Nichole Hall, Assessment Coordinator Nancy Thomas Price, Formative/Interim Assessment Coordinator.

Nichole Hall, Assessment Coordinator

Nancy Thomas Price, Formative/Interim

Assessment Coordinator

Implications for Instruction

Connecting the ICS-M (CCSS) &

Smarter Balanced

Assessment

Learning Targets

specifics of the SBAC balanced assessment system. how the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications

reflect standards, assessment, and instruction ways to use knowledge of the new assessment design,

tools and mathematics content to inform classroom instruction.

how sample “items/tasks” can be used ‘thoughtfully’ to elicit evidence about student understanding and teacher instruction.

formative assessment strategies that can be used during instruction.

I understand….

Success Criteria I will show understanding of the major components of

the SBAC balanced assessment system and the vocabulary used in that system specifications.(DOK1) – Knowledge Target

I can specify the assessment claim, target, standard, and depth of knowledge for an item or task . (DOK 2)- Skill target Explain response (DOK 3)

I can use the concepts presented to design classroom instruction and assessments that elicit evidence of student learning, (DOK3) Reasoning, Product targets

I can relate these concepts to other content areas and / or grade levels (DOK 4) Product target

Depth of Knowledge DOK 1: Recall or identify a fact, definition,

term; focus on initial comprehension DOK 2: Demonstrate conceptual

information through explanation, interpretation (make some decisions)

DOK 3: Strategic Thinking, reasoning, planning, using evidence, interpreting

DOK 4: Extended thinking, relate concepts to other content areas, new situations...synthesize, show new perspective

Shared understanding Balanced Assessment System

Formative Interim Summative

Attributes of Formative Assessment Clarify Intended Learning Elicit Evidence Interpret Evidence Act on Evidence

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/smarter-balanced-assessments/

Formative Assessment is a deliberate process used by teachers and students

during instruction that provides actionable feedback that is used to adjust ongoing teaching and learning strategies

to improve students’ self-assessment, reflection, and attainment of curricular

learning targets/goals.

Four Attributes

The formative assessment process attributes are:

Clarify IntendedLearning

Elicit Evidence

Act onEvidence

Interpret Evidence

• Practice implemented by teachers in collaboration with students

• Learning Targets: Students understand expectations & goals

• Success Criteria: Observable & measurable evidence of learning

• Multiple ways to elicit evidence

• Can be planned for or spontaneous

• Inform: Teacher, peers, or self

• To determine where students are in regards to the learning target and success criteria

• Can be conducted by the teacher, student, or both

• Timely and Actionable

• Provide feedback : Where are students at in regards to learning targets

• Make adjustments to instruction

Documents we will be using: Idaho Core Standards (CCSS)

for Mathematics

http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/common/math/docs/CCSSI_Math_Standards.pdf

SBAC Math Content Specifications (Draft) & Item Specifications

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Math-Content-Specifications.pdf

Cognitive Rigor Matrix Article (Hess, Carlock, Jones, and Walkup) and Matrix

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D106125F-FFF0-420E-86D9-254761638C6F/0/HessArticle.pdf

Content Specifications1. Create a bridge between standards,

assessment, and instruction

2. Organize the standards around major constructs and big ideas

3. Further describe what students should learn and be able to do to demonstrate evidence of their learning

Content Specifications Claims (p. 18)

Claims are the broad statements of the assessment system‘s learning outcomes, each of which requires

evidence that articulates the types of data/observations that will support interpretations of competence towards achievement of the claims.

Interpretations are spelled out in the Achievement Level Descriptors.

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework Evidence = Assessment Target

Assessment Targets align with Standards

The Standard is the Content to be learned while the Assessment Target describes in greater detail, the evidence that will show the content has been mastered.

Relationship among Content Claims, Content Categories, Assessment Targets, and Standards (p.8 ALD Document)

Evidence-Centered Design

The Assessment Triangle (NRC, 2001)

The Assessment Triangle as Represented in the Content Specifications (pp. 14-15)

Proposed Reporting Categories

Content Categories & Assessment

Targets

Claims & Rationale

The Assessment Triangle as Represented in the Content Specifications (pp. 14-15)

Proposed Reporting Categories

Achievement Level Descriptors

POLLCheck for Understanding Assessment Claim Assessment Target Standards Evidence-Centered Design Depth of Knowledge Formative Assessment

Activity DOK 1

Content SpecificationsMathematics

Claims & Assessment Targets

Review:Content Standards & the Mathematical Practices

Relationship among Content Claims, Content Categories, Assessment Targets, and Standards

How to read the grade level standardsStandards – p. 5

Standards define what students should understand and be able to do. Clusters are groups of related standards. Note that standards from different clusters

may sometimes be closely related, because mathematics is a connected subject. Domains are larger groups of related standards. Standards from different domains

may sometimes be closely related.

Number and Operations in Base Ten 3.NBT

Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi-digit arithmetic. 1. Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100. 2. Fluently add and subtract within 1000 using strategies and algorithms based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction. 3. Multiply one-digit whole numbers by multiples of 10 in the range 10-90 (e.g., 9 × 80, 5 × 60) using strategies based on place value and properties of operations

Domain

Cluster Headin

gCluster

of Standard

Grouping the Standards for Mathematical PracticeStandards – p. 6-8

William McCallum – The University of Arizona

Mathematical Practices• The same across all grade levels• Different levels of expertise that

educators should seek to develop in their students

• The Practices are how students are expected to engage in items

or tasks

Mathematics Assessment Claims

Math Claims Content Specifications, p. 25

Claim #1

Concepts & Procedures “Students can explain and apply mathematical concepts and interpret and carry out mathematical procedures with precision and fluency.”

Claim #2

Problem Solving“Students can solve a range of complex well-posed problems in pure and applied mathematics, making productive use of knowledge and problem solving strategies.”

Claim #3

Communicating Reasoning“Students can clearly and precisely construct viable arguments to support their own reasoning and to critique the reasoning of others.”

Claim #4

Modeling and Data Analysis“Students can analyze complex, real-world scenarios and can construct and use mathematical models to interpret and solve problems.”

Claim #1

Concepts & Procedures “Students can explain and apply mathematical concepts and interpret and carry out mathematical procedures with precision and fluency.”

MP 5, 6, 7, &

Claim #2

Problem Solving“Students can solve a range of complex well-posed problems in pure and applied mathematics, making productive use of knowledge and problem solving strategies.”

MP 1, 5 & 8

Claim #3

Communicating Reasoning“Students can clearly and precisely construct viable arguments to support their own reasoning and to critique the reasoning of others.”

MP 3 & 6

Claim #4

Modeling and Data Analysis“Students can analyze complex, real-world scenarios and can construct and use mathematical models to interpret and solve problems.”

MP 2, 4, & 5

Can a Task or Assessment Item be Aligned to More Than One Claim?STOP!

“Mathematics is not a collection of separate strands or standards, though it is often partitioned and presented in this

manner. Rather, mathematics is an integrated field of study.

Viewing mathematics as a whole highlights the need for studying and

thinking about the connections within the discipline, as reflected both within the curriculum of a particular grade and

between grade levels.”

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics; NCTM, 2000

Item Types

Selected Response

Constructed Response

Extended Response

Performance Task

Technology Enhanced

Claim Alignment Practice

ACTIVITY DOK 2-3

Claim Alignment Practice: Grade 7 Item

Part A Determine if each of these statements is always true, sometimes true, or never true. Circle your response. 1. The sum of the measures of two

complementary angles is 90°. Always True Sometimes True Never True

Part B For each statement you chose as “Sometimes True,” provide one example of when the statement is true and one example of when the statement is not true.

Your examples should be a diagram with the angle measurements labeled. If you did not choose any statement as “Sometimes True,” write “None” in the work space below.

ACTIVITY DOK 2-3

What claim does this item align to?POLL

Claim 3: Communicating Reasoning Students can clearly and precisely construct viable arguments to support their own reasoning and to critique the reasoning of others.

Secondary Claim? Claim 1: Concepts and Procedures Students can explain and apply mathematical concepts and carry out mathematical procedures with precision and fluency.

ACTIVITY DOK 2-3

Claim Alignment Practice: Grade 3 Item

What claim does this item align to?POLL

Claim 1: Concepts and Procedures Students can explain and apply mathematical concepts and carry out mathematical procedures with precision and fluency.

Secondary Claim? No secondary claim

ACTIVITY DOK 2-3

Assessment Targets

Math Domains

in the Content Standard

Claim 1: Cluster

Headings

Claims 2, 3, & 4:

Derived from the

Mathematical Practices

Claim 1 - Assessment TargetsContent Specifications, p. 30

Content Category:

CCSS-M Domain (p.

Assessment Target: CCSS-M Cluster Heading

m = majora/s =

additional/supplemental

Depth of Knowledg

Description of Evidence

Relationship between the Idaho Core Standards & the Content Specifications

CCSS, p. 23 Content Specs, p. 30

Domain = Content Category

Cluster Heading 1 =

Target AStandards =

Evidence

Cluster Heading 2 =

Target B

CLAIM 1 – Grade 3: Content Categories, Assessment Targets, and Standards

Claim 1: Concepts & Procedures

Operations &

Algebraic Thinking

Target A

3.OA.1

3.OA.23.OA.

33.OA.

4Target

B3.OA.

3.OA.6

Target C 3.OA.

7Target

D 3.OA.8Number

& Operations - Base

Target E

3.NBT.1

3.NBT.2

3.NBT.3

Number & Operation

s - Fractions

Target F

3.NF.1

3.NF.2

3.NF.3

Measurement &

Target G 3.MD.

3.MD.2Target

.33.MD

.4Target I

3.MD.53.MD

.63.MD

.7Target J 3.MD

Geometry

Target K

Claim 1: Concepts

& Procedure

Operations & Algebraic

Thinking

Target A: Represent and Solve Problems

Involving Multiplication and

Division.

3.OA.1

3.OA.2

3.OA.3

3.OA.4

Claim 1: Concepts

& Procedure

Operations &

Algebraic Thinking

Target D: Solve problems involving the

four operations, and identify and explain

patterns in arithmetic

3.OA.8

Number & Operations - Base Ten

Target E: Use place value understanding and properties of operations

to perform multi-digit arithmetic.

3.NBT.1

3.NBT.2

3.NBT.3

Claims 2, 3, & 4 – Assessment TargetsContent Specifications, p. 59

Aligned to the Mathematical

Practices

Relevant Verbs

Depth of Knowledge

Description of Engagement

Claims 2, 3, & 4: Relevant Verbs

Problem Solving

Understand

Describe

Illustrate

Interpret

Analyze

Communicating Reasoning

Understand

Explain

Justify

Derive

Assess

Illustrate

Analyze

Modeling & Data Analysis

Construct

Compare

Investigate

Interpret

Estimate

Analyze

Summarize

Represent

Evaluate

Extend

Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4

Update #2 to the Content Specifications for Mathematics

Provide a more explicit connection between the content standards and

• Claim 2 (Problem Solving), Claim

• 3 (Communicating Reasoning), and

• Claim 4 (Modeling and Data Analysis)

by including the standards for each claim by grade level.

Content standards for each grade that

support the collection of evidence for Claim

Assessment Target Alignment Practice

POLL:Assessment Target: Grade 7 Item

Part A Determine if each of these statements is always true, sometimes true, or never true. Circle your response. 1. The sum of the measures of two

ACTIVITY DOK 2

What assessment target does this item align to?

Please type your answer in the Question Box

3 B: Construct, autonomously, chains of reasoning that will justify or refute propositions or conjectures.

3 F: Base arguments on concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions.

1 F: Solve real-life and mathematical problems involving angle measure, area, surface area, and volume.

ACTIVITY DOK 2

Assessment Target: Grade 3 Item

ACTIVITY DOK 2

This item aligns to which assessment target?

Write your answer in the question box.

1 I: Geometric measurement: understand concepts of area and relate area to multiplication and to addition.

ACTIVITY DOK 2

What are the Implications for Instruction?Claims & Assessment Targets

ssessm

Statements about what we claim students can do if we see the specified evidence.

Statements that describe evidence of how proficiency

on the content standards will be assessed

Classroom Task: What will the evidence of a proficient student look like?

Content Specifications: Does the evidence descriptor from the assessment target(s) match? Make adjustments, if needed.

Do you have a lesson that you feel aligns to the identified standards and cluster headings? If so…

Content Specifications: Find the corresponding assessment target(s) and claim(s).

Classroom Lesson: Identify Idaho content standards and cluster headings

Depth of KnowledgeCognitive Rigor Matrix

Cognitive Rigor Matrix p. 92-93

Cognitive Rigor Matrix – Karin Hess http://vimeo.com/20998609

Assessment Target: Grade 7 ItemPart A Determine if each of these statements is always true, sometimes true, or never true. Circle your response. 1. The sum of the measures of two

Activity – DOK 2

What depth of thinking? POLL

DOK 1: Recall and ReproductionDOK 2: Basic Skills and ConceptsDOK 3: Strategic Thinking/ReasoningDOK 4: Extending Thinking

What type of thinking?

Activity – DOK 2

Depth of Knowledge: Grade 3 Item

Activity – DOK 2

What depth of thinking?DOK 1: Recall and ReproductionDOK 2: Basic Skills and ConceptsDOK 3: Strategic Thinking/ReasoningDOK 4: Extending Thinking

WHY?What type of thinking?

Activity – DOK 2

Depth of KnowledgeImplications for Instruction

Implications for Instruction C

ixUnderstand how Bloom’s

Taxonomy and Webb’s DOK are alike, yet different.

Examine the DOK required for different tasks

Categorize selected assignments and learning

activities

Apply to test design and item development process

Classroom Task: What is the cognitive process and demand required of the students?

Cognitive Rigor Matrix: Identify the DOK level aligned to the task. Make adjustments if needed

Classroom Task: What will the evidence of a proficient student look like?Content Specifications: Does the evidence descriptor from the assessment target(s) match? Make

adjustments, if needed.

Do you have a lesson that you feel aligns to the identified standards and cluster headings? If so…

Content Specifications: Find the corresponding assessment target(s)

Classroom Lesson: Identify Idaho content standards and cluster headings

Item Specification & Tasks

Understanding the Item Specifications

1. Content & Grade2. Type of Question

a. SR – Selected Response

3. Claim4. Domain : RP – Ratios

and Proportional Relationships

5. Assessment Target for Grade Level – Target A

6. Internal Number - 1817. Claim – C1, C2, C3, or

C4 & Target

Understanding the Item Specifications “Claims are the broad statements of the assessment system’s learning outcomes, each of which requires evidence that articulates the types of data/observations that will support interpretations of competence towards achievement of the claims.” p. 18 – Content Specifications

Assessment Target“Cluster level headings of the standards in the

CCSS-M are used in order to allow for the creation and use of assessment tasks that require

proficiency in a broad range of content and practices. Use of more fine-grained descriptions

would risk a tendency to atomize the content, which might lead to assessments that would not

meet the intent of the standards.” Content Specs., p. 20

DomainDomains, as found in the CCSS-M, are larger groups of

related standards.

Standard(s)Defines what

students should understand and be

able to do

Understanding the Item SpecificationsStandards for Mathematical Practice

“Describe varieties of expertise that mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop in

their students.” CCSS-M pp. 6-8

1. Make sense of problems & persevere in solving them.

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

Depth of Knowledge The cognitive rigor that a student needs to bring to

the item/task, as determined by the

Cognitive Rigor Matrix, Math Content

Specifications, Appendix C, p. 92

Selected Response- Includes computer-enhanced items- Distractors are chosen to embody common

misconceptions- Designed to make sure that students do not

obtain correct answers because of test-taking skills

Range of Difficulty - Estimation until pilot assessment

occurs.

Key – Correct Answer

Now you try it:ACTIVITY Select one or more items with attached

blank answer sheet. In your teacher team use the content

specifications document to determine the item specifications.

Use the answer key to check your answers when you are finished.

Work as a team to determine critical specifications for each item

Use the standards and content specifications document to determine: …...the item type ….. the grade level ….. the content domain ….. the standard cluster heading ….. the assessment target(s) ….. the claim(s) ….. the mathematical practice(s) ….. the depth of knowledge

ACTIVITY – DOK 3

ResourcesFollow-Up Recording

Smarter BalancedNavigation of Website

Three locations for sample items

Practice and Pilot Tests

Sample items and performance tasks

Item Writing and Review

Achievement Level Descriptors and

College Content-Readiness

Computer Adaptive Testing

Technology

Test Administration

Learning Targets

specifics of the SBAC balanced assessment system. how the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications

reflect standards, assessment, and instruction ways to use knowledge of the new assessment design,

tools and mathematics content to inform classroom instruction.

how sample “items/tasks” can be used ‘thoughtfully’ to elicit evidence about student understanding and teacher instruction.

formative assessment strategies that can be used during instruction.

I understand….

Success Criteria I will show understanding of the major components of

the SBAC balanced assessment system and the vocabulary used in that system specifications.(DOK1) – Knowledge Target

I can specify the assessment claim, target, standard, and depth of knowledge for an item or task . (DOK 2)- Skill target Explain response (DOK 3)

I can use the concepts presented to design classroom instruction and assessments that elicit evidence of student learning, (DOK3) Reasoning, Product targets

I can relate these concepts to other content areas and / or grade levels (DOK 4) Product target

Next Steps

Become more familiar with the content in all of the documents discussed today.

Begin using the documents and the identified implications for instruction when adjusting current activities, lessons, or units to meet the rigor of the ICS and make sure you have balance.

Visit the websites provided to view sample lesson plans and formative assessment activities.

Complete the post-webinar recording and activity.

This presentation can be found at…

http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/common/commonCorePD.htm

Evaluation Please complete a survey on your experience in

participating in Connecting the ICS-M and Smarter Balanced Assessment, Implications for Instruction Workshop

Your feedback is greatly appreciated and is used to make adjustments in future trainings!

To access the survey, please visit, https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/>>>>

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate in today’s workshop!

Questions

Contact Information

Nancy Thomas Price, Formative and Interim Assessment Coordinator

nthomasprice@sde.idaho.gov208-332-6988

Nichole Hall, Assessment Coordinatornhall@sde.idaho.gov208-332-6933

Nichole Hall, Assessment Coordinator Nancy Thomas Price, Formative/Interim Assessment Coordinator.

evidence of student

students selfassessment

evidence practice

intended learning

learning strategies

assessment claim

evidence http

learning targets specifics

Documents

Critical Information SAGE Critical Information 1 Judy Park,....

Spring 2013 RMS School Assessment Coordinator Training

Outcomes Assessment in Computer Science Robert Lingard...

New District Assessment Coordinator Training...New District....

District and School Assessment Coordinator Guide

Nichole Licht

Reverse Job Fair - Missouri Department of Elementary and...

WNTI Habitat Assessment Robin Knox – WNTI Coordinator.

My baby neice Isabella nichole treusch

Nichole Muirbrook - Ford

Smarter Balanced Content Specifications: Creating a Bridge.....

New District Assessment Coordinator (DAC) Orientation.

Anne Marie Karlberg Assessment Coordinator (360) 392-4255...

New Assessment Coordinator Workshop #2 - South Dakota

Nichole Braun Promotional Resume

Linda J. HLC Assessment Coordinator/AQIP Liaison.