Everett Public Schools
Madison Elementary
School
LMS Department
August 28, 2014
Who are these LMS people ?
LMS: Who we are
and what we do
Jo Anne Buiteweg, Director
System Support:
Newel Rice, Data Systems Manager
Pete Dronzek, Student Data Systems Coordinator (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC, Teacher Insight)
Linda Holtorf, Student Data Systems Coordinator (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC)
David Passey, Systems Analyst
Pat Jones, Systems Support Analyst (Scantron Teacher Insight, Gradebook)
Noreen Wintch, Systems Support Analyst (Sungard eSchoolTAC/HAC)
REACH US at LMS@everettsd.org
Learning Management Systems
Parent AD User
Access
Data
Analysis
Tools
Gradebook
Student
Information
Systems
Cognos
Elementary
Progress
Content
Management
Assessment
Management
Website
Insight
LMS: Who we are
and what we do
Curriculum, Assessment and Instructional Technology Support:
Sonja Delafosse, Instructional Technology Specialist
Lauribeth Hull, Internet Technology Specialist
Paul Edwards, Curriculum Specialist (Curriculum Portal, Assessment for Learning
Tavis Miller, Curriculum Specialist (Grading, Proficiency Scaling, Common Assessments)
REACH US at LMS@everettsd.org
Partnership with Curriculum Specialists
DOK
Proficiency
Scaling
Leveling
Tasks
Common
Assessments
Assessment
for Learning
Instructional
Technology
StudentInvolved
Assessment
Grading for
Learning
Data Analysis
and Reporting
Initial Session Overview
• How does Depth of Knowledge (DOK) fit within
engaging students and having them think through
content in different ways?
• How is the “Depth of Knowledge” a foundation for
the construction of a proficiency scale to “unpack”
clusters/ standards?
• What do teachers experience in building
proficiency scales?
• How are scales use to design both assessment
items and instructional tasks?
• How can all teachers access the most up to date
maps, scales, assessments and more?
Backwards Design Model
Identify/Select Course Standards
“Common Core”
Scale Standards
Design/Use Common
“Leveled” Assessments
Instructional Plan/Map
Determine Reporting
Variables
Develop
Interventions/Enrichment
Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Adapted from the model used by Norman Webb,
University of Wisconsin, to align standards with
curriculum and assessments.
• The degree of depth or complexity of knowledge reflected in
the content standards and assessments
• How deeply a student needs to understand the content for a
given response/assessment
Created based on work of Webb, Norman L. and others. “Web Alignment Tool” 24
July 2005. Wisconsin Center of Educational Research. University of WisconsinMadison. 2 Feb. 2006
Depth of Knowledge depends on more than the verb. The
complexity also depends on what the verb is acting on.
For example, “draw” is in the DOK level 1 sector. But a
student who draws a blueprint of a new building is doing
more than recall of information.
Explain also can be at different levels--explain
by repeating a definition (DOK level 1), explain
by putting a paragraph into your own words (DOK
level 2), or explain by describing an analysis of the
factors contributing to the economic down turn
of the US (DOK level 3).
Depth of
thinking
required
Context
in which
the verb
is used
DOK
Level
What comes after the verb is more
important than the verb itself.
“Analyze this sentence to decide if the commas
have been used correctly” does not meet the
criteria for high cognitive processing.
Rationale: The student who has been taught the
rule for using commas is merely using the rule
DOK Snapshot
•
•
•
•
DOK is a scale of cognitive demand
DOK is not an exact science
DOK is about the item/standard not the student
The context of the item/standard must be considered to
determine the DOK level not just a look at what verb was
chosen.
• DOK is lowered when too much information is given
• DOK is not about difficulty but how much thinking is required
for the student to complete the prompt/task
Bloom’s and Webb’s
Different models to describe cognitive rigor
• Bloom – What type of thinking are needed to
complete the task?
• Webb – How deeply do you have to
understand the content to successfully
interact at a given depth? How complex is the
content?
Cognitive Rigor Matrix
This matrix from the Smarter Balanced Content Specifications for Mathematics draws from both
Bloom’s (revised) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Levels below.
DOK Further Clarification
• Addresses the content being assessed and the
depth to which we expect students to demonstrate
understanding of a particular content area
• Is a reference to the complexity of mental
processing that must occur to answer a question,
perform a task or generate a product
• Is not grade contextualized- all about the expertise
in a content area
Proficiency
Recall/
Reproduction
DOK 1
Extended
Thinking
DOK 4
Skills/
Concepts
DOK 2
Strategic
Thinking
DOK 3
Proficiency
Scale level
does not equal
DOK level
Determining DOK
• How would you describe the progression from 1st
grade to 4th grade?
• As a small group discuss and have one member
record what each standard’s DOK level might be and
provide a rationale for your thinking.
• Include any questions your discussion raised or
disagreements you encountered.
How can we be consistent
in applying DOK at our grade level?
Depth of Knowledge = Cognitive Demand = Rigor
• How much and what kind of “thinking” is called for in
each CCSS cluster, for classroom instruction and on
assessments?
• What kinds of “thinking” is called for approaching
the cluster and beyond the cluster?
Proficiency Scaling
The process of identifying and developing the
cognitive demand or level of rigor for a given
standard.
- Starting with the standard: educators use a framework …
(Webb’s DOK) …as way to build a rigorous proficiency-based
approach in the interest of valid and reliable assessing which
informs both teacher and student
- If Proficient is the standard:
- What is Advanced?
- What is a Basic?
Marzano, Robert J. Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading 2010
Advanced
Cognitive task extending from standard;
requiring decision-making, expressing
reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly
taught in new contexts
Proficient
Standard as defined by the state including
expectations for content, process, skills, and/or
performance to be explicitly taught.
Basic
Cognitive step just before standard that is
explicitly taught; includes concepts broken into
distinct segments, foundational skills and key
vocabulary.
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic.
K-Math
Advanced
Cognitive task extending from standard; requiring decision-making, expressing
reasoning, or applying what has been explicitly taught in new contexts
Count backwards from a given number by ones.
Write numbers from various starting points beyond 20 and continue the
number pattern.
Write given numbers out of sequence above 20.
Proficient
Standard as defined by the state including expectations for content, process, skills,
and/or performance to be explicitly taught.
Know number names and the count sequence. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS)
Count to 100 by ones (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count to 100 by tens (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.1)
Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence
(instead of having to begin at 1). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Write numbers from 0 to 20. (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.2)
Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0
representing a count of no objects). (MTH.K.CC.KNNCS.3)
Basic
Cognitive step just before standard that is explicitly taught; includes concepts broken
into distinct segments, foundational skills and key vocabulary
Uses the pattern of 1-9 to count within a decade (e.g. in twenties, in thirties,
etc)
Writes numbers from 0 to 20 using a tool (e.g. number line, 100s chart)
Represents a number of objects with a visual tool 0-20 (refer to a number line
or number card).
Recognizes the numbers from 0 to 20.
Foundational
Various cognitive steps before Basic.
Proficiency
Skills/
Concepts
DOK 2
Extended
Thinking
DOK 4
Recall/
Reproduction
DOK 1
Strategic
Thinking
DOK 3
Proficiency
Scale level
does not equal
DOK level
Leveraging Scales
Curriculum & Instruction
Scaling
and
Leveling
Rigorous, Informative
Assessment
Reporting Variables/
Grading Practices
29
Leveling in Assessment
Applying the cognitive level using the
proficiency scale to each item on an
assessment and activity in the
instructional map.
– build an assessment map determining
the number of leveled items/prompts
required to create a valid/reliable
assessment
– level through reverse engineering –
examine what is already in the
curriculum or provided by a publisher
and assign a level of rigor to the
Assessment Design
• Sufficient number of items to have evidence of
student’s understanding of a standard. Research
shows 5-9 items is optimal.
• Items grouped by standard
• Sufficient number of items at Basic and Proficient
levels
• Start with lower cognitive demand Basic and build
up Proficient and on to Advanced
• Balance of Basic and Proficient items with Advanced
item or performance task connected to assessment
• Best “type” of assessment item to measure level.
• Strength of item to distinguish both correctness and
misconceptions for instruction
Leveling in
Curriculum and Instruction
• Begin curriculum adoption process – creating
or examining scales
– Is the range of cognitive demand evident in
the materials under consideration?
• Create an instructional plan showing leveled
activities and leveled checks for
understanding
• Apply the cognitive level using the proficiency
scale to each activity in the instructional map.
Proficiency Scales
Impact on Grading
• Proficiency scales clearly define each level
of proficiency for a specific standard.
• Proficiency based leveled assessments need
to be scored differently
• When assessments are no longer about
points but evidence of proficiency a need
for grading differently is created
• Policies and practices must be examined for
any conflicts with a standards based
mindset