accommodations - June 8, 2011 ”

State Involvement in Getting the Work Done: Consortium Work Groups
Work group engagement of 90 state-level staff: Accessibility and Accommodations 1 Formative Assessment Practices and Professional Learning 2 Each work group: Led by co-chairs from governing states 6 or more members from advisory or governing states 1 liaison from the Executive Committee 1 WestEd partner Item Development 3 Performance Tasks 4 Reporting 5 Work group responsibilities: Technology Approach 6 Test Administration 7 Define scope and time line for work in its area Develop a work plan and resource requirements Determine and monitor the allocated budget Oversee Consortium work in its area, including identification and direction of vendors Test Design 8 Transition to Common Core State Standards 9 Validation and Psychometrics 10

Time and format Summative: For each content area - ELA & Math
Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) Selected response (MC), Constructed Response (open-ended), Technology enhanced (e.g., drag and drop, video clips, limited web- interface) Performance Tasks (like our CBAs) Up to 2 per content area in grades 3-8 Up to 6 per content area in High School

Time and format Summative: - For each content area - ELA & Math
- Administration window is last 12 weeks of school - For each content area - ELA & Math Shorter option for states (~3 hours ELA, ~2 hours Math) Scale score on comprehensive test (met/not met determination) Longer option for states (~5 hours ELA, ~3 hours Math) Able to report data on claims for individual students

Time and format Interim assessments Can be used as often as needed
Can be customized by districts/schools To focus on selected strands To clone summative test Will use Computer Adaptive Technology Released items from summative item bank

Washington’s Testing System Transition
Current Testing System Reading and Math: Grades 3–8 and 10 Writing: Grades 4, 7, 10 Science: Grades 5, 8, 10 SBAC/CCSS Testing System English/Language Arts and Math: Grade 3–8 and 11* Science exams are required under ESEA but are not included in SBAC *11th grade to measure college and career readiness. We are working with higher ed to explore the possible use of these measures as an alternative for college placement (or entrance). () This slide provides a snapshot of key activities related to the development process for the assessment system. One of the key areas in which districts and states have concerns is regarding technology systems capacity to support operation of the digital library and the assessments themselves – this is an issue present for all states and is embedded within the work of the year to continue doing technology capacity and development work. States and school districts will be asked to participate and respond to efforts to evaluate overall system readiness during the year. This will likely be communicated and collected through and with district assessment coordinators. It is also anticipated that the pool of interim items and formative assessment tools will become available sometime in late 2012.

Washington’s Context… Proposed Summative Assessments in 2014–15
English/LA Mathematics Science Grade 3 SBAC Grade 4 Grade 5 MSP Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 9-10 HSPE Reading & Writing ??? EOC Algebra/Geometry ??? Grade 11 SBAC=SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium MSP= Measurements of Student Progress HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams EOC= End of Course exams

Seven Key Principles SBAC: Theory of Action, pp. 1 & 2
An integrated system Evidence-based approach Teacher involvement State-led with transparent governance Focus: improving teaching and learning Actionable information – multiple measures Established professional standards Design and implementation strategies adhere to established professional standards. The development of an integrated, balanced assessment system is an enormous undertaking, requiring commitment to established quality standards in order for the system to be credible, fair, and technically sound. SBAC is committed to developing an assessment system that meets all Critical Elements required by USED Peer Review, relying heavily on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) as its core resource for quality design. Other key sources of professional standards that will guide SBAC’s work include a reasoning-from-evidence approach (e.g., see NRC, 2001; Mislevy, Almond, & Lukas, 2004); Operational Best Practices in Large Scale Assessment (ATP, CCSSO, in press); and the ANSI-endorsed Student Evaluation Standards, Program Evaluation Standards, and Personnel Evaluation Standards (JCSEE, 2002, 1994, 2008, respectively).

A National Consortium of States
29 states representing 48% of K-12 students 21 governing, 8 advisory states Washington state is fiscal agent

State-Led and Committed to Transparency

Claims for the ELA/Literacy Summative Assessment
“Students can demonstrate progress toward college and career readiness in English Language arts and literacy.” Overall Claim for Grades 3-8 Overall Claim for Grade 11 “Students can demonstrate college and career readiness in English language arts and literacy.” Claim #1 - Reading “Students can read closely and analytically to comprehend a range of increasingly complex literary and informational texts.” Claim #2 - Writing “Students can produce effective and well-grounded writing for a range of purposes and audiences.” Claim #3 - Speaking and Listening “Students can employ effective speaking and listening skills for a range of purposes and audiences.” Claim #4 - Research/Inquiry “Students can engage in research and inquiry to investigate topics, and to analyze, integrate, and present information.”

ELA Comparison Washington State & Smarter Balanced
Similarities Differences Multiple Choice/Selected Response Short Answer/Constructed Response Online Essay Writing Computer Adaptive Listening Items Text Complexity Brief Write, Revise and Edit Performance Tasks

Text Complexity Analysis
The Placemat The placemat is a tool used to organize quantitative and qualitative data to identify the recommended placement of the reading stimulus. Text complexity placemats are available for the three sample texts. Most teachers are familiar with quantitative measures (Flesch-Kincaid and Lexile are 2 examples). Qualitative measures are determined using a matrix of qualitative criteria. The blank placemat template and the qualitative matrices can be found on the Smarter Balanced website.

Performance Task: Introduction to Activity

Performance Task: Research
Performance Task: Research

Performance Task: Research (continued)

Performance Task: Research Questions

Performance Task: Argumentative Essay Assignment

Performance Task: Essay Scoring Criteria

Structure of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium English Language Arts Item Specifications
Evidence Statements Task Models Sample Items The English Language Arts Item Specifications were developed by Smarter Balanced to guide the development of items and tasks that support claims about the achievement of common core standards. {+} For each assessment target, the item specifications define the evidence to be collected to support claims about the target. Each evidence statement has one or more associated task models. The task models describe specific characteristics of items that can elicit the evidence required to support a claim about an assessment target. To make the task models more concrete, sample items are also provided. With this overview of the common core state standards, content specifications, and the item specification, let’s examine an item specification table in greater detail.

Structure of Item Specification Table
The Item Specifications contain a large number of item specification tables. Each table focuses on a specific claim and assessment target or targets, and presents information that is used to guide the writing of items and tasks that collect evidence about that claim and assessment target. Let’s take a moment to examine several key parts of an item specification table. {+} The top portion of a table indicates the content area, grade, claim, and assessment target addressed by the table. In this example, the content area is English Language Arts, the grade is eleven, and the table address claim one, assessment target 14. {+} The first row restates the claim. {+} The second row states the assessment target. And the third row indicates which standards are associated with the assessment target. All of this information is based on information provided in the Content Specifications. {+} The fourth row provides detailed information about the type of evidence required to support the claim about the assessment target. This information is useful for informing the contents of the prompt developed to elicit evidence from students. The next row indicates the depth of knowledge level to which items or tasks should be written to provide this evidence. The sixth row indicates the item types that can be used to elicit evidence from students. In this example, constructed response items are deemed appropriate. Next, task models describe the characteristics of items and tasks that may be used to collect evidence. There will be more about task models in a few moments. The eighth row provides information about any non-targeted knowledge or skills that may be required to respond to items based on the task models. In some cases, the skills or knowledge required to collect evidence about an assessment target require the application of related skills that are not the current focus of attention, and such skills are identified in this section. The next section provides information about the types of stimulus materials that should accompany the item. In this example, informational texts are expected to be presented with the item prompt. The tenth row details vocabulary that is associated with the assessment target and which can be used as part of the item’s content. This section provides guidance for making decisions about whether or not a term might introduce bias. Any term listed in this section is deemed appropriate for use within the context of the items or tasks developed for the claim and assessment target. The eleventh row indicates which tools, if any, can be used while working on the item or to produce responses for the item. This information is intended to support decisions about potential accommodations and about resources that should be available to students as they work on this item. Next, information about any specific attributes of the item is provided. In this example, information about the grade level of stimulus text is provided. Any accessibility concerns that are specific to any of the task models is then documented. This information is used to help inform decisions about accommodations for the item or tasks built from the task model. If a sample item exists, the next section will provide a link to it. Sample items provide models for what an item or task might look like. Finally, information about scoring is provided. In this example, a three point constructed response scoring rubric must be provided for each item or task built for this assessment target. With this overview of item specifications, let’s take a closer look at the claims and assessment targets for English Language Arts.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium ELA Content Specifications
Claim 1: Students can read closely and analytically to comprehend a range of increasingly complex literary and informational texts. Reading, literary and informational text. Claim 2: Students can produce effective and well grounded writing for a range of purpose and audiences. Claim 3: Students can employ effective speaking and listening skills for a range of purposes and audiences. Claim 4: Students can engage in research/inquiry to investigate topics, and to analyze, integrate, and present information. The English Language Arts claims are derived from the Common Core State Standards and serve as the basis for the Consortium’s development of items and tasks. Each of the 4 claims has a number of targets and the targets detail the evidence required to support each claim. Now, let’s examine each claim.

Claim 1 Students can read closely and analytically to comprehend a range of increasingly complex literary and informational texts. Targets 1–7 correspond with literary texts Targets 8–14 correspond with informational texts For Claim 1, there are fourteen assessment targets. {+} Assessment targets 1-7 focus on reading literary texts. Assessment targets 8-14 focus on reading informational texts. Assessment targets are linked to the content clusters within the Common Core State Standards. Now let’s look at a specific target for Claim 1.

Claim 2 Students can produce effective and well grounded writing for a range of purpose and audiences. Targets 1, 3, & 6: Revise/Write Brief Texts Targets 2, 4, & 7: Compose Full Texts including essays and narratives Target 5: Use of text features, e.g., headings, subheadings, etc. Target 8: Language & Vocabulary Use Target 9: Edit/Clarify For Claim 2, there are nine assessment targets. {+} Targets 1, 3 and 6 focus on writing and revising brief texts. Targets 2, 4, and 7 address composing full texts. Target 5 focuses on the use of text features in writing. Target 8 focuses on the use of language and vocabulary. Target 9 focuses on editing and clarifying text. Now let’s look at a specific target for Claim 2.

Claim 3 Students can employ effective speaking and listening skills for a range of purposes and audiences. Language & Vocabulary Use Clarify Message 3. Plan/Speak/Present 4. Listen/Interpret For Claim 3, there are three assessment targets. {+} Target 1 focuses on use of language and vocabulary. Target 2 focuses on adapting speech to a variety of contexts and tasks. Target 3 addresses students’ ability to plan, speak and present information in an oral manner. Target 4 focuses on listening and interpreting spoken information. Now let’s look at a specific target for Claim 3.

Claim 4 Students can engage in research / inquiry to investigate topics, and to analyze, integrate, and present information. 1. Plan/Research 2. Interpret & Integrate Information 3. Analyze Information/Sources 4. Use Evidence For Claim 4, there are four assessment targets. {+} Target 1 focuses on planning and conducting research. Target 2 addresses student’s ability to interpret and integrate information. Target 3 focuses on analyzing information and the sources of that information. Target 4 focuses on the use of evidence to support an argument or position. Now let’s look at a specific target for Claim 4.

Smarter Balanced Release Items
Let’s take a look at a few items These items are released for educators to learn from and begin to understand more about the assessment system Read with an open mind and know that they are draft items assessments/

Cognitive Rigor and Depth of Knowledge
The level of complexity of the cognitive demand. Level 1: Recall and Reproduction Requires eliciting information such as a fact, definition, term, or a simple procedure, as well as performing a simple algorithm or applying a formula. Level 2: Basic Skills and Concepts Requires the engagement of some mental processing beyond a recall of information. Level 3: Strategic Thinking and Reasoning Requires reasoning, planning, using evidence, and explanations of thinking. Level 4: Extended Thinking Requires complex reasoning, planning, developing, and thinking most likely over an extended period of time. Smarter Balanced assessments will elicit evidence from students that is used to support claims about the extent to which students have the ability to integrate knowledge and skills across multiple assessment targets and are ready to meet the challenges of college and careers. {+} Items and tasks must be constructed at various levels of cognitive rigor. Smarter Balanced has defined four levels of depth of knowledge. The first level focuses on recall and reproduction of facts and other types of information. The second level focuses on basic skills and concepts that require cognitive processes that extend beyond the recall of information. The third level focuses on strategic thinking and reasoning. The fourth and final level requires extended thinking that includes complex reasoning, planning, development, and cognition that occurs over an extended period of time.

Cognitive Rigor Matrix
This matrix from the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications for ELA draws from both Bloom’s (revised) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Levels below. The Cognitive Rigor matrix combines two common taxonomies that categorize levels of cognition and shows how the Smarter Balanced depth of knowledge categories relate to these taxonomies. As shown here, the concept of remembering information only relates to the first depth of knowledge level. In contrast, evaluation does not relate to either of the first two levels of depth of knowledge. This table, which can be found in the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications for ELA, is a useful aid for guiding the development of items at different depth of knowledge levels. Now let’s examine the item specifications.

Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts
Vertical Articulation at a Glance

Reflection How comfortable are you with the Common Core?
How many of you have accessed the Common Core on line or possess a copy of it? How many of you are using information from the Common Core Appendices or from the standards in your role as a teacher, administrator, or staff developer? Have participants rate their knowledge by raising a hand to indicate a level from 1-5, with one the lowest to 5 the highest.

(includes Speaking and Listening)
Current WA Standards (GLEs) – Grades K-10 Common Core ELA Standards – Grades K-12 Reading Writing Communication (includes Speaking and Listening) ELA Common Core Standards Speaking and Listening Reading Writing Language Media & Tech We will briefly review— Our current Washington State standards are divided into the three content areas: reading, writing, and communication which includes speaking and listening. The CCSS are divided into Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language for conceptual clarity (in other words, it makes sense for how the book is laid out), however the learning processes are closely intertwined throughout the document. Research and media skills and understandings are embedded throughout the Standards rather than treated in a separate section and encompass all content stands. This allows students to develop mutually reinforcing skills, reading skills that support writing, language skills that support speaking and listening, etc. Later in the presentation we will take a look at some specific examples of integrated standards.

The ELA Document Structure
Introduction page 10 K-5 page 11 Reading Foundational Skills Writing Speaking and Listening Language 6-12 page 35 Reading Writing Speaking and Listening Language Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Overall structure of the complete document Appendices A, B, C

College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for ELA
College and Career Readiness (CCR) Standards – Overarching standards for each of four ELA strands that are further defined by grade-specific standards Reading - 10 Writing - 10 Speaking and Listening - 6 Language - 6 Discuss the idea of anchor standards, how many there are at each grade level and how they are followed by more specific standards by grade level. All subject areas will be referenced at this time. Have participants read page 10 silently Have participants reread the anchor standards 1-10 highlighting the verbs Participants will locate the verbs within the Bloom’s handout What do you notice when comparing the Bloom’s document and the 10 anchor standards. Highlight the same verbs on document. Briefly what do you notice. Facilitator - The verbs are high on the taxonomy, which indicates a high level of thinking reflected in the standards. Discuss how this document was designed backward. Point out that students need to attain the standard at each grade level in order to be ready for the next, and that each of the grade-levels is linked to the one above and below it through an upward progression of critical thinking skills, knowledge depth, and more refined content. Hand out the vertical alignments & ask participants to trace a standard of their choosing with a partner.

What is Vertical Articulation
Vertical alignment asks: How are the content standards/objectives related from one year/grade to the next? Knowledge or skills extend to a wider range of content Deeper understanding of the (cognitive process) for same content New content or skills

Example of Grade-Level Progression in Reading
CCSS Reading Standard 3: Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text. A brief illustration of vertical alignment as well as the similarities between literature and informational text standards.

Quality of Content Alignment
Content standards are clearly articulated across grades if: Related standards are clearly differentiated. What new knowledge or skill is required? One or both standards may not be described in sufficient detail. Differences in terminology are explained. Different words for the same skill? Terminology The meaning of terms appears to be expanded.

Bloom’s Taxonomy Labels the type of thinking (verbs) needed to complete a task; tracing the verbs reveals a deepening of the cognitive processes through a standard from K-12.

Task Predicts Performance
This is important because… Task Predicts Performance TEACHER STUDENT CONTENT TASK Elevate the cognitive demand of the task, and you elevate the performance.

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy
Taxonomy of cognitive objectives 1950s- developed by Benjamin Bloom Means of qualitatively expressing different kinds of thinking Adapted for classroom use as a planning tool and continues to be one of the most universally applied models Provides a way to organize thinking skills into six levels, from the most basic to the higher order levels of thinking 1990s- Lorin Anderson (former student of Bloom) revisited the taxonomy, and as a result, a number of changes were made (Pohl, 2000, Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn, pp. 7-8) A brief review of Bloom’s Taxonomy

A Comparison Original Revised
Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Comprehension Knowledge Creating Evaluating Analyzing Applying Understanding Remembering (Based on Pohl, 2000, Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn, p. 8)

Bloom’s Taxonomy Levels
Cognitive process Verbs Associated with Level/Process 1. Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory choose, define describe, find, identify, label, list, locate, match, name, recall, recite, recognize, record, relate, retrieve, say, select, show, sort, tell 2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining. categorize, clarify, classify, compare, conclude, construct, contrast, demonstrate, distinguish, explain, illustrate, interpret, match, paraphrase, predict, represent, reorganize, summarize, translate, understand 3. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. apply, carry out, construct, develop, display, execute, illustrate, implement, model, solve, use 4. Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. analyze, ascertain, attribute, connect, deconstruct, determine, differentiate, discriminate, dissect, distinguish, divide, examine, experiment, focus, infer, inspect, integrate, investigate, organize, outline, reduce, solve (a problem), test for 5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. appraise, assess, award, check, conclude, convince, coordinate, criticize, critique, defend, detect, discriminate, evaluate, judge, justify, monitor, prioritize, rank, recommend, support, test, value 6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing. adapt, build, compose, construct, create, design, develop, elaborate, extend, formulate, generate, hypothesize, invent, make, modify, plan, produce, originate, refine, transform Works Cited Anderson, L. W., et. al. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. Bloom, B.S., et al. (1956). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I, cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

Back-mapping the ELA CCSS
Starting with college and career readiness Standards for each grade level are identified Working backward from grade to 9-10 to 8 etc. Establishes a clear, aligned K-12 pathway, linking elementary, middle, high school, and end-of-high school college and career readiness The high level of cognitive demand, helps to determine the level of cognitive demand at each grade level. (If it looks like this in 12th grade, what would it look like in 11th grade if a student is on track to reach standard?) Since Bloom’s labels the type of thinking (verbs) needed to complete a task, tracing the content additions and the verbs reveals a deepening of the cognitive processes through a standard from K-12. Talk about the reverse order or the back mapping. Ask participants to follow as you model, using Standard 1 in the packet. Trace the vertical articulation in a given standard from Kindergarten through Grade 12, showing how each builds upon the next, highlighting the additions. Explain that this activity provides a foundation for further work in cognitive complexity and depth of knowledge and that it will inform instruction, lesson/unit design and assessment. Ask participants to choose a standard from the packet, and work with a partner to trace the additions from Kindergarten to the CCR.

Analyzing the Standards
Handout the packet titled Reading Standards for informational text. Model highlighting additions

Your turn… With a partner, choose a standard
Highlight the additions of the grade level standard as it progresses from Kindergarten toward College and Career Ready Anchor Standards (CCRS)

When you have finished:
Using the standard you have highlighted. Underline the key concepts important nouns or noun phrases Circle the verbs describing skills required of students Ask participants to perform this task using the standard they have already highlighted.

Summary Statement Example:
Anchor standard 1 is about argumentative writing and the components needed in a logical argument. It emphasizes: Writing sound arguments Sufficient supporting evidence Valid reasoning The need to read critically Analysis of substantive topics/text Have participants highlight in groups and present their summary to the other groups. Allow time for reflection and discussions.

Cognitive Rigor Matrix by Karin Hess
Combines Bloom’s Taxonomy with Webb’s Depth of Knowledge framework. A tool for: Designing units of study that have a range of cognitive demand. Assessing tasks for the thinking they require of a student

The Cognitive Rigor Matrix
Depth + thinking Level 1 Recall & Reproduction Level 2 Skills & Concepts Level 3 Strategic Thinking/ Reasoning Level 4 Extended Thinking Remember - Recall, locate basic facts, details, events Understand - Select appropriate words to use when intended meaning is clearly evident - Specify, explain relationships - summarize – identify main ideas - Explain, generalize, or connect ideas using supporting evidence (quote, example…) - Explain how concepts or ideas specifically relate to other content domains or concepts Apply - Use language structure (pre/suffix) or word relationships (synonym/antonym) to determine meaning – Use context to identify meaning of word - Obtain and interpret information using text features - Use concepts to solve non-routine problems - Devise an approach among many alternatives to research a novel problem Analyze - Identify whether information is contained in a graph, table, etc. – Compare literary elements, terms, facts, events – analyze format, organization, & text structures - Analyze or interpret author’s craft (literary devices, viewpoint, or potential bias) to critique a text – Analyze multiple sources - Analyze complex/abstract themes Evaluate – Cite evidence and develop a logical argument for conjectures - Evaluate relevancy, accuracy, & completeness of information Create - Brainstorm ideas about a topic - Generate conjectures based on observations or prior knowledge - Synthesize information within one source or text - Synthesize information across multiple sources or texts Page 5 of article – examples in article cross different content areas

Nature Of Content Alignment
Applying Webb’s Alignment Constructs 1. Categorical Concurrence What content is new? What content is continued? 2. Range of Content Broadening or generalizing knowledge/skills 3. Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Webb DOK ratings are somewhat grade-specific 4. Balance of Representation How does content emphasis vary across grades? 5. Source of Challenge What needs to be clarified about the standards?

Implications What kinds of statements can you make regarding the vertical articulation of the standard you analyzed? Use the cognitive rigor matrix to assist you. What are the similarities and differences in your current expectations for students with those of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

What instructional shifts do you see?
As a result of your work today, what specific impact will the Common Core State Standards have on your lesson planning, assessment and teaching practices? In what ways will you shift your instruction as an individual, grade level, department, building or district.

What we have done today…

Standard to Practice Deconstructed Identified the verbs
Highlighted words/phrases defined or interpreted Examined the vertical alignment and identified the context Examined the horizontal alignment and identified the context Determined whether one item/activity can address the entire standard Described something in your curriculum that aligned to the standard

Next steps? Optional Activity:
Analyzing the standard to the level of instruction and Depth of Knowledge (DOK). This activity will provide an opportunity for the participant to isolate one standard at their grade level and going deeper. With the framing of “how this impacts their instruction .”

Standard to Practice Begin with the Common Core State Standards, then consider what you already have and do. Determine whether you address: all or part of the standards in your curriculum, whether your practice occurs at the same grade level as the standard, and whether you currently have any data to evaluate effectiveness of instruction relative to that practice

Resources

Grade Level One-Pagers
created by teachers in Washington State See the Resource page for the link to these documents.

Resources for Implementation
ELA overview documents (one-pagers) as connected with WA standards: Publisher’s Criteria in ELA and Literacy: Alignments cross-walk documents: Parent Resource Guides:

State Resources Coming Soon
Grade-level Transition Documents Three-Year Transition Plan

Ways to Be Involved in Washington State’s Transition

CCSS Statewide Conference Presentations

CCSS Statewide Webinar Series

For More Information Common Core Website: Common Core Questions: OR Greta Bornemann, OSPI CCSS Project Director, Hunt Institute Videos r_detailpage (overview) ed (writing)

Thank you. Everybody!

Common Core State Standard: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Common Core State Standard: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Common Core State Standard: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Common Core State Standard: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback