An Introduction to PARCC Design
Principles and Evidence Tables for
ELA and Math
June 12, 2013
Tennessee Department of Education,
Division of Curriculum and Instruction
Webinar
Today’s agenda
1
Overview of PARCC and evidence-centered design
2
Math blueprints and evidence tables
3
ELA blueprints and evidence tables
4
Resources and conclusion
1
PARCC will be given in two sessions
3-8 Schedule
PBA
End of Year
Feb/ March
April / May
High School Schedule
PBA I
Oct / Nov
EOC I
PBA II
Dec /Jan
Feb/ March
EOC II
April / May
2
Evidence-Centered Design (ECD)
Claims
Evidence
Design begins with
the inferences
(claims) we want to In order to support
make about
claims, we must
students
gather evidence
Task Models
Tasks are designed
to elicit specific
evidence from
students in support
of claims
ECD is a deliberate and systematic approach to assessment development that will
help to establish the validity of the assessments, increase the comparability of
year-to year results, and increase efficiencies/reduce costs.
3
PARCC assessment blueprints and test
specifications
• ELA:
– Form specifications (# of passages/tasks/items/task types and point values per form)
– Task generation models
– Evidence tables
– Item guidelines
– Passage selection guidelines
• Math
– High level blueprints (# of tasks/task types and point values per task)
– Evidence tables
4
What are evidence tables?
•The tables contain the Major claims and the evidences to be
measured on the PARCC Summative Assessment.
•Evidences describe what students might say or do to
demonstrate mastery of the standards.
•An item on the PARCC assessment may measure multiple
standards and multiple evidences.
5
5
PARCC Model Content Frameworks
Just as the major
claims, evidence
tables, and other
documents provide
blueprints for
PARCC assessments,
the MCFs provide
blueprints for
curricular
development
6
Instructional uses of the evidence
statements/tables for teachers
•To see ways to combine standards naturally when designing
instructional tasks
•To develop the stem for questions/tasks for instruction aligned
with the standards
•To determine and create instructional scaffolding (to think
through which individual, simpler skills can be taught first to
build to more complex skills)
•To develop rubrics and scoring tools for classroom use
7
7
Today’s agenda
1
Overview of PARCC and evidence-centered design
2
Math blueprints and evidence tables
3
ELA blueprints and evidence tables
4
Resources and conclusion
8
Claims in Mathematics
• Master Claim: On-Track for college and career readiness. The degree to which a student is college and career ready
(or “on-track” to being ready) in mathematics. The student solves grade-level /course-level problems in mathematics
as set forth in the Standards for Mathematical Content with connections to the Standards for Mathematical
Practice.
Sub-Claim A: Major Content with
Connections to Practices
The student solves problems
involving the Major Content for her
grade/course with connections to
the Standards for Mathematical
Practice.
Sub-Claim B: Additional & Supporting
Content with Connections to
Practices
The student solves problems
involving the Additional and
Supporting Content for her
grade/course with connections to the
Standards for Mathematical Practice.
Sub-Claim D: Highlighted Practice MP.4 with Connections to Content
(modeling/application)
The student solves real-world problems with a degree of difficulty appropriate to
the grade/course by applying knowledge and skills articulated in the standards for
the current grade/course (or for more complex problems, knowledge and skills
articulated in the standards for previous grades/courses), engaging particularly in
the Modeling practice, and where helpful making sense of problems and
persevering to solve them (MP. 1),reasoning abstractly and quantitatively (MP. 2),
using appropriate tools strategically (MP.5), looking for and making use of structure
(MP.7), and/or looking for and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning (MP.8).
Sub-Claim C: Highlighted Practices
MP.3,6 with Connections to Content
(expressing mathematical reasoning)
The student expresses grade/courselevel appropriate mathematical
reasoning by constructing viable
arguments, critiquing the reasoning of
others, and/or attending to precision
when making mathematical
statements.
Sub-Claim E: Fluency in applicable
grades (3-6)
The student demonstrates fluency as set
forth in the Standards for Mathematical
Content in her grade.
9
Task Types for Mathematics
•The PARCC assessments for mathematics will involve
three primary types of tasks: Type I, II, and III.
•Each task type is described on the basis of several
factors, principally the purpose of the task in generating
evidence for certain sub-claims.
10
Task Types for Mathematics
Task Type
Description of Task Type
I. Tasks assessing
concepts, skills, and
procedures
•
•
•
•
•
Balance of conceptual understanding, fluency, and application
Can involve any or all mathematical practice standards
Machine scorable including innovative, computer-based formats
Will appear on the End of Year and Performance Based Assessment components
Sub-claims A, B, and E
II. Tasks assessing
expressing
mathematical
reasoning
•
•
•
•
•
Each task calls for written arguments / justifications, critique of reasoning, or
precision in mathematical statements (MP.3, 6).
Can involve other mathematical practice standards
May include a mix of machine-scored and hand-scored responses
Included on the Performance Based Assessment component
Sub-claim C
III. Tasks assessing
modeling/
applications
•
•
•
•
•
Each task calls for modeling/application in a real-world context or scenario (MP.4)
Can involve other mathematical practice standards
May include a mix of machine-scored and hand-scored responses
Included on the Performance Based Assessment component
Sub-claim D
11
Design of PARCC Math Summative Assessments
•Performance Based Assessment (PBA)
–Type I items (Machine-scoreable)
–Type II items (Mathematical Reasoning/Hand-Scored – scoring
rubrics are drafted but Performance Level Descriptor development
will inform final rubrics)
–Type III items (Mathematical Modeling/Hand-Scored and/or
Machine-scored - scoring rubrics are drafted but PLD development
will inform final rubrics)
•End-of-Year Assessment (EOY)
–Type I items only (All Machine-scoreable)
12
Evidence Statement Tables: Types of
Evidence Statements
Several types of evidence statements are being used to
describe what a task should be assessing, including:
1. Those using exact standards language
2. Those transparently derived from exact standards language, e.g.,
by splitting a content standard
3. Integrative evidence statements that express plausible direct
implications of the standards without going beyond the standards
to create new requirements
4. Sub-claim C & D evidence statements, which put MP.3, 4, 6 as
primary with connections to content
13
Types of Evidence Statements
1. Evidence Statements using exact standards language
14
Types of Evidence Statements
2. Evidence Statements transparently derived from exact
standards language, e.g., by splitting a content standard. Here
8.F.5 is split into 8.F.5-1 and 8.F.5-2
15
Types of Evidence Statements
3. Integrative evidence statements that express plausible direct
implications of the standards without going beyond the standards
to create new requirements
An Evidence Statement could be integrated across
• Grade/Course – Ex. 4.Int.2 (Integrated across Grade 4)
• Domain – F.Int.1 (Integrated across the Functions Domain)
• Cluster - S-ID.Int.1 (Integrated across S-ID Interpreting Categorical & Quantitative Data)
• Numbers at the end are for item developers and do not have any connection to coding
for the CCSS.
16
Example of Integrative Evidence Statement
17
Types of Evidence Statements
•4. Sub-claim C & Sub-claim D Evidence Statements, which put
MP. 3, 4, 6 as primary with connections to content
18
Using Evidence Tables to Understand Scope
• 5.NBT.B.7 Add, subtract, multiply, and divide decimals to hundredths, using concrete
models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or
the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method
and explain the reasoning used.
19
Using Evidence Tables to Understand Scope
• A-REI.C.6 Solve systems of linear equations exactly and approximately (e.g., with graphs),
focusing on pairs of linear equations in two variables.
•In Algebra I
•In Algebra II
20
Sample Task, High School
•This task is Type I, Sub-Claim A
•CCSS Content Standards A-REI.B.4b and Practice Standards MP5 and 7
21
Evidence Statement for Sample Task
•A-REI.B.4b Solve quadratic equations by inspection (e.g., for 𝑥 2 =
49), taking square roots, completing the square, the quadratic
formula and factoring, as appropriate to the initial form of the
equation. Recognize when the quadratic formula gives complex
solutions and write them as a ± bi for real numbers a and b.
22
Today’s agenda
1
Overview of PARCC and evidence-centered design
2
Math blueprints and evidence tables
3
ELA blueprints and evidence tables
4
Resources and conclusion
23
ELA/Literacy Claims for the PARCC Summative
Assessment
24
PARCC PBA Task types
25
ELA Task Generation Models
The task
generation
models outline
how the claims
and standards
are used to
generate tasks
for the PBA
26
Reading an Evidence Table
Grade
Claim
Standards:
RL –Reading
Literary
RI – Reading
Information
Evidences
27
27
Reading an Evidence Table for Grades 6 -11
Standards:
In Grades 6 – 11
Literacy Standards
for Reading
History/Social Studies
and for Reading
Science/Technical
are added
RH – Reading
History/Social Studies
RST – Reading
Science/Technical
28
28
Reading a Writing Evidence Table
Standards:
W – Writing
29
3rd Grade Sample Informational Text: Main
Idea Question
RI 2



Provides a statement of the main idea of a text. (1)
Provides a recounting of key details in a text. (2)
Provides an explanation of how key details in a text support the main idea. (3)
The question
requires students to
determine the main
idea of the passage.
Students must use
close reading to not
only determine the
main idea but to
select the textual
evidence that will
justify the chosen
main idea.
30
30
10th Grade Sample Prose Constructed
Response: Literary Analysis Text
Evidences:
•Written expression (Development of
ideas; Organization; Clarity of Language)
•Knowledge of Language and
Conventions
Sample item:
Like all PARCC PCR’s, this item aligns
with all writing evidences
Use what you have learned from reading “
Daedalus and Icarus ” by Ovid and “ To a
Friend Whose Work Has Come to Triumph ” by
Anne Sexton to write an essay that analyzes
how Icarus’s experience of flying is portrayed
differently in the two texts.
Develop your essay by providing textual
evidence from both texts. Be sure to follow
the conventions of standard English.
31
Reading Standard 1 on the Evidence Tables
•All questions are text-dependent and thus assess Reading
Standard 1
•All items measuring the reading major claim require students to
read a text prior to responding to the items
•This standard is always combined with the assessment of other
standards.
32
32
Key aspects of PARCC ELA items
• In all Evidence Tables for Grades 3 – 11 Standard 1 is always combined with the
teaching of any of the other standards.
• More than one evidence may be combined with Standard 1.
• Texts need to be complex literary or informational text(s) that students will use as a
basis for their answers.
• All items are text-dependent questions which require students to draw evidence
from a text to support their answers.
• Careful and close reading is required in order to determine meaning and answer
questions.
• Written tasks require writing to sources rather than a de-contextualized or
generalized prompt and require students to apply their knowledge of language and
conventions.
33
33
Today’s agenda
1
Overview of PARCC and evidence-centered design
2
Math blueprints and evidence tables
3
ELA blueprints and evidence tables
4
Resources and conclusion
34
PARCC Resources
• PARCC assessment blueprints and test specifications, including narrated explanatory PowerPoints:
http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-blueprints-test-specs
• PARCC assessment policies, including PLD’s (performance level descriptors):
http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-policies
• PARCC administration guidance (including technology specs): http://www.parcconline.org/assessmentadministration-guidance
• PARCC accessibility accommodations and fairness: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-accessibilityaccommodations-and-fairness
• PARCC Model Content Frameworks: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-model-content-frameworks
• PARCC item prototypes: http://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-prototypes
• PARCC timeline for future guidance:
http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCommunicationsTimeline_March%202013_FINAL_0.
pdf
35
How to stay informed
•www.tncore.org
– Sign up for TNCore Updates
– PARCC information (more will be added as it becomes available)
•tncore.questions@tn.gov
•Sign up for PARCC updates at http://www.parcconline.org/
36
Questions?
37
Thank you!
David Williams
Coordinator of Mathematics
Content and Resources
Tennessee Department of Education
david.s.williams@tn.gov
Lior Klirs
Coordinator of English Language Arts
Content and Resources
Tennessee Department of Education
lior.klirs@tn.gov