Everett Public Schools

Madison Elementary School

LMS Department

August 28, 2014

Who are these LMS people ?

LMS: Who we are and what we do

Jo Anne Buiteweg, Director

System Support:

Newel Rice, Data Systems ManagerPete Dronzek, Student Data Systems Coordinator (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC, Teacher Insight)Linda Holtorf, Student Data Systems Coordinator (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC)David Passey, Systems AnalystPat Jones, Systems Support Analyst (Scantron Teacher Insight, Gradebook)Noreen Wintch, Systems Support Analyst (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC)

REACH US at LMS@everettsd.org

Learning Management Systems

LMS: Who we are and what we do

Curriculum, Assessment and Instructional Technology Support:

Sonja Delafosse, Instructional Technology SpecialistLauribeth Hull, Internet Technology SpecialistPaul Edwards, Curriculum Specialist (Curriculum Portal, Assessment for LearningTavis Miller, Curriculum Specialist (Grading, Proficiency Scaling, Common Assessments)

REACH US at LMS@everettsd.org

Partnership with Curriculum Specialists

• How does Depth of Knowledge (DOK) fit within engaging students and having them think through content in different ways?

• How is the “Depth of Knowledge” a foundation for the construction of a proficiency scale to “unpack” clusters/ standards?

• What do teachers experience in building proficiency scales?

• How are scales use to design both assessment items and instructional tasks?

• How can all teachers access the most up to date maps, scales, assessments and more?

Initial Session Overview

Backwards Design Model

Norman Webb’s Depth of KnowledgeAdapted from the model used by Norman Webb, University of Wisconsin, to align standards with curriculum and assessments.

•The degree of depth or complexity of knowledge reflected in the content standards and assessments

•How deeply a student needs to understand the content for a given response/assessment

Created based on work of Webb, Norman L. and others. “Web Alignment Tool” 24 July 2005. Wisconsin Center of Educational Research. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2 Feb. 2006

Depth of Knowledge depends on more than the verb. The complexity also depends on what the verb is acting on. For example, “draw” is in the DOK level 1 sector. But a student who draws a blueprint of a new building is doing more than recall of information.

Explain also can be at different levels--explain by repeating a definition (DOK level 1), explain by putting a paragraph into your own words (DOK level 2), or explain by describing an analysis of the factors contributing to the economic down turn of the US (DOK level 3).

What comes after the verb is more important than the verb itself.

“Analyze this sentence to decide if the commas have been used correctly” does not meet the criteria for high cognitive processing.

Rationale: The student who has been taught the rule for using commas is merely using the rule

DOK Snapshot• DOK is a scale of cognitive demand• DOK is not an exact science• DOK is about the item/standard not the student• The context of the item/standard must be considered to

determine the DOK level not just a look at what verb was chosen.

• DOK is lowered when too much information is given• DOK is not about difficulty but how much thinking is required

for the student to complete the prompt/task

Bloom’s and Webb’s

Different models to describe cognitive rigor•Bloom – What type of thinking are needed to complete the task?

•Webb – How deeply do you have to understand the content to successfully interact at a given depth? How complex is the content?

Cognitive Rigor MatrixThis matrix from the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications for Mathematics draws from both

Bloom’s (revised) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Levels below.

• Addresses the content being assessed and the depth to which we expect students to demonstrate understanding of a particular content area

• Is a reference to the complexity of mental processing that must occur to answer a question, perform a task or generate a product

• Is not grade contextualized- all about the expertise in a content area

DOK Further Clarification

Recall/Reproduction

DOK 1

Skills/

Co

ncep

tsD

OK

2

Strategic Thinking

DOK 3

Ext

end

ed

Th

inki

ng

DO

K 4

ProficiencyProficiency Scale level

does not equal DOK level

Determining DOK• How would you describe the progression from 1st

grade to 4th grade?• As a small group discuss and have one member

record what each standard’s DOK level might be and provide a rationale for your thinking.• Include any questions your discussion raised or

disagreements you encountered.

How can we be consistent in applying DOK at our grade level?

Depth of Knowledge = Cognitive Demand = Rigor

•How much and what kind of “thinking” is called for in each CCSS cluster, for classroom instruction and on assessments?

•What kinds of “thinking” is called for approaching the cluster and beyond the cluster?

Proficiency ScalingThe process of identifying and developing the cognitive demand or level of rigor for a given standard.- Starting with the standard: educators use a framework …

(Webb’s DOK) …as way to build a rigorous proficiency-based approach in the interest of valid and reliable assessing which informs both teacher and student

- If Proficient is the standard:- What is Advanced?- What is a Basic?

Marzano, Robert J. Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading 2010

Advanced Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts

Proficient 

Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills, and/or performance to be explicitly taught.

Basic 

Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary.

Foundational

Various cognitive steps before Basic.

K-Math

Advanced Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts Count backwards from a given number by ones.Write numbers from various starting points beyond 20 and continue the number pattern.Write given numbers out of sequence above 20.

Proficient

Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills,

and/or performance to be explicitly taught.Know number names and the count sequence. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS)Count to 100 by ones (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)Count to 100 by tens (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to begin at 1). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)Write numbers from 0 to 20. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.3)

Basic

Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabularyUses the pattern of 1-9 to count within a decade (e.g. in twenties, in thirties, etc)Writes numbers from 0 to 20 using a tool (e.g. number line, 100s chart)Represents a number of objects with a visual tool 0-20 (refer to a number line or number card). Recognizes the numbers from 0 to 20.

Foundational Various cognitive steps before Basic.

Recall/Reproduction

DOK 1

Skills/

Co

ncep

tsD

OK

2

Strategic Thinking

DOK 3

Ext

end

ed

Th

inki

ng

DO

K 4

ProficiencyProficiency Scale level

does not equal DOK level

Leveraging Scales

Scaling and

Leveling

29

Curriculum & Instruction

Rigorous, Informative Assessment

Reporting Variables/Grading Practices

Applying the cognitive level using the proficiency scale to each item on an assessment and activity in the instructional map.–build an assessment map determining the number of leveled items/prompts required to create a valid/reliable assessment–level through reverse engineering – examine what is already in the curriculum or provided by a publisher and assign a level of rigor to the item/lesson/prompt

Leveling in Assessment

• Sufficient number of items to have evidence of student’s understanding of a standard. Research shows 5-9 items is optimal.

• Items grouped by standard• Sufficient number of items at Basic and Proficient

levels• Start with lower cognitive demand Basic and build

up Proficient and on to Advanced• Balance of Basic and Proficient items with Advanced

item or performance task connected to assessment• Best “type” of assessment item to measure level.• Strength of item to distinguish both correctness and

misconceptions for instruction

Assessment Design

• Begin curriculum adoption process – creating or examining scales – Is the range of cognitive demand evident in

the materials under consideration?• Create an instructional plan showing leveled

activities and leveled checks for understanding

• Apply the cognitive level using the proficiency scale to each activity in the instructional map.

Leveling in Curriculum and Instruction

• Proficiency scales clearly define each level of proficiency for a specific standard.

• Proficiency based leveled assessments need to be scored differently

• When assessments are no longer about points but evidence of proficiency a need for grading differently is created

• Policies and practices must be examined for any conflicts with a standards based mindset

Proficiency Scales Impact on Grading