1 / 35

Quality Review Rubric

Quality Review Rubric. Created by NWRESD Data Quality Project EQuip Network Common Core Stewardship Committee. Created by NWRESD Data Quality Project CCSS Stewardship Committee 2013.

bud
Download Presentation

Quality Review Rubric

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. Quality Review Rubric Created by NWRESD Data Quality Project EQuip Network Common Core Stewardship Committee Created by NWRESD Data Quality Project CCSS Stewardship Committee 2013

  2. Purpose: To assure that lessons & units are aligned to Common Core State Standards and focused on depth of instruction using common criteria to determine quality. Objectives: Review lessons/units using the Quality Review Rubric Provide rating, suggestions and comments for lesson developer

  3. Common Core Stewardship Committee Professional Development Plan-Oregon

  4. Common Core Stewardship Committee Professional Development Plan

  5. Equip Network History of the Development of the Quality Review Rubric

  6. Quality Review Rubric English Language Arts

  7. Four Dimensions of the Quality Review Rubric I. Alignment to the Depth II. Key Shifts in the CCSS III. Instructional and Supports IV. Assessment

  8. Quality Review Steps for Individuals or Groups Step 1-Review Materials Step 2-Apply criteria in Dimension I: Alignment Note- Dimension I is non-negotiable. In order for the review to continue, a rating of 2 or 3 is required. Step 3-Apply criteria in Dimensions II-IV Step 4-Apply overall Rating and Summary Comments Step 5-Compare Overall Ratings & Determine Next Steps

  9. Quality Review Processfor Individuals and Groups

  10. Quality Review Principles & Agreements Common Core: Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar with the Common Core Standards. Inquiry: Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are organized in steps around a set of guiding questions. Respect & Commitment: Each member of a review team 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.” Reviewers are respectful of contributors’ work and make constructive observationsand suggestions based on evidence from the work. Individual to Collective: Each member of a review team independently records his/her observations prior to discussion. Discussions focus on understanding all reviewers’ interpretations of the criteria and theevidence they have found. Understanding & Agreement: The goal of the process is to compare and eventuallycalibrateour judgments so that we move toward agreement about CCSS Quality.

  11. Targets standards Text complexity Vocabulary Text structures Levels of meaning Qualitative characteristics Integration

  12. Step 1 - Review Materials • Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the recording form: 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 measure the text(s) that serve as a centerpiece for the lesson/unit analyzing text complexity, quality, scope, and relationship to instruction

  13. Step 2 - Apply Criteria • Identify the grade level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets • Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion • Individually check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found

  14. Step 2 - Apply Criteria • Identify and record input on specific improvements that might be made to meet criteria of strengthen alignment • Optional* Enter your rating 0-3 for Dimension I alignment Note: Dimension I is non-negotiable and a rating of 2 or 3 is required for the review to continue. If the review is discontinued, consider giving general feedback to developers/teachers regarding next steps

  15. Dimension I: Alignment to Depth of CCSS Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence. Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations. Determine Alignment rating and continuation of review Note: For Integrated Intervention Team purposes, you may decide to continue the review in cases of weak alignment.

  16. Compare Observations, Feedback, and Ratings • 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? • Does our feedback include suggested improvement(s)?

  17. Dimension II: Key Shifts in CCSS

  18. Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS • The lesson/unit addresses the key shifts in the CCSS: • Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence, and discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction. • Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking, and text-dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video, and media). • Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains, or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses, or formal essays). • Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on building students’ academic vocabulary in context throughout instruction.

  19. Units of Study

  20. Step 3 - Continue Application of Criteria • Apply criterion in Dimensions II-IV II. Key Shifts in the CCSS III. Instructional Supports IV. Assessment Closely examine the criterion through the “lens” of each criterion Record comments on criteria met, improvements needed and then rate 0-3

  21. Research- based Engagement Instructional expectations Engage with text Productive Struggle Appropriate Supports Extensions

  22. Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS • Check criteria for which clear evidence is found • Make observations suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence • Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations

  23. Dimension III: Instructional Supports Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations

  24. Observable evidence of learning Proficiency Aligned rubrics & scoring guides Assessments: Pre-post Formative Summative Self-assessments

  25. Dimension IV: Assessment Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations

  26. Step 4 - Overall Rating • Review ratings for Dimensions I-IV adding/clarifying comments as needed • Write summary comments for your overall rating on your recording sheet • Total dimension ratings and record overall ratings E=Exemplar E/I=Exemplar if improved R=Revision needed N=Not ready to review

  27. Step 5 - Summary Note: • Evidence cited to arrive at final rating • Summary comments • Similarities & differences among raters

  28. Step 5 - Next Steps Then: • Recommend next steps for the lesson/unit • Provide recommendations for improvement and/or ratings to developers/teachers

  29. Overall Rating: What does the creator of the lesson/unit need to know to improve the design? Which number on the rating scale best describes the current analysis of the lesson/unit?

  30. How is this rubric being used in Oregon? Teacher lesson and unit review Teacher lesson and unit development Data team and professional learning community collaboration District instructional materials review and selection State instructional materials review and adoption process

  31. Extensions: Using the Quality Review Rubric • Curriculum materials selection process criteria • PLC/Data team data collection • Guide for lesson/unit development • Review of newly created materials • Review of existing materials • Screening materials to post on websites • Quality control/quality assurance of vendor-developed materials • Training educators

  32. Special Thanks: Oregon Data Project Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products (EQuIP) Network, facilitated by Achieve Oregon Department of Education (ODE) ELA and Literacy Criteria Development Committee ODE Educational Improvement and Innovation Steering Committee Clackamas Education Service District Northwest Regional Education Service District Salem-Keizer School District Student Achievement Partners Oregon CCSS Stewardship Committee Tri-state Collaborative - Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York Departments of Education

  33. “Children are made readers on the laps of their parents.” Emilie Buchwald

More Related