EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Mathematics Training Module: Grades 9-12

EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Mathematics Training Module: Grades 9-12

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 mathematics. 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 Notes to the Facilitator: Session Goals For this session make sure participants are seated in groups of 3 or 4 (no more than 6) so that they can experience the review process as it should take place. It is important that all reviewers have the opportunity to discuss and share their opinions. With a group that is too small, there is not enough diversity of opinion to adequately inspire discussion. With groups that are too large, one or more participants are likely to not be heard. If teams will be working on grade-level materials as a follow-up to the session, it is best to have reviewers from similar grade bands seated together. If grade-level work is not expected, it is a good idea to include members with different grade band expertise at each table, making sure that at least one person with expertise to match the example materials is placed at each table group.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Principles & Agreements
Common Core: Before beginning a review, all members of the panel are familiar with the Common Core Standards (CCSS) for their grade band and discipline(s). Inquiry: Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are organized in steps around a set of guiding questions. Respect & Commitment: Each member of the panel 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.” Panel members are respectful of contributors’ work and make constructive observations and suggestions based on evidence from the work. Individual to Collective: Each member of the panel independently records his/her observations prior to discussion. Discussions focus on understanding all panel members’ interpretations of the criteria and the evidence they have found. Understanding & Agreement: The goal of the process is to compare and calibrate our judgments so that we reach agreement about alignment and quality with respect to the CCSS. Notes to the Facilitator: Principles and Agreements Read each principle and agreement as you click through this slide and check for participant understanding before continuing.

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: Alignment to the depth of the CCSS Key shifts in the CCSS Instructional supports Assessment Notes to the Facilitator: The Four Dimensions Read each of the four dimensions as you click to uncover them. Emphasize the final statement as the key to the success of the process. 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.

Two Version of the Quality Review Rubric The Electronic Version
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. Notes to the Facilitator: The Electronic Version Click through the sections of the electronic version of the EQuIP Rubric. Point out that the criteria are visible for each dimension and that the summary section scrolls so that there will be enough space even for long feedback narratives. For Dimension I: Use alignment rating to determine whether to proceed with review.

Two Versions of the Quality Review Rubric The One-Page Version
Notes to the Facilitator: The One-Page Version This 1-page version is useful for reviewers who benefit from seeing the whole picture at once. As you click: Point out that the four dimensions are placed in the four columns and are labeled at the top and that the criteria can be checked in each column. There is a place at the bottom to circle the rating for that dimension. There are two dimensions that include extra criteria that are specified as for longer lessons or full units and that a short unit or single lesson would not be held accountable for those criteria. There are two criteria in the math rubric that have subparts. Each is treated differently. Advise participants that these differences will be made clear during the presentation for those dimensions.

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.

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 work the tasks that serve as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit, analyzing the content and mathematical practices the tasks require 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 Enter a rating of 0–3 for Dimension I Note: Dimension I is non-negotiable. For the review to continue, a rating of 2 or 3 is required. If the review is discontinued, consider giving general feedback that might help developers/teachers make decisions regarding next steps. Notes to the Facilitator: The Five Steps The five steps are explained in detail in this slide and the next. Read the bullets for Steps 1 and 2 with this slide and assure participants that their questions will be answered as the presentation continues.

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimensions II–IV Examine the lesson/unit through the “lens” of each criterion Indicate each criterion met, record observations and feedback, and then rate 0–3 Step 4. Apply an Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments Individually review ratings for Dimensions I–IV, adding/clarifying comments as needed Total dimension ratings and record an overall rating (E, E/I, R, N) based on total score Individually write summary comments for the overall rating on the Quality Review Rubric PDF Step 5. Compare Overall Ratings and Determine Next Steps Note the evidence cited to arrive at final ratings, summary comments, and similarities and differences among raters. Recommend next steps for the lesson/unit and provide recommendations for improvement to developers/teachers. Notes to the Facilitator: The Five Steps Read the parts of Steps 3 to 5.

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.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 1: Review Example Materials
Secondary Two Mathematics: An Integrated Approach Module 5 – Geometric Figures Eight lessons each with the following components: Experimental tasks to introduce concept(s) and technical vocabulary; develop, practice or solidify understanding; and launch lesson Teacher notes to support teaching the lesson including: Purpose Core Standards Focus Mathematics notes for the standards Related standards Launch instructions for experiments, exploration, discussion Student materials – “Ready, Set, Go” Notes to the Facilitator: Step 1: Review the Materials Use this slide to start the participants thinking about the example materials being used in the training session. It is ideal if the materials are sent out ahead of the session so that they will be somewhat familiar with them. If this is not the case, you will need to allow at least minutes for participants to review the materials. If you chose to replace the materials included here, it will be necessary to change this slide and all other slides in the presentation to match the replacement materials. Review materials on your own to make sure you know what they contain and how they are organized. Work key tasks and study activities with the grade-level student strategies in mind.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 2: Apply the Criteria of Dimension I
The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of grade-level CCSS mathematics standard(s) to the full depth of the standards for teaching and learning. Standards for Mathematical Practice that are central to the lesson are identified, handled in a grade-appropriate way and well connected to the content being addressed. Presents a balance of mathematical procedures and deeper conceptual understanding inherent in the CCSS. Notes to the Facilitator: Step 2: Apply the Criteria of Dimension I Read the three criteria as you click through this slide and check for clear understanding for each. The final click reminds you that participants will first individually determine which criteria to check or not and then discuss with their table groups. Determine rationales for checks or no-checks individually for this dimension and then discuss and collaborate with your review team.

Step 2: Apply Criteria of Dimension I Example Materials – Checked Criteria
The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of grade-level CCSS mathematics standard(s) to the full depth of the standards for teaching and learning. Standards for Mathematical Practice that are central to the lesson are identified, handled in a grade-appropriate way and well connected to the content being addressed. Presents a balance of mathematical procedures and deeper conceptual understanding inherent in the CCSS. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension I checks for the Normed Response These sample materials have been reviewed by multiple experienced review teams and these results are a collation of those reviews. Caution participants that this is not the “correct” answer but should be considered as another voice at their table. There are very few cases where there is a unanimous opinion on any single criteria. Point out that most checked (and un-checked) criteria are not so clear cut that there will be no discussion. In many cases there are valid arguments to “partially check” a criteria. In these cases the consensus sometimes falls on the side of “the glass is half full” and in others of “the glass is half empty.” Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. These discussions are the crux of the power of this process. The next three slides give some example rationales for why these criteria were, or were not, checked.

Step 2: Apply Criteria of Dimension I, Criterion 1 Example Materials – Rationale for Checks
1. Targets a set of grade-level CCSS mathematics standard(s) to the full depth of the standards for teaching and learning. Observations and suggestions: The standards are appropriately selected and compiled for the module. The CCSS mathematics standards are clearly identified in each task. Core standards are identified, and when appropriate, related standards are also listed. The lessons are designed to insure that students reach a deep level of understanding of the three selected standards (G.CO.9, G.CO.10, G.CO.11). This deep level of understanding will ensure that students will solidify concepts that are fundamental to understanding geometry. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension I Criterion 1 Read the rationale and ask for discussion of agreement or disagreement. Be open to any reasoned response and remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer, but rather another voice to consider in the discussion at their tables.

2. Standards for Mathematical Practice that are central to the lesson are identified, handled in a grade-appropriate way and well connected to the content being addressed. Observations and suggestions: The Standards for Mathematical Practice are not mentioned anywhere in this document. Although the Standards for Mathematical Practice are not identified, they are clearly evident in the provided materials. For example the primary concern of G.CO.9, 10 and 11 is to “construct viable arguments” as students wrestle with proving theorems about lines and angles, triangles, and parallelograms. Revisions to improve the module should include information for the teacher about how the Standards for Mathematical Practice will be observed and assessed throughout the lessons, including connections made to the tasks and activities. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension I Criterion 2 Read the rationale and ask for discussion of agreement or disagreement. Be open to any reasoned response and remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer, but rather another voice to consider in the discussion at their tables.

3. Presents a balance of mathematical procedures and deeper conceptual understanding inherent in the CCSS. Observations and suggestions: Materials include balanced activities that encourage conceptual understanding as well as ample opportunities for practice to build procedural skill. This module is very well structured to push students to a depth of understanding that will develop concepts for students and create procedural fluency. While it is true that some students may need additional support to make the connection between the concepts and the procedures, the lessons provide opportunities for students to develop (see lessons 5.1, 5.2, 5.4), to practice (see lessons 5.4, 5.7, 5.8), and to solidify (see lessons 5.3 and 5.6) understanding. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension I Criterion 3 Read the rationale and ask for discussion of agreement or disagreement. Be open to any reasoned response and remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer, but rather another voice to consider in the discussion at their tables.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Using Dimension Ratings and Rating Scales
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 Notes to the Facilitator: Dimensional Rating Descriptors Read each and quickly click to the next slide.

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 Notes to the Facilitator: Dimensional Rating Descriptors With this slide point out that the terms: “most” “many” and “some” sometimes cause discomfort for “math minds.” Ensure them that as they work with the process they will find that the deeper meaning behind the terms will become more clear and they will find that as they calibrate with their team members, they will find agreement on what these terms mean. The second click offers the more detailed descriptors for the rating scale.

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 Notes to the Facilitator: Dimensional Rating Descriptors This slide highlights the level of need for revision as a clearer determining factor in the ratings. You will want to emphasize this as the review progresses and participants discuss dimensional ratings.

Step 2: Apply the Criteria of Dimension I Example Materials – Discuss and Collaborate
Compare Criterion-Based Checks, Feedback, and Rating 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? Do our ratings correspond to the rating and descriptors in the rubric? Notes to the Facilitator: Discuss and Collaborate Read the three guiding questions and (after second click) have participants consider their rating first individually and then collectively. The next slide reveals the normed rating for this dimension and should be presented only after discussion at tables and, if time permits, across the room. Determine and discuss your individual dimension ratings with your review team.

Step 2: Apply the Criteria of Dimension I Example Materials – Rating
Rating: 2 Approaching CCSS Quality: Meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations. Rationale: The Standards for Mathematical Practice that are central to the goals of the module need to be included and specifically connected with the activities and tasks of the lessons. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension 1 Rating Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Constructive Feedback
Effective feedback is vital to the EQuIP Quality Review Process. Criterion-Based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments indicate that the reviewer looked for evidence of each criterion of a given dimension. Examples cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: Improvements are specifically identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit. Clear Communication: Written comments are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions. Notes to the Facilitator: Constructive Feedback Use the points on this slide to explain the important components of highly effective feedback. Remind them of these points every time they meet with their teams to discuss feedback to the developer. After second click leave this slide on the screen during team discussion. The next slide provides an example of Dimension I feedback for the example materials. Use these points to determine and discuss the observations and suggestions appropriate for this dimension with your review team.

Step 2: Apply the Criteria of Dimension I Example Materials – Providing Feedback
Observations/Feedback and Rating The standards are appropriately selected and compiled for the module. The CCSS mathematics standards are clearly identified in each task. Core standards are identified, and when appropriate, related standards are also listed. The lessons are designed to insure that students reach a deep level of understanding of the three selected standards (G.CO.9, G.CO.10, G.CO.11). This deep level of understanding will ensure that students will solidify concepts that are fundamental to understanding geometry. The Standards for Mathematical Practice are not mentioned anywhere in this document. Although the Standards for Mathematical Practice are not identified, they are clearly evident in the provided materials. For example the primary concern of G.CO.9, 10 and 11 is to “construct viable arguments” as students wrestle with proving theorems about lines and angles, triangles, and parallelograms Revisions to improve the module should include information for the teacher about how the Standards for Mathematical Practice will be observed and assessed throughout the lessons, including connections made to the tasks and activities. Materials include balanced activities that encourage conceptual understanding as well as ample opportunities for practice to build procedural skill. This module is very well structured to push students to a depth of understanding that will develop concepts for students and create procedural fluency. While it is true that some students may need additional support to make the connection between the concepts and the procedures, the lessons provide opportunities for students to develop (see lessons 5.1, 5.2, 5.4), to practice (see lessons 5.4, 5.7, 5.8), and to solidify (see lessons 5.3 and 5.6) understanding. . Notes to the Facilitator: Example Materials Feedback Generally we provide feedback for the entire dimension, like this slide, rather than by criterion. For the remainder of this presentation we provide rationales for each criterion. Remind reviewers that these would be gathered into a narrative for the developer for each dimension. The next slide will highlight citations of evidence for Dimension I in the unit.

Step 2: Apply the Criteria of Dimension I Example Materials – Providing Feedback
Observations/Feedback and Rating The standards are appropriately selected and compiled for the module. The CCSS mathematics standards are clearly identified in each task. Core standards are identified, and when appropriate, related standards are also listed. The lessons are designed to insure that students reach a deep level of understanding of the three selected standards (G.CO.9, G.CO.10, G.CO.11). This deep level of understanding will ensure that students will solidify concepts that are fundamental to understanding geometry. The Standards for Mathematical Practice are not mentioned anywhere in this document. Although the Standards for Mathematical Practice are not identified, they are clearly evident in the provided materials. For example the primary concern of G.CO.9, 10 and 11 is to “construct viable arguments” as students wrestle with proving theorems about lines and angles, triangles, and parallelograms Revisions to improve the module should include information for the teacher about how the Standards for Mathematical Practice will be observed and assessed throughout the lessons, including connections made to the tasks and activities. Materials include balanced activities that encourage conceptual understanding as well as ample opportunities for practice to build procedural skill. This module is very well structured to push students to a depth of understanding that will develop concepts for students and create procedural fluency. While it is true that some students may need additional support to make the connection between the concepts and the procedures, the lessons provide opportunities for students to develop (see lessons 5.1, 5.2, 5.4), to practice (see lessons 5.4, 5.7, 5.8), and to solidify (see lessons 5.3 and 5.6) understanding. . Notes to the Facilitator: Example Materials Feedback RED text indicates evidence cited directly from the unit.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 2: Dimension I Reflection
Consider the rating for Dimension I: Is the overall rating for alignment a 3 or 2? Does the quality of the alignment to the CCSS warrant continuing with the review? If yes, continue with Step 3 for Dimensions II – IV. Notes to the Facilitator: Reflection on Rating for Dimension I This slide asks participants to agree on whether the example materials warrant continuation of the review. They need to agree that the Dimension I rating is a 2 or a 3. The second click is a reminder to have teams discuss among themselves their final judgments on Dimension I and whether to continue the review. If we agree that the materials warrant a 2- or 3-rating for Dimension I, we continue the review, applying the criteria of Dimensions II – IV.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 3: Apply the Criteria of Dimension II
The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Focus: Lessons and units targeting the major work of the grade provide an especially in-depth treatment, with especially high expectations. Lessons and units targeting supporting clusters have visible connection to the major work of the grade and are sufficiently brief. Lessons and units do not hold students responsible for material from later grades. Coherence: The content develops through reasoning about the new concepts on the basis of previous understandings and provides opportunities for students to transfer knowledge and skills within and across domains and learning progressions. Notes to the Facilitator: Criteria of Dimension II Dimension II addresses the key shifts evident in the CCSS. Read the language of the first two criteria and check for understanding for each before continuing.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 3: Apply the Criteria of Dimension II
Rigor: Requires students to engage with and demonstrate challenging mathematics with appropriate balance among the following: Application: Provides opportunities for students to independently apply mathematical concepts in real-world situations and problem solve with persistence, choosing and applying an appropriate model or strategy to new situations. Conceptual Understanding: Develops students’ conceptual understanding through tasks, brief problems, questions, multiple representations and opportunities for students to write and speak about their understanding. Procedural Skill and Fluency: Expects, supports and provides guidelines for procedural skill and fluency with core calculations and mathematical procedures (when called for in the standards for the grade) to be performed quickly and accurately. Notes to the Facilitator: Criteria of Dimension II Read the language of the introduction to the criteria and emphasize the importance of APPROPRIATE BALANCE between the components. As you click through this slide, check for understanding of each component of rigor. For this criteria it is not necessary that the sub-parts are equally represented in the materials. This will depend on the requirements of the targeted standards. The most important thing to remember is that the balance of the three should be APPROPRIATE for the targeted standards. For example: If the standards address fluency, it would not be appropriate for there to be emphasis in the materials on conceptual understanding, as this should have happened prior to the lessons targeting fluency. If the lessons target standards that address conceptual understanding, particularly when the concepts are being introduced, it may be appropriate for there to be SOME application but it would not necessarily be the emphasis of the lessons. After checking for understanding of these criteria, have participants decide individually which they will check or not check for the example materials and discuss with their teams. The next slide will show the normed response for this dimension. Determine rationales for checks or no-checks individually for this dimension and then discuss and collaborate with your review team.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension II Example Materials – Checked Criteria
The lesson/unit addresses reflects evidence of key shifts that are reflected in the CCSS: Focus: Lessons and units targeting the major work of the grade provide an especially in-depth treatment, with especially high expectations. Lessons and units targeting supporting clusters have visible connection to the major work of the grade and are sufficiently brief. Lessons and units do not hold students responsible for material from later grades. Coherence: The content develops through reasoning about the new concepts on the basis of previous understandings and provides opportunities for students to transfer knowledge and skills within and across domains and learning progressions. Rigor: Requires students to engage with and demonstrate challenging mathematics with appropriate balance among the following: Application: Provides opportunities for students to independently apply mathematical concepts in real- world situations and problem solve with persistence, choosing and applying an appropriate model or strategy to new situations. Conceptual Understanding: Develops students’ conceptual understanding through tasks, brief problems, questions, multiple representations and opportunities for students to write and speak about their understanding. Procedural Skill and Fluency: Expects, supports and provides guidelines for procedural skill and fluency with core calculations and mathematical procedures (when called for in the standards for the grade) to be performed quickly and accurately. Notes to the Facilitator: Normed Responses for Dimension II Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension II Example Materials – Rationale for Checks
The lesson/unit addresses reflects evidence of key shifts that are reflected in the CCSS: Focus: Since CCSS high school standards do not have critical area descriptors, as is the case for K-8, we have to rely on other sources to determine the major work for high school levels. The standards targeted for this module are appropriate for an Integrated Mathematics I course, as indicated by the PARCC Model Content Frameworks. Although it is not completely clear from the module title, Secondary II Mathematics: An Integrated Approach, module appears to identify the module as Integrated Mathematics II. These standards do not appear in the Integrated Mathematics II course as outlined by PARCC, but are outlined as Integrated Mathematics I in Appendix A of the CCSS. Some information might be included in the front matter for the module to assist those wishing to use it as to the appropriate level to use the lessons of this module. Notes to the Facilitator: Rational for checks for Dimension II Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected. After reading this rationale, the next click will remind reviewers to check for the four qualities of effective feedback. Criterion-based? Evidence Cited? Improvement Suggested? Clear Communication?

The lesson/unit addresses reflects evidence of key shifts that are reflected in the CCSS: Coherence: The module as a whole connects the major work and supporting work in a balanced, appropriate manner. Connections to prior learning are also clear. For example, the task two (5.2) Teacher Notes, beginning on page 15, establish connections between the student's current work with proofs and their prior work with proving triangle congruence and rigid transformations and congruence. Students are able to practice skills throughout the lessons; for example students practice the skill of finding the measures of angles in different contexts in several of the lessons of the modules. Notes to the Facilitator: Rational for checks for Dimension II Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected. After reading this rationale, the next click will remind reviewers to check for the four qualities of effective feedback. Criterion-based? Evidence Cited? Improvement Suggested? Clear Communication?

Rigor: Application: Conceptual Understanding: Procedural Skill and Fluency: Criterion-based? Evidence Cited? Improvement Suggested? Clear Communication? Task sets include problems designed to support student application, conceptual understanding, and procedural skill and fluency. Although many questions target more than one aspect of rigor, application is a strength of this module. Students are able to see angle measures in real world situations, as well as explore real world problems to develop their thinking further. The building of conceptual understanding in this module is very strong through the use of student experiments. Students are often asked to make important, high-level conjectures, which may lead to the need for more support in developing this conceptual understanding after the student experiments. Students are given some opportunities to develop their procedural skills (see Lessons 5.5 and 5.8), but the module could be even stronger if it provided students more opportunities to practice the skills they are learning. Notes to the Facilitator: Rational for checks for Dimension II Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected. After reading this rationale, the next click will remind reviewers to check for the four qualities of effective feedback.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension II Example Materials – Discuss and Collaborate
Compare Criterion-Based Checks, Observations/Feedback and Rating 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? Do our ratings correspond to the rating and descriptors in the rubric? Notes to the Facilitator: Rating Dimension II Remind participants of how to best discuss their opinions and have them individually and then collectively rate Dimension II. Determine and discuss your individual dimension ratings with your review team…

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension II Example Materials – Rating
Rating: 3 Exemplifies CCSS Quality – Meets the standard described by the criteria in the dimension, as explained in criterion-based observations. Rationale: Attention to Focus, Coherence, and Rigor, the key shifts in the CCSS, is evident in the materials. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension II Rating Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 3: Apply the Criteria of Dimension III
The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Includes clear and sufficient guidance to support teaching and learning of the targeted standards, including, when appropriate, the use of technology and media. Uses and encourages precise and accurate mathematics, academic language, terminology, and concrete or abstract representations (e.g., pictures, symbols, expressions, equations, graphics, models) in the discipline. Engages students in productive struggle through relevant, thought-provoking questions, problems and tasks that stimulate interest and elicit mathematical thinking. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Notes to the Facilitator: Criteria for Dimension III This is the longest of the four dimensions with 11 different criteria. Click through (and read) these first four criteria and check for understanding before continuing.

Provides appropriate level and type of scaffolding, differentiation, intervention and support for a broad range of learners. * Supports diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, interests and styles. Provides extra supports for students working below grade level. Provides extensions for students with high interest or working above grade level. * Note: All three of these components are required in a high quality lesson or unit. Notes to the Facilitator: Criteria for Dimension III This criterion also has sub-parts. Point out that, different from the rigor criterion in Dimension II, each of these subparts MUST be present in the materials.

A unit or longer lesson should: longer lessons: Recommends and facilitates a mix of instructional approaches for a variety of learners such as using multiple representations (including models), using a range of questions, checking for understanding, flexible grouping, pair-share, etc. Gradually removes supports, requiring students to demonstrate their mathematical understanding independently. Demonstrates an effective sequence and a progression of learning where the concepts or skills advance and deepen over time. Expects, supports and provides guidelines for procedural skill and fluency with core calculations and mathematical procedures (when called for in the standards for the grade) to be performed quickly and accurately. Notes to the Facilitator: Criteria for Dimension III These four criteria are applied only for longer lessons or full units, where there is time for these to take place. Read each and check for understanding. Point out that sometimes short units or single lessons will meet one or more of these requirements. In those cases we might check and leave a commendation but would not penalize a short set of materials for not having them present.

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Includes clear and sufficient guidance to support teaching and learning of the targeted standards, including, when appropriate, the use of technology and media. Uses and encourages precise and accurate mathematics, academic language, terminology, and concrete or abstract representations (e.g., pictures, symbols, expressions, equations, graphics, models) in the discipline. Engages students in productive struggle through relevant, thought-provoking questions, problems and tasks that stimulate interest and elicit mathematical thinking. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Provides appropriate level and type of scaffolding, differentiation, intervention and support for a broad range of learners. Supports diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, interests and styles. Provides extra supports for students working below grade level. Provides extensions for students with high interest or working above grade level. A longer unit or lesson should: Recommends and facilitates a mix of instructional approaches for a variety of learners such as using multiple representations (including models), using a range of questions, checking for understanding, flexible grouping, pair-share, etc. Gradually removes supports, requiring students to demonstrate their mathematical understanding independently. Demonstrates an effective sequence and a progression of learning where the concepts or skills advance and deepen over time. Expects, supports and provides guidelines for procedural skill and fluency with core calculations and mathematical procedures (when called for in the standards for the grade) to be performed quickly and accurately. Notes to the Facilitator: Criteria for Dimension III This slide shows an overview of the many criteria for Dimension III. Have participants determine which criteria are checked and which are not – first individually and then collectively. For this dimension we will take some time to share and have a deeper discussion around the criteria. The next slide will offer some guidance for the discussion…

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension III Example Materials –Sharing Feedback
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/did 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 Notes to the Facilitator: Discussion of Dimension III Criteria Provide enough work time (at least minutes) for participants to individually determine which criteria they will check and to record their thinking using the qualities of effective feedback: Criterion-based Evidence-based Suggestions for improvement Clear communication During table work time, participants will write specific feedback for one criterion, either checked or not-checked. Then have the individual reviewers share with their team and select one piece of feedback for the table to share with the room. Allow another 10 minutes or so for this discussion. Then have each table share their findings and feedback for their one selected criterion. The table groups may or may not select the same criterion. Either way will work. If there are multiple teams sharing about a single criterion, have the whole room discuss the similarities and differences in their responses. If there are no overlaps of criteria selected, you may open the discussion to others who selected that criteria for their individual review. After the second click for this slide, leave it on the screen to remind teams of their assignment. The next slide will reveal the checks and no-checks for the normed review and should be shown after table and room discussion is complete. Determine rationales for checks or no-checks individually and then discuss and collaborate with your review team. For this dimension we will pause to share some of our findings with the larger group…

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension III Example Materials – Checked Criteria
The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Includes clear and sufficient guidance to support teaching and learning of the targeted standards, including, when appropriate, the use of technology and media. Uses and encourages precise and accurate mathematics, academic language, terminology, and concrete or abstract representations (e.g., pictures, symbols, expressions, equations, graphics, models) in the discipline. Engages students in productive struggle through relevant, thought-provoking questions, problems and tasks that stimulate interest and elicit mathematical thinking. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. Provides appropriate level and type of scaffolding, differentiation, intervention and support for a broad range of learners. Supports diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, interests and styles. Provides extra supports for students working below grade level. Provides extensions for students with high interest or working above grade level. A longer unit or lesson should: Recommends and facilitates a mix of instructional approaches for a variety of learners such as using multiple representations (including models), using a range of questions, checking for understanding, flexible grouping, pair-share, etc. Gradually removes supports, requiring students to demonstrate their mathematical understanding independently. Demonstrates an effective sequence and a progression of learning where the concepts or skills advance and deepen over time. Expects, supports and provides guidelines for procedural skill and fluency with core calculations and mathematical procedures (when called for in the standards for the grade) to be performed quickly and accurately. Notes to the Facilitator: Checks for Dimension III Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension III Example Materials – Rationale for Checks
The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Includes clear and sufficient guidance to support teaching and learning of the targeted standards, including, when appropriate, the use of technology and media. The teacher notes provide adequate support in the use of these materials, including the use of multiple representations for many concepts and a mix of instructional approaches. Some additional support on the incorporation of technology would be helpful. For example, some tasks mention online apps or dynamic geometry software, but no specific directions for the use of these tools are provided. Students are expected to make high-level conjectures throughout the module on topics that will apply to many different types of geometry problems and geometric reasoning. Since the expectations for students’ proofs and conjectures are high, it would be helpful to teachers to provide example student responses and answer keys for all student materials to make sure that teachers clearly understand the expected level of rigor. Uses and encourages precise and accurate mathematics, academic language, terminology, and concrete or abstract representations (e.g., pictures, symbols, expressions, equations, graphics, models) in the discipline. The vocabulary and problem types are appropriate for the indicated standards and precise and accurate mathematics are encouraged throughout the module. Notes to the Facilitator: Rationales for Checks for Dimension III Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Engages students in productive struggle through relevant, thought-provoking questions, problems and tasks that stimulate interest and elicit mathematical thinking. Not only are the questions thought provoking, they are revisited throughout the module to support the cohesiveness of the materials and the standards. While students are definitely engaged in challenging and thought provoking tasks through the lesson experiments, it would be helpful to have more student example responses to the questions in the instructional supports. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use. The provided materials are teacher-friendly and very usable. Support for lesson presentation is provided in the Teacher Notes, including the purpose of the lesson explained in detail. Copy-ready masters for student materials are very helpful. Notes to the Facilitator: Rationales for Checks for Dimension III Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

Provides appropriate level and type of scaffolding, differentiation, intervention and support for a broad range of learners. Supports diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, interests and styles. Provides extra supports for students working below grade level. Provides extensions for students with high interest or working above grade level. Scaffolding, differentiation, intervention and/or support for diverse learners needs to be more evident in the tasks. The module could be improved by providing supports for students that do not reach the conclusions of the lessons as quickly as others or for students who need more support with procedural skills. Some students might need more support throughout the lessons in order to get and retain the important information needed to understand the concepts. There is also no mention of ELL student support. Notes to the Facilitator: Rationales for Checks for Dimension III Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

A unit or longer lesson should: Recommends and facilitates a mix of instructional approaches for a variety of learners such as using multiple representations (including models), using a range of questions, checking for understanding, flexible grouping, pair-share, etc. Each task begins with a group activity and then progresses to an individual problem solving activity. Teachers are instructed to “explore,” “discuss,” “launch,” and then to repeat. Gradually removes supports, requiring students to demonstrate their mathematical understanding independently. Materials purposefully and gradually remove supports to require students to demonstrate their mathematical understanding independently. For example, the Task 2 Teacher Notes clearly state that the task is "particularly moving from reasoning with a diagram to reasoning based on a logical sequence of statements that start with given assumptions and lead to a valid conclusion." Notes to the Facilitator: Rationales for Checks for Dimension III These criteria are intended for longer lessons or full units and should not be expected for materials covering a short period of time. Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

A unit or longer lesson should: (cont.) Demonstrates an effective sequence and a progression of learning where the concepts or skills advance and deepen over time. The flow from beginning to end of the module, with understanding continuing to deepen over the course of the lessons, provides an effective sequence. The sequencing of tasks highlights key concepts and helps students develop deep understanding. Expects, supports and provides guidelines for procedural skill and fluency with core calculations and mathematical procedures (when called for in the standards for the grade) to be performed quickly and accurately. Students are taken from experiments to developing understanding, to solidifying understanding, and then to practicing the skills learned. This cycle is repeated multiple times with clear expectations for both procedural skill and conceptual understanding. Notes to the Facilitator: Rationales for Checks for Dimension III These criteria are intended for longer lessons or full units and should not be expected for materials covering a short period of time. Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension III Example Materials – Discuss and Collaborate
Compare Criterion-Based Checks, Observations/Feedback and Rating 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? Do our ratings correspond to the rating and descriptors in the rubric? Notes to the Facilitator: Discuss and Collaborate for Dimension III Rating Use these questions to guide discussion among review teams. The next slide reveals the normed rating for the example materials. Determine and discuss your individual dimension ratings with your review team…

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension III Example Materials – Rating
Rating: 2 Approaching CCSS Quality: Meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations. Rationale: Scaffolding, differentiation, intervention and/or support for diverse learners needs to be more evident in the tasks. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension III Rating Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 3: Apply the Criteria of Dimension IV
The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Is designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the targeted CCSS. Assesses student proficiency using methods that are accessible and unbiased, including the use of grade-level language in student prompts. Includes aligned rubrics, answer keys and scoring guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance. In addition, for units and longer lessons: and longer lessons: Uses varied modes of curriculum-embedded assessments that may include pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension IV Criteria Read each criteria and check for understanding before asking participants to determine checks, first individually and then collectively. The next slide will show the normed response to the example materials. Determine rationales for checks or no-checks individually for this dimension and then discuss and collaborate with your review team.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension IV Example Materials – Checked Criteria
The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Is designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the targeted CCSS. Assesses student proficiency using methods that are accessible and unbiased, including the use of grade-level language in student prompts. Includes aligned rubrics, answer keys and scoring guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance. In addition, for units and longer lessons: and longer lessons: Uses varied modes of curriculum-embedded assessments that may include pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension IV Checks Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension IV Example Materials – Rationale for Checks
The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Is designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate the targeted CCSS. The design of the materials of the module encourage student discussion and teacher observation of discussion, which can be used to gather evidence of student learning. The "ready, set go" sections included with each lesson also provide opportunities for independent formative and/or summative assessments. However without clear rubrics and scoring guidelines it may be difficult for teachers to know exactly what evidence of student learning is to be observed. Assesses student proficiency using methods that are accessible and unbiased, including the use of grade-level language in student prompts. There is no evidence of bias in the lessons. Language and prompts are appropriate and accessible to all high school students. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension IV Rationale for Checks Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension IV Example Materials – Rationale for Checks
Includes aligned rubrics, answer keys and scoring guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance. Answer keys and rubrics are not provided for the "Ready, Set, Go" activities, including the Module 5 test. Although the teacher notes include discussion of the opening activities for each task, clear answer keys and suggested student responses to discussion questions would be useful for the teacher. In addition, for units and longer lessons: Uses varied modes of curriculum-embedded assessments that may include pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures. Although checks for student understanding are clearly made in these materials, other than the Module 5 Test, assessment is not directly mentioned in the materials. The module could be improved if a diagnostic assessment was provided, along with information about how to interpret student performance. The module could also be improved if there were indicators for teachers on how to use the formative assessments and the "ready, set, go" sections to inform student understanding and for re-teaching concepts. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension IV Rationale for Checks Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension IV Example Materials– Discuss and Collaborate
Compare Criterion-Based Checks, Observations/Feedback and Rating 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? Do our ratings correspond to the rating and descriptors in the rubric? Notes to the Facilitator: Discuss and Collaborate for Dimension IV Rating Use these questions to guide discussion among review teams. The next slide reveals the normed rating for the example materials. Determine and discuss your individual dimension ratings with your review team.

Step 3: Apply Criteria of Dimension IV Example Materials– Rating
Rating: 2 Approaching CCSS Quality: Meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations. Rationale: Scoring rubrics, answer keys, and suggestions for interpreting student work and responses to discussion questions are missing from the materials. Notes to the Facilitator: Dimension IV Rating Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 4: Overall Rating Descriptors
Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar — Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in Dimensions II–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) Notes to the Facilitator: Overall Rating Descriptions Read the four overall rating descriptors and quickly click to the next slide.

Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar — Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in Dimensions II–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) Notes to the Facilitator: Overall Rating Descriptors “ALIGNED” in this instance refers to alignment to the criteria of the rubric as opposed to alignment to the CCSS.

Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar — Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in Dimensions II–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) Notes to the Facilitator: Overall Rating Descriptors In this slide the level of the need for improvement is emphasized as a deciding factor in the overall rating. If participants are clear about the meaning of the four descriptors click to the next slide for more instructions regarding the overall rating.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 4: Apply Overall Rating and Provide Summary
Go back through dimensions and add the individual dimensional ratings to initially determine the overall rating category. Consider how your rating, based on the total points, matches your overall sense of the quality of the materials. Consider if your specific feedback statements are matched with the appropriate dimensions. Consider how your dimensional feedback supports your judgments. Consider if the lesson falls in the appropriate overall rating category. Notes to the Facilitator: The Overall Rating Read these bullet points and ask participants to use them in their consideration of the overall rating for the example materials. Point out that sometimes the sum of the four dimensional ratings do not add up to a score that matches our “sense” of the materials overall standing. In those cases we go back to our dimensional ratings and even our checked criteria and reconsider where the “glass half-empty” and the “glass half-full” came into play in a way that skewed the results toward an incorrect overall rating. This discussion is a very important part of the process since even though individual reviewers may agree to disagree on checks or even dimension ratings, it is important that the overall rating is accurate and agreed upon. Determine and discuss your individual OVERALL ratings with your review team.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 4: Developing Summary Comments
Highlight the strongest aspects of the unit. Succinctly summarize key areas for improvement articulated in the dimensional comments. Notes to the Facilitator: Summary Feedback to the Developer 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. Determine individually appropriate overall rating and summary comments and discuss with your review team.

Step 4: Overall Rating and Summary Comments Example Materials – Overall Rating and Summary
Normed Response High School Geometric Figures DIMENSIONAL RATINGS: E/I – [Overall rating] Overall, this module is very good. It encourages student exploration and discussion and provides an excellent model of CCSS-aligned instruction with attention to the key shifts apparent in the CCSS. Suggestions for improvement include the need to address the relevant Standards for Mathematical Practice, provide specific supports for students needing additional support, and give more specific attention to assessment and scoring rubrics/answer keys. Notes to the Facilitator: Example Materials Overall Rating and Summary Comments Remind participants that this is not the CORRECT answer but is a collation of multiple reviewers opinions. Encourage participants to think for themselves but also to be open to the thinking of others. Allow for any reasoned response to be heard and differences of opinion to be respected. 58 58

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

EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Mathematics Training Module: Grades 9-12

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Mathematics Training Module: Grades 9-12"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Mathematics Training Module: Grades 9-12

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Mathematics Training Module: Grades 9-12"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback