1. I NSTRUCTIONAL L EARNING C YCLE

2. P ART 1: P RE -A SSESSMENT P LANNING D IALOGUE

3. Plan for Pre-Assessment Develop or agree upon a common pre-assessment Use the identified measurable outcomes (look-fors) to determine the score considered proficient on this pre- assessment Determine the pre-assessment administration window Analyze your individual pre-assessment results by your next meeting

4. P ART 1: P RE -A SSESSMENT P LANNING D IALOGUE “Thinking of understandings as outcomes of solving problems rather than as concepts that we teach directly requires a fundamental change in our perceptions of teaching.” -Hiebert et al. p.22, Making Sense

5. P ART 2: P RE -A SSESSMENT A NALYSIS AND I NSTRUCTIONAL P LAN

6. Analyze Pre-instruction common formative assessment scores What patterns emerged from our initial common formative assessment? P ART 2: P RE -A SSESSMENT A NALYSIS AND I NSTRUCTIONAL P LAN

7. Plan for instruction Describe one measureable and necessary skill you think students need to develop that you can target with instruction. How will we plan for instruction based on the skill the team has selected as a target? What instructional strategy will be implemented and how will this strategy be embedded into your instruction?

8. P ART 2: P RE -A SSESSMENT A NALYSIS AND I NSTRUCTIONAL P LAN Plan for common post-test assessment Determine when you are going to give the students the common post-test assessment. This assessment needs to have the same skill, format, length, difficulty level, and scoring protocol as the pre-test. This post-test can also include items that serve as your pre-test for the next cycle. Set date for meeting #3:

9. P ART 3: P OST A SSESSMENT I NSTRUCTIONAL D IALOGUE

10. P ART 3: A NALYZE, R EFLECT, AND R ESPOND Record Implementation Data (prior to meeting 3) Teachers record student data into the classroom template(s) provided by district. Consider the ways in which teachers and districts might benefit from a: system-level conversation classroom-level conversation

11. P ART 3: A NALYZE, R EFLECT, AND R ESPOND Analyze and Reflect on Implementation Discuss the data collected related to how teachers implemented the instructional strategies tied to the targeted skill for the ILC (i.e. work samples from focal students). Why did we get these results? What did adults do differently? What were the changes in instructional practices? What did students do differently? What were changes in student tasks? What can we celebrate? What evidence from student work or our implementation of the strategy can we share? What other data might we need to collect on implementation of this strategy?

12. P ART 3: A NALYZE, R EFLECT, AND R ESPOND Plan for Future Instruction Compare the results of the focal students across the pre and post-test assessments. What change, if any, do you see? If there was no change, or little change, what can you shift in your instruction to get a different outcome? (i.e. texts, strategies, scaffolds, etc.) If there was no change, explain how you will shift instruction but continue to monitor this target skill area in the future.

13. P ART 3: A NALYZE, R EFLECT, AND R ESPOND A case from coaching: Assume you have been working with a teacher throughout the ILC process for a particular learning target. After analyzing the data, the results show that a significant percentage (e.g., 30% or more) of students remained “not yet proficient.” What might you ask the teacher to support him in considering options for next instructional moves? What tools might you or the teacher reference during the conversation?

14. The goal of this practice guide is to give teachers and administrators recommendations for improving mathematical problem-solving skills, regardless of which curriculum [instructional materials] is used (IES, p.6). http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/mps_pg_052212.pdf I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING IN G RADES 4 T HROUGH 8

15. I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING The panel defined the characteristics of problem solving that applied to this guide. Problem solving is: learnable relative to the individual supportive to learning mathematics concepts and notation supported by exposure of multiple solution strategies (IES, p.7).

16. I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of instruction in your district in relation to the IES recommendations.

17. I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING

18. Strong, Moderate, Minimal A minimal evidence rating does not indicate that the recommendation is any less important than other recommendations with a strong evidence or moderate evidence rating (IES, p.3). The level of evidence rating is determined as the lowest rating achieved for any individual criterion (IES, p.3).

19. I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING What are the strategies involved in this recommendation? What are commonly experienced roadblocks? What are some approaches to overcome these roadblocks (both listed and not listed)?

20. I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING What connections are you making between this IES guide and other professional learning experiences in your role as a learner or coach/facilitator? What connections do you see among the different recommendations?

21. I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING

22. Review your responses to the inventory you completed earlier today and select a grade band on which you would like to focus. Review the task (from Illustrative Mathematics and used in CCSSI session 3) for the grade band.

23. I MPROVING M ATHEMATICAL P ROBLEM S OLVING Which IES recommendation(s) might contribute to success on this task? What roadblocks might teachers assume when planning for this task? How you could use suggestions in the IES guide to help teachers work through potential roadblocks? Plan questions you might you ask teachers as you are coaching.

24. I NSTITUTE OF E DUCATION S CIENCES AND W HAT W ORKS C LEARINGHOUSE http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publicat ions_reviews.aspx http://educationnorthwest.org/reso urce/1820