EQuIP Student Work Protocol — ELA/Literacy. Session Goals Develop reviewers’ ability to: Use the EQuIP Student Work Protocol to examine student work

EQuIP Student Work Protocol — ELA/Literacy

Session Goals

Develop reviewers’ ability to: Use the EQuIP Student Work Protocol to examine student work

and provide evidence-based feedback for both the task and also its lesson/unit.o Develop a common understanding among reviewers of task

alignment and quality.o Develop a common understanding of the alignment rating

descriptors for the EQuIP Student Work Protocol.

EQuIP Quality Review: Principles & Agreements

1. Alignment: Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar with the Common Core State Standards for the grade band targeted.

2. Inquiry: Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are organized in steps around a set of guiding questions.

3. Respect & Commitment: Each member of a review team is respected as a valued colleague and contributor who makes a commitment to the EQuIP process.

4. Criteria & Evidence: All observations, judgments, discussions and recommendations are criterion and evidence based.

5. Respectful and Constructive Feedback: Lessons/units to be reviewed are seen as “works in progress.” Reviewers are respectful of contributors’ work and make constructive observations and suggestions based on evidence from the work.

6. 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 the evidence they have found.

7. Understanding & Agreement: The goal of the process is to compare and eventually calibrate judgments to move toward agreement about quality with respect to college- and career-readiness.

Introduction to the Student Work Protocol

The objectives of the EQuIP Student Work Protocol are: • To analyze student work from a task within a lesson or

unit to establish evidence of task alignment with the targeted CCSS.

• To provide suggestions for improving the task and related instructional materials.

When selecting the task:

• Select a task from a CCSS-aligned lesson/unit.• Make sure the task is significant to the central purpose

of the lesson/unit.• Collect several samples from a cross-section of the

student group.• If from a longer lesson or full unit, consider selecting

multiple tasks that represent different aspects of the lesson/unit.


The collaborative process:

• Teams of reviewers are preferred.• Work from individual to collective.• Discuss and collaborate.

NOTE: The lesson/unit developer may or may not be a member of the team.


STEP 1: Analyze the Task

STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment

STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student Work STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student Work

Step 5: Provide suggestions for Improving the Materials

Steps for Reviewing Student Work

Without consulting the standards or the supporting materials in the lesson/unit, analyze the purpose and demands of the task as evidenced by the directions and/or prompt(s). • Record the grade, lesson/unit, and task title on the EQuIP Student

Work Protocol Form.• Use only the directions and prompts to analyze the requirements

of the task without consulting the instructional context and supporting materials in the lesson/unit.

• Study the task thoroughly, making notes about its purpose and demands and noting apparent aligned standards.



Record Notes & Observations

Without consulting the standards or the supporting materials in the lesson/unit, analyze the purpose and demands of the task as evidenced by the directions and/or prompt(s).

Guiding Questions• What content and performance demands does the task make on

students?• What is the purpose of the task?• Which Common Core standards seem to be targeted by the task?• What types of student reasoning are required by the task?• Are the complexity and nature of any associated texts appropriate

for the task and grade level?

Notes & Observations Regarding the Demands of the Task:

As stated in the introductory material, this unit is “explicitly and intentionally framed as skills-based instruction” (page 5). Engagement with this text, however, most definitely contributes to building student knowledge about the world. Students learn about an important inventor of the 21st century, hearing him reflect on how to take risks and live life boldly. Knowledge of these specific ideas from the text directly affects students’ abilities to form and support a claim.

Through a series of activities, students are asked to identify and organize key details to make a written claim about a text. Students must be able to quote or paraphrase details from the text, explain the connections among details, and ultimately, form a claim to make meaning out of the central ideas of the text.

STEP 1: Analyze the TaskGrade 6 – Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs

• Scan the entire lesson/unit, noting its purpose, content, and organization.

• Notice the placement of the task within the lesson/unit.

• Identify the standards targeted in the lesson/unit and compare to those identified in Step 1.

• Examine the answer keys, scoring guidelines, and/or rubrics related to the task.

STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the Task

Scan the lesson/unit to see what it contains and how it is organized.

Grade 6 ELA/Literacy — Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs*Text Description cover pageStandards Alignment page 3Tasks Related to Student Work

Forming evidence-based claims (EBCs) page 17Organizing EBCs page 22Writing EBCs page 30

Text separate fileScoring Guides/Rubrics• EBC Criteria Checklist (I & II)• Evidence-Based Writing Rubric• Text-Centered Discussion Checklist

Approximately 10- to 12-day unit*Page number references match the online PDF version of the unit.

STEP 2: Examine Instructional Context and CCSS Alignment of the Task – Grade 6 ELA Example

13

Use the alignment descriptors to evaluate the alignment between the targeted standards and the task.


Excellent The task demands are clearly consistent with all aspects of the identified standard(s).

Strong The task demands are consistent with the most critical aspects of the identified standard(s). However, some of the less critical aspects of the standard(s) may not be addressed (likely by design).

Weak The task demands do NOT address the most critical aspects of the identified standard(s). However, some of the less critical aspects of the standard(s) are addressed.

No Alignment The demands of the task do not match those of the identified standard(s).

Guiding Questions• Where does the task occur within the instructional sequence?

What have students already learned from the lesson/unit when they approach the task? What will they learn after?

• Does the lesson/unit include sufficient and effective instruction and scaffolding leading up to the task?

• Do the expectations described in the scoring guidelines correspond with your analysis of the task in Step 1?

• Is the task central to the learning goals of the lesson/unit?


Cont.

Guiding Questions (cont.)• Which standards targeted in the lesson/unit match the content

and performance demands of the task? • Do the directions, prompts, and/or scoring guidelines for the task

adequately provide or indicate opportunities for students to demonstrate the requirements of the targeted standard(s) for the task?



Notes & Observations Regarding Gaps in Alignment:

No major gaps in alignment between task/scoring guides and standards.


Cont.


Cont.


Use the table provided to analyze each individual student sample of work, asking the following questions about each:

– What does the student’s work demonstrate about his/her understanding of the task?

– What does the student’s work demonstrate about his/her proficiency with the requirements of the targeted CCSS?

– What does the student’s work demonstrate about the depth of his/her understanding and reasoning ability, including his/her understanding of any related texts and topics?

– How does the application of the scoring guidelines/rubrics related to the task support an understanding of the student’s proficiency?

STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student Work

Use the table provided to analyze each individual sample of work by asking the following questions about each:

STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student Work

Record Notes & Observations in the Rows

of the Table

Notes & Observations Regarding Student Responses to the Task:

Student #1: On Forming EBC worksheet, the student struggles to move from connecting details to making a broader claim. In writing, he/she knows how to collect evidence from the text but does not yet demonstrate the skill of being able to use these details to make meaning and form a coherent claim about the text.

Student #2: On Forming EBC worksheet, the student is not yet processing and unpacking the quotes in his/her own words. In the written piece, there is evidence of the structure of a two-part claim. However, there are so many different quotes from the text and not enough connection between the ideas.

STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student WorkGrade 6 – Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs


Student #3: In the final writing, this student attempts to synthesize and make meaning but does not pay close attention to how Jobs connected the details in his own story; not cohesive.

STEP 3: Analyze Individual Student WorkGrade 6 – Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs

STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student Work

Cont.

Look for trends across the collection of samples of student work.Guiding Questions

• On what aspects of the task have students generally performed well?

• What are the most frequent and fundamental problems students appear to be having with the task? Are there common errors made across the collection of student work?

• What does the range of student work demonstrate about the clarity of the task, directions, and supporting materials?

• In what ways do the scoring guidelines/rubrics aid in the evaluation of student proficiency on the targeted standards?

STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student Work


Guiding Questions (cont.)

• What do the patterns across multiple student work samples indicate about alignment of the task to the targeted standards?

• In what ways does the task allow (or not allow) students to demonstrate various levels of proficiency* with the targeted standards?

• Is there evidence of consistent levels of reasoning and understanding across the samples of student work?

• What does the pattern of student responses show about their common understanding of the text?

*Note: A range of student understanding of the requirements of the task and its targeted standards, from merely “proficient” to “deep conceptual understanding and reasoning,” might be evident in the student work.


All three students were successful in identifying key details in the text, but they struggled to connect these details and analyze how they contribute to the development of one of the central ideas of the text. Students struggled to closely attend to the way Jobs connected the details in the telling of his own story. Without understanding the movement of his story, it was difficult for students to achieve deeper understanding of the central ideas of the text and develop their own claims successfully.

STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student WorkGrade 6 – Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs

Implications for future task development:

In their responses, students were able to form claims, but often they missed connections among details that were central to Jobs’ speech. This may suggest that the task is strong but that supporting materials in the lesson, and instruction leading up to the task, could include more discussion around text-specific questions to increase student comprehension. Deeper comprehension of the speech would support students in making stronger connections among details in their claims.

STEP 4: Analyze the Collection of Student WorkGrade 6 – Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs

Use insights from the alignment process and examination of student work to suggest improvements to the instructional materials.

Guiding Questions

• Are the task instructions clear to students? How could they be modified to increase student understanding of the task expectations?

• Is the task properly placed within the overall lesson/unit plan? If not, how might it be repositioned?

• Does the task allow a variety of students to demonstrate their own level of proficiency? What modifications might be made to the task to elicit evidence of various levels of proficiency?

STEP 5: Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials

Cont.

Guiding Questions (cont.)

• Do the task prompts, directions, and requirements provide students with a clear opportunity to demonstrate proficiency for the targeted standards? What modifications to the task might elicit better evidence of proficiency on the targeted standards?

• Does the task allow students to demonstrate deep understanding and reasoning about the related concepts, topics or texts? What modifications to the task might allow students to demonstrate the deep reasoning and understanding ?

• What modifications to scoring guidelines/rubrics would improve guidance for evaluating student proficiency on the targeted standards?

STEP 5: Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials

Record Suggestions for Improvement

Suggestions for Improvement for the Task and the Lesson/Unit:The text-dependent questions provide excellent support for helping students access the central ideas of this text. Developers should consider ways to make the connection even stronger between the discussion of text-dependent questions (building knowledge) and the skill of forming evidence-based claims. Can the text-dependent questions lay a clear path toward a central idea around which students will make a claim? A solid example of this occurs on pages 15–16 with the third text-dependent question in activity 2. This should be highlighted in the materials as it is the heart of the lesson.

The scoring rubrics provided in this unit are strong and useful for evaluating student work!

STEP 5: Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials – Grade 6: Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs

Suggestions for Improvement for the Task and the Lesson/Unit:The text-dependent questions provide excellent support for helping students access the central ideas of this text. Developers should consider ways to make the connection even stronger between the discussion of text-dependent questions (building knowledge) and the skill of forming evidence-based claims. Can the text-dependent questions lay a clear path toward a central idea around which students will make a claim? A solid example of this occurs on pages 15–16 with the third text-dependent question in activity 2. This should be highlighted in the materials as it is the heart of the lesson.

The scoring rubrics provided in this unit are strong and useful for evaluating student work!

STEP 4: Provide Suggestions for Improving the Materials – Grade 6: Making Evidence-Based Claims: Steve Jobs

Did we develop a common understanding among reviewers of: How examining student work, using the Student Work

Protocol, can provide another lens through which we can view and provide feedback for a task and its lesson/unit?oHow to assess the quality and alignment of an individual

task in a lesson/unit?oHow the alignment descriptors are used in the Student

Work Protocol?

Reflect on Session Goals

http://www.achieve.org/EQuIP



Documents

EQuIP Student Work Protocol — ELA/Literacy. Session Goals Develop reviewers’ ability to: Use the EQuIP Student Work Protocol to examine student work