1 / 43

Step 3… Making The Connection Connecting The CCSS-M To Your Instructional Materials

Step 3… Making The Connection Connecting The CCSS-M To Your Instructional Materials. Common Core Instructional Shifts for Mathematics. Focus: Instructional time spent on critical areas in standards Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics within grades

josh
Download Presentation

Step 3… Making The Connection Connecting The CCSS-M To Your Instructional Materials

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. Step 3… Making The ConnectionConnecting The CCSS-M To Your Instructional Materials

  2. Common Core Instructional Shifts for Mathematics Focus: Instructional time spent on critical areas in standards Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics within grades Rigor: Require fluency, application, and deep understanding

  3. Review of Previous Steps • Step 1 • Review the structure and shifts of the CCSS Math • Understand the language of a grade specific CCSS critical area at a deeper level • Learn a process to review any CCSS domain • Step 2 • Deepen understanding of a critical area at your grade level • Analyze content and process standards • Understand the learning progression for a critical area of focus

  4. Step 3-CCSS & Your Current Instructional Materials Is the content in my current instructional materials deep enough? Does the cognitive complexity of the tasks in my materials encourage the standards for mathematical practice? How can I use the existing problems in my text to reach the needed content depth and support the standards for mathematical practice?

  5. Is the Content of My Instructional Materials Deep Enough?

  6. How Deep is the Content in Your Instructional Materials? Working in grade level teams: • Review CCSS standards in the domain you focused on from the previous session. (Use Arizona CCSS document for additional examples and explanations + OSPI Transition doc) • Using your instructional materials, look at how the content of that domain is introduced, developed, and applied. (depth vs breadth) • Discuss with your team. Share out.

  7. Cognitive Complexity

  8. Martha’s Carpeting Task Martha was recarpeting her bedroom, which was 15 feet long and 10 feet wide. How many square feet of carpeting will she need to purchase?

  9. The Fencing Task • Ms. Brown’s class will raise rabbits for their spring science fair. They have 24 feet of fencing with which to build a rectangular rabbit pen to keep the rabbits. • If Ms. Brown’s students want their rabbits to have as much room as possible, how long would each of the sides of the pen be? • How long would each of the sides of the pen be if they had only 16 feet of fencing? • How would you go about determining the pen with the most room for any amount of fencing? Organize your work so that someone else who reads it will understand it.

  10. Comparing Two Mathematical Tasks • Think privately about how you would go about solving each task (solve them if you have time) • Talk with your neighbor about how you did or could solve the task • Martha’s Carpeting • The Fencing Task

  11. Solution Strategies: Martha’s Carpeting Task

  12. Martha’s Carpeting TaskUsing the Area Formula A = l x w A = 15 x 10 A = 150 square feet

  13. Martha’s Carpeting TaskDrawing a Picture 10 15

  14. Solution Strategies: The Fencing Task

  15. The Fencing TaskDiagrams on Grid Paper

  16. The Fencing TaskUsing a Table

  17. The Fencing TaskGraph of Length and Area

  18. Comparing Two Mathematical Tasks How are Martha’s Carpeting Task and the Fencing Task the same and how are they different?

  19. Similarities and Differences Similarities • Both are “area” problems • Both require prior knowledge of area Differences • The amount of thinking and reasoning required • The number of ways the problem can be solved • Way in which the area formula is used • The need to generalize • The range of ways to enter the problem

  20. Mathematical Tasks:A Critical Starting Point for Instruction Not all tasks are created equal, and different tasks will provoke different levels and kinds of student thinking. Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000

  21. Level 1 (Recall) ….includes the recall of information such as a fact, definition, term, or a simple procedure, as well as performing a simple algorithm or applying a formula. That is, in mathematics a one‐step, well‐defined, and straight algorithmic procedure should be included at this lowest level.

  22. Level 2 (Skill/Concept) ….includes the engagement of some mental processing beyond a habitual response. A Level 2 assessment item requires students to make some decisions as to how to approach the problem or activity, whereas Level 1 requires students to demonstrate a rote response, perform a well‐known algorithm, follow a set procedure (like a recipe), or perform a clearly defined series of steps.

  23. Level 3 (Strategic Thinking) ….requires reasoning, planning, using evidence, and a higher level of thinking than the previous two levels. This may require a student to explain their thinking or make conjectures. The complexity does not result from the fact that there are multiple answers, a possibility for both Levels 1 and 2, but because the task requires more demanding reasoning.

  24. Level 4 (Extended Thinking) ….requires complex reasoning, planning, developing, and thinking most likely over an extended period of time.”

  25. Refer to the Carpeting and Fencing Tasks-What are their levels of cognitive complexity?

  26. Sorting Activity Individually: Categorize tasks into Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 using Cognitive Complexity Levels. Record your responses on the provided worksheet. In table teams: Share your results and come to consensus at your table. One person will record results on the “master” copy. Whole group: Share results and review criteria groups used for low and high levels.

  27. Sorting Questions to ponder…… How did you determine between levels 2 & 3? Does a task presented as a word problem always have a high level of cognitive complexity? Does using a manipulative indicate a higher level of cognitive complexity? If a task requires an explanation, does it have a high level of cognitive complexity?

  28. Changing the Cognitive Complexity Level Each team member picks out a task that was placed in level 1 or 2. Individually determine how you would modify your task to be a level 3 task. Share out with your team & determine which task you will share with the entire group. Share out entire group.

  29. Cognitive Complexity & Mathematical Practices Which levels of cognitive complexity allow students to develop the mathematical practices? Update your Domain Illustration column 5.

  30. Are there various levels of Cognitive Complexity in Your Instructional Materials? • Review several types of problems/tasks found in your instructional materials. • What level of cognitive complexity are these tasks? • Level 1 (Recall) • Level 2 (Skill/Concept) • Level 3 (Strategic Thinking) • Level 4 (Extended Thinking)

  31. Share at your table the types of problems/ tasks you found : • What are the prevalent levels of complexity in your instructional materials? • How will this impact meeting the standards for mathematical practice? Whole group share out

  32. Who’s Doing the Thinking?

  33. Who’s Doing the Thinking? Watch Dan Meyer video

  34. Video Debrief How much is too much support, how much is too little? How does scaffolding interfere/promote the standards for mathematical practice?

  35. Who’s Doing the Thinking • Complete the Gas Mileage Activity • Discuss responses • Review “original” Gas Mileage Activity • Compare/contrast both versions

  36. Who’s Doing the Thinking? Identify a standard within the domain you’ve been focusing on. Find a task in your instructional materials related to that standard. Make an adjustment/subtle shift to the task that will increase the cognitive complexity and help deepen the student’s content knowledge.

  37. Impact of Teachers Read case studies (scenarios) of how Fencing Task was implemented. Use worksheet to write your thoughts on cognitive complexity students experience. Share out in table teams Whole group share out

  38. Who’s Doing the Thinking Brainstorming Session: What instructional strategies can be used to promote student thinking and develop mathematical practices? Shifts in Classroom Practice Handout

  39. Step 3… Objectives Revisited Determine if the content of instructional materials is deep enough. Compare and contrast the cognitive complexity of tasks and the Mathematical Practices Adjust existing problems/tasks to increase content depth and support Mathematical Practices.

  40. Wrap up – Step 3… • As facilitators back in your districts, what questions do you have? What suggestions? • What further support would you like? Clock hours reminder– turn in forms

  41. Readiness to Implement Survey Complete Post-Learning section of survey……….. What is your current state??

  42. CCSS-M Professional Development • Working in district teams: • Individually complete Reflection form • Share responses with your team • Draft a plan to “roll-out” the CCSS-M to your district • Create a poster with your district’s name and your plan for “poster walk” • Create a poster with “suggestions” for administrator training

  43. Thank you………… Clock hours reminder– turn in forms

More Related