The Role of Learning Progressions in Common Core Curriculum Design and Professional Learning

1. The Role of Learning Progressions in Common Core Curriculum Design and Professional Learning K-2 Mathematics and ELA Community of Practice, March 2013 Presenters: Michelle Compton, Maidie Meckley, Beth Severson School District of Manatee County: Teaching and Learning Division

2. Needs Assessment: Support Teacher Effectiveness • Where are my students in their learning? • Where are they going? • How do we get there?

3. Needs Assessment: Improve Student Achievement • Where am I going? • Where am I now? • How do I get there?

4. Teaching and Learning Cycle Anchoring Teaching and Learning Reform: The Foundation

5. Additional Concerns Associated with Prior Curriculum • Same standard in multiple units-no elaboration on how student expectations from unit to unit were different • Sequence complaints-no rationale other than textbook sequence • Reliance on textbooks and page turning as lesson planning • Misuse/Disuse of (required) Unit Assessments • Inconsistent assessment of student achievement/progress

6. Learning Progressions and the Common Core State Standards • “The Common Core State Standards in mathematics were built on progressions: narrative documents describing the progression of a topic across a number of grade levels, informed both by research on children's cognitive development and by the logical structure of mathematics. These documents were spliced together and then sliced into grade level standards.” (from the Progressions Documents Project, University of Arizona, Chair: Bill McCallum) • The CCR standards anchor the document and define general, cross‐disciplinary literacy expectations that must be met for students to be prepared to enter college and workforce training programs ready to succeed. The K‐12 grade‐specific standards define end‐of‐year expectations and a cumulative progression designed to enable students to meet college and career readiness expectations no later than the end of high school.” (CCSS Introduction p. 4)

7. Why Learning Progressions? When teachers begin with a possible learning path in mind they… • Consider strategies for instructional scaffolding to get students to the next stage of learning • Use formative & summative assessments “strategically” and more frequently; they value “uncovering student thinking” • Collaboratively analyze student work creating a deeper understanding of how learning develops • Uncover “flawed assessments” they have been using • Use smaller, more targeted assessment and pre-assessments (of pre-requisite skills) at the start of a unit=better information about learning • Adjust instruction according to what students CAN do, not what they CANNOT do • Shift perceptions, especially of their lower performing students & what to do next to support learning (K. Hess, Center for Assessment 2012)

8. What are learning progressions? • “descriptions of the successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about an idea that follow one another as students learn” (Wilson & Bertenthal, 2005) • “a picture of the path students typically follow as they learn…a description of skills, understandings, and knowledge in the sequence in which they typically develop” (Masters & Forster, 1996)

9. “a sequenced set of subskills and bodies of enabling knowledge that, it is believed, students must master en route to mastering a more remote curricular aim” (Popham, 2008) • “a description of how student understanding or learning can or should develop over time” (Gong, 2008) Vertical development over time

10. Macro to Micro-Progressions • Top Down vs. Bottom Up development • Learning Progression Grain Size

11. Designing the Process • Four Interrelated Guiding Principles of Learning Progressions • LPs are developed (and refined) using available research (GP1) • LPs have clear binding threads that articulate the essential/core concepts and processes (GP2) • LPs articulate movement toward increased understanding (GP3) • LPs go hand-in-hand with well-designed/aligned assessments (GP4) (Hess, 2008)

12. Designing the Process • LPs are developed (and refined) using available research (GP1) • Content experts, access to and time to review recent and relevant content-specific research • LPs have clear binding threads that articulate the essential/core concepts and processes (GP2) • Conceptual unifying threads • LPs articulate movement toward increased understanding (GP3) • Cognitive complexity • LPs go hand-in-hand with well-designed/aligned assessments (GP4) • Assessment development

13. Unpacking the Standards • KUD • Used content-specific research to identify the Knowledge, Skills, and Understandings represented by each standard (GP1) • Emphasized the importance of Enduring Understandings-Unifying Threads (GP2) • Learning Progression Development • Multiple Stages of Review/Refinement

14. Unpacking the Standards • KUD • Learning Progression Development (GP3) • Developed learning goals (proficiency targets) • Sequenced based on depth of knowledge/cognitive complexity • Vertical articulation (building from and building to) • Multiple Stages of Review/Refinement • Vertical • Grade Level across Domains • Research

15. Identifying Instructional Units • Learning Progression Posters • Connections (co-variance) • Understandings provide the connecting thread for units • Sequence decisions are made based on a coherent vision for the progressive acquisition of concepts and skills. (GP2 and 3)

16. Developing Scales • To solve the problem of inconsistent rubrics from teacher to teacher, it is necessary to develop a systematic approach to rubric design.” (Marzano, 2010). • Learning progressions for units are then laid out on a scale • Identifies the unit proficiency target(s)-Level 3 • Identifies the less complex targets-Levels 1 and 2 • Identifies the next stage in the progression as Level 4

17. Assessments and Instruction • Assessments are developed based on the scale for the unit. (GP3 and 4) • Instructional strategies and resources are then identified which align with the learning progression for the unit.

18. Why Learning Progressions? When teachers begin with a possible learning path in mind they… • Consider strategies for instructional scaffolding to get students to the next stage of learning • Use formative & summative assessments “strategically” and more frequently; they value “uncovering student thinking” • Collaboratively analyze student work creating a deeper understanding of how learning develops • Uncover “flawed assessments” they have been using • Use smaller, more targeted assessment and pre-assessments (of pre-requisite skills) at the start of a unit=better information about learning • Adjust instruction according to what students CAN do, not what they CANNOT do • Shift perceptions, especially of their lowers performing students & what to do next to support learning (K. Hess, Center for Assessment 2012)

19. Teaching and Learning Cycle Learning Progressions and Professional Development

20. Professional Learning: Foundation and Framework • Unpacking using the Curriculum Design Process • Analysis of the documents/resources using the T&L framework • Design of Learning Progression Anchor Charts • Using Learning Progressions and Conceptual Threads

21. What’s Next? • Develop ability for teachers to “zoom-out” of learning progressions to explore vertically • Refine learning progressions-link to student work exemplars at each level of progression • Explore how learning progressions can better support our diverse learner population

22. Contact Information: Elementary • Common Core Learning Progression Curriculum Design for ELA K-5: • Michelle Compton; Elementary Teaching and Learning Specialist, School District of Manatee County (941-751-6550, ext. 2105) comptonm@manateeschools.net • Beth Severson; Elementary Teaching and Learning Specialist, School District of Manatee County (941-751-6550, ext. 2007 ) seversob@manateeschools.net • Common Core Learning Progression Curriculum Design for Mathematics K-5: • Maidie Meckley; Elementary Teaching and Learning Specialist, School District of Manatee County (941-751-6550, ext. 2117) meckleym@manateeschools.net

23. Contact Information: Secondary • Common Core Learning Progression Curriculum Design for ELA 6-12: • Lindy Carlson; Elementary Teaching and Learning Specialist, School District of Manatee County (941-751-6550, ext. 2026) • Caroline Hoffner; Elementary Teaching and Learning Specialist, School District of Manatee County (941-751-6550, ext. 2292) • Common Core Learning Progression Curriculum Design for Mathematics 6-12: • Joe McNaughton; Secondary Teaching and Learning Specialist, School District of Manatee County (941-751-6550, ext. 2110)

24. References • Ainsworth, L. (2010). Rigorous Curriculum Design: How to Create Curricular Units of Study that Align Standards, Instruction, and Assessment. Englewood, CO: Leadership and Learning Center. • DeMeester, K. & Jones, F. (2010). “Formative Assessment for PK-3 Mathematics: A Review of the Literature.” Available at http://www.floridainclusionnetwork.com/Uploads/1/docs/Formative%20Assessment%20Lit%20Review%20FCR-STEM.pdf • Gong, B. (2008). Developing Better Learning Progressions: Some Issues and Suggestions for Research and Policy. Center for Assessment. Available at http://www.cpre.org/ccii/images/stories/ccii_pdfs/learning%20progressions%20gong.pdf • Heritage, M. (2008). “Learning Progressions: Supporting Instruction and Formative Assessment. “ Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) • Hess, K. (2012). “Navigating the Common Core with Learning Progressions.” Presentation at the National Conference on Student Assessment, Minneapolis, MN, June 2012. • Hess, K. (2008). “Developing and Using Learning Progressions as a Schema for Measuring Progress.” National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Dover, NG, October 2007, updated February 2008. • Marzano, R. (2010). Formative Assessment and Standards Based Grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory. • Popham, W. James. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.