1 / 29

Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products ( EQuIP )

Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products ( EQuIP ). Using the Tri-State Quality Rubric. Development of the Tri-State Rubric. Work began by Tri-State Collaborative Comprised of educational leaders from Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island

shen
Download Presentation

Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products ( EQuIP )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products (EQuIP) Using the Tri-State Quality Rubric

  2. Development of the Tri-State Rubric • Work began by Tri-State Collaborative • Comprised of educational leaders from Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island • Developed criterion-based rubrics and review process • Assisted by Achieve • Launched by PARCC in June 2012

  3. Arkansas EQuIPTeam ELA/Literacy Mathematics Janice Riggs El Dorado Felix Maull Conway Teresa Martin Hamburg • Nancy Papacek Bryant • Andrea McKenna Springdale • Vernita Lee Dumas

  4. Why EQuIPand the Tri-State Rubric • Determine quality of existing instructional materials or those under development • Place quality model lessons/units into the hands of the teachers • Build capacity of educators at the classroom, building, district, and state levels to determine quality and alignment

  5. An Aligned System Common Core State Standards Model Content Frameworks Model Lessons/Units PARCC Assessment

  6. State Initiatives • Mathematics Design Collaborative (MDC) • Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) • Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) • Understanding By Design (UBD)

  7. Tri-State Rubric Purposes • Provides clear, descriptive criteria for CCSS lessons/units • Provides meaningful, constructive feedback to developers of lessons/units, based on common criteria • Identifies lessons/units that can serve as models • Guides collegial review and jurying processes

  8. Tri-State Rubric Evaluates • Lessons that include instructional activities and assessments aligned to the CCSS that may extend over a few class periods or days • Units that include integrated and focused lessons aligned to the CCSS that extend over a longer period of time • NOT designed to evaluate a single task

  9. Evaluating vs. Writing • The Tri-State Rubric can be used to evaluate lessons/units that have already been developed. • New lessons/units could be developed with the rubric in mind.

  10. Organization of Rubric Criteria • Dimension I • Alignment to the Rigor of the CCSS • Dimension II • Key Areas of Focus in the CCSS • Dimension III • Instructional Supports • Dimension IV • Assessments

  11. Tri-State Rubric Formats • One-Page Format • Contains dimensions, criteria, and ratings • Two-Page Format • Used during review process and includes columns for observations, comments, and suggestions • New Long Format • Intended to be completed electronically

  12. The Rubric Organizes Criteria That Describe Quality Lessons/Units Criteria that define the rubric are organized to describe quality in four dimensions. **The most critical criteria are considered to be “must have’s” for a quality CCSS lesson/unit.

  13. Two-Page Format Is Used to Check Criteria, Rate, and Provide Feedback: Page 1 - Dimensions I, II, and Rating Descriptors

  14. Two-Page Format Is Used to Check Criteria, Rate, and Provide Feedback: Page 2 - Dimensions III, IV, and Summary Comments

  15. Tri-State Rubric Criteria • Descriptive criteria in each Dimension • Represent a high standard of quality • Describe characteristics found in an exemplary CCSS lesson/unit • Critical criteria designated with double asterisk (**) • Located In Dimensions I & II • Must be checked to be exemplary

  16. Tri-State Rubric Checked Criteria • A criterion is checked when lesson/unit contains clear, substantial evidence of the criterion’s descriptor. • Many “in progress” lessons/units, while representing good instruction, may not be deemed to currently meet the standard. • Pattern of checks in a column represent both strengths and areas for improvement

  17. Tri-State Rubric Initial Review Process • Initial review should focus on • Identifying criteria that are met • Providing feedback on improvements needed • Initial review should not focus on • Assigning ratings

  18. Tri-State Rubric Review Process Step 1: Record grade and title Step 2: Scan lesson/unit for content and organization and skim key materials, particularly those related to the Dimensions Step 3: Compare targeted grade-level standards for alignment to the CCSS

  19. Tri-State Rubric Review Process • Step 4: • In ELA, study and measure the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit, analyzing text complexity, quality, scope, and relationship to instruction. • In mathematics, work the student tasks provided, keeping in mind all possible strategies students might use.

  20. Tri-State Rubric Review Process Step 5: Analyze lesson/unit for evidence of Dimension I Alignment to the Rigor of the CCSS Step 6: Check criteria in Column 1 for which there is clear and substantial evidence of meeting the descriptors and provide input on specific improvements for unchecked criterion

  21. Tri-State Rubric Review Process Step 7: Reference criteria when making observations and recommendations in the column next to the Dimension Repeat Steps 5-7 for each Dimension, examining evidence presented in the lesson/unit through the “lens” of each criterion.

  22. Evaluating a Lesson or Unit • In each Dimension • Examine dimension through “lens” of the criteria • Check criteria that are met • Provide input on improvements needed to meet the criteria • Examine pattern of checks and use criteria to determine a 3-2-1 rating

  23. Evaluating a Lesson or Unit Descriptors for the 3-2-1 rating scale 3: Meets all ”must have” criteria (**) in dimensions I, II and most of the criteria in III, IV. 2: Meets many of the “must have” criteria in dimensions I, II and many of the criteria in III, IV. 1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension. 0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension.

  24. Evaluating a Lesson or Unit • Circle the rating at the bottom of the Dimension’s column • Make constructive comments/recommendations that explain the rating and indicate how to improve the lesson/unit for that Dimension.

  25. Determining an Overall Rating • Review the patterns of check criteria and ratings for each of the for Dimensions. • Make a summary judgment about the overall quality of the lesson/unit, using the Overall Rating Scale. • Record the Overall Rating on the top right of the Tri-State Rubric.

  26. Final Thoughts • The common descriptive criteria provide a common language for constructive comments, discussions, and evaluations. • The pattern of checked criteria real the perceived strengths and areas for improvement in each dimension. • The four dimensional ratings reveal the current status of the lesson/unit as a model of CCSS instruction within each dimension. • The overall rating indicates whether the lesson/unit has been deemed a CCSS model, or where it is in the process of becoming a model example.

  27. Slides developed by and used with permission from the Tri-State Quality Rubric Project: Achieve www.achieve.org 1400 16th Street, NW / Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036

More Related