Hawaii Student Learning ObjectiveAlgebra I (Grades 7-9)

May 2013

2

Table of ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What Is an SLO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What Is an Annotated SLO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

How to Use This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Hawaii Contextual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Student Learning Objective: Algebra I (Grades 7-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Element List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Priority Learning Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Needs Assessment/Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Student Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Instructional Approaches/Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Assessment Method(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SLOs as SMART Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Overview of Hawaii Algebra I (Grades 7-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3

Introduction What is an SLO?

As States and school districts implement educator evaluation systems that include measures of student growth, one of the challenges they face is identifying measures for non-tested grades and subjects. The use of student learning objectives (SLOs) is one promising approach to addressing this challenge. Structurally, an SLO consists of several “elements” that describe a specific learning objective for a particular student population as well as a specific, systematic process for how an educator can identify and implement strategies to track progress toward that goal and achieve it.

What is an Annotated SLO?

The Reform Support Network (RSN) has developed a series of annotated SLOs to orient readers around their structure, provide analysis and suggest specific actions to strengthen the SLO’s quality. Each annotated SLO, such as the one in this document, provides analysis and suggestions for improvement for each individual element within the SLO as well as the SLO as a whole. States, school districts, colleges, universities and others can use the RSN’s collection of annotated SLOs, the “SLO Library,” to prepare teachers and administrators to develop high-quality SLOs or to improve SLOs that they have already developed.

The SLO Library is not a collection of exemplary SLOs. The RSN designed the library as a teaching tool, so most of the jurisdictions intentionally provided the library with SLOs that vary in quality. They also vary in their subject areas and grade levels. Each SLO review identifies and discusses both strengths and areas for improvement. It is up to the reader, then, not to mimic the SLOs found in the library but to extrapolate lessons learned from them to produce new, original and high quality SLOs.

How to Use This Document

The RSN intends for the SLO Library to support any stakeholder actively engaged in learning about or implementing SLOs: State departments of education, school districts and schools, teachers implementing SLOs, administrators leading an SLO process and colleges of education interested in adding SLO coursework to their teacher or administrator preparation programs.

Each annotated SLO begins with contextual information for the jurisdiction that produced the SLO and then presents each element of the SLO in sequence. Each element begins with the jurisdiction’s actual description of it, which is followed by the text of “an author” from the jurisdiction. Think of the author as the teacher(s) or school district administrator(s) who actually wrote the SLO. The language from the jurisdiction’s description comes from the jurisdiction’s SLO template or other guidance materials. The author’s text comes from the SLO provided by the jurisdiction. Both sections are unedited.

The subsequent section, “Review of the Author’s Text and Potential Improvements,” is the focus of the library and should be of greatest interest to the reader. This section analyzes the text written by the author from the jurisdiction and provides considerations for improving the quality of the individual element.

An overall summary of the entire SLO follows the presentation of the elements and concludes the review of the SLO.

The appendix contains what the RSN calls an “element comparison tool,” which links the name of the element used by this jurisdiction to the standardized term used in the SLO Library. The comparison table intends to provide readers with the means to compare elements across SLOs, even if they are called by different names.

4

Hawaii Contextual InformationSLO Implementation TimelineSchool year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs without stakes for teachers 1

2012–2013

School year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs with stakes for teachers2

2013–2014

School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation TBD

SLO Development and ApprovalWho develops SLOs? Individual teachers, grade- or content-level teams of

teachers

Are collectively developed SLOs permitted (for example, by teams of teachers and administrators)?

Yes

Who approves SLOs? School administrators

SLO Use in EvaluationAre SLOs required or optional for use in evaluating educators? Required

Are SLOs the sole measure of student growth in the evaluation system? If not, what other measure(s) does the jurisdiction use?

No, the State uses student-growth percentiles.

Does the jurisdiction use SLOs to determine educator compensation?

No

What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for teachers in the jurisdiction’s evaluation system?

TBD

What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for administrators in the jurisdiction’s evaluation system?

N/A

SLO ImplementationHow many SLOs are required for most teachers? TBD

How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? N/A

Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? TBD

SLO AssessmentWho selects which assessments are used for SLOs? Teachers and administrators choose the assessments.

Are there standards or required development processes for assessments created by teachers, schools, or districts? If so, whatare they?

All assessments must be aligned to State or college- and career-ready standards. Hawaii is piloting an assessment criteria tool as well.

What types of assessments are permitted? Teacher-developed, complex-developed, school-developed and State-developed assessments

Are performance or portfolio-based assessments permitted for SLOs?

Yes

Are commercially available assessments permitted for SLOs? Yes 1 SLOs will not be used in educator evaluations2 SLOs may be used in educator evaluations

5

Student Learning Objective: Algebra I (Grades 7-9)Element List

Priority Learning Targets............................................................................................................................................5

Needs Assessment/Rationale....................................................................................................................................6

Student Population.......................................................................................................................................................7

Instructional Approaches/Strategies......................................................................................................................8

Assessment Method(s)................................................................................................................................................9

SLOs as a SMART Goal...............................................................................................................................................11

Priority Learning TargetsStandardized Name

Learning ContentJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTUsing the State Strategic Plan, the school’s Academic and Financial Plan (ACFIN) and/or team goals, the teacher identifies the area of need and related State/National standards. This need must be based on longitudinal (when available), baseline or pre-assessment data.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTHigh School Mathematics Clusters: Creating equations that describe numbers or relationships (A.CED.2); Build a function that models a relationship between two quantities (F.BF.1); Analyze functions using different representations (F.IF.7).

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe selected learning content includes alphanumeric references, but it is not clear to what body of standards they refer (it appears to be the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics). The content is central to the course, as all three standards selected address functions, a critical component of an algebra course at this level.

Providing more text and greater clarity about the selection of the learning targets would strengthen this SLO. For instance, does the author’s team share these goals, or do they come from the State’s strategic plan?

6

Needs Assessment/RationaleStandardized Name

RationaleJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe teacher articulates why the specific area of focus was chosen. If the teacher’s goal does not directly align to the goals of the school, a justification is provided. The teacher also articulates why/how the targets for student growth were identified. Results from pre-assessment data may also indicate a need for instruction of a specific topic or content.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTMathematical modeling is a critical area of focus for high school mathematics and provides numerous opportunities for students to make connections to everyday life experiences and apply their knowledge in real-world contexts. Students’ understanding of mathematical modeling, and building and interpreting various representations of functions are further developed in Algebra I through the analysis of graphs, tables, equations and diagrams providing an important foundation for the work they will be doing throughout high school mathematics courses.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author justifies the need in terms of its importance to the content to the course and future learning.

The author might consider indicating why the standards matter to the particular students selected. There are two primary considerations in the choice of standards: the needs of the students and the importance of the standards to the course.

7

Student PopulationStandardized Name

Student PopulationJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe student population should identify the number of students with IEPs, the number of ELL students and any other demographic information that helps to describe their class. The teacher may choose to focus the SLO on the whole class, a subgroup, or a segment population. Of the two SLOs, at least one should cover at least 75% of the students of which you are the teacher of record. If a teacher teaches multiple classes/sections, the SLO will be written for one class.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe author of the SLO left this blank .

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

It is unclear which students the author intends to include in this SLO. Consequently, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the SLO is appropriate.

Consider identifying the students selected for this SLO. An SLO should contain specific students and information connecting those students to the content selected. It will also be important to identify individualized targets.

8

Instructional Approaches/StrategiesStandardized Name

Instructional StrategiesJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe teacher articulates “how” students will progress towards the intended goal. These instructional approaches may be in the form of evidence-based strategies and activities, as well as ideas to keep students engaged, ways to improve students’ critical thinking, etc.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe author of the SLO left this blank .

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author does not include instructional strategies for teaching the content.

What interventions will occur if students do not initially demonstrate progress? How would the teacher know when to apply those interventions? How do instructional strategies promote inclusion of special education students and English learners? The author might consider stating the approach for teaching the learning content. Much of the power of SLOs as an instructional reform exists in the link between learning content, teacher practice and student performance.

9

Assessment Method(s)Standardized Name

AssessmentsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

The teacher identifies the methods that will be used to collect data/evidence on student progress. These may include, but are not limited to:

• Norm referenced assessments

• Teacher generated tests and quizzes

• Writing samples (with rubrics specifically reflecting the SLO)

• Observational check lists

• Benchmark assessments

• Performance assessments

• Student created work (such as class assignments) that reflect the student learning objectives outlined in the SLO plan

• Student surveys (that reflect the objectives identified in the SLO plan)

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTZachary just opened up his own clothing store and is planning to advertise his business so that people will learn about his new store. He decides that he wants to create postcards that he will distribute all over Honolulu. He did some research, collecting prices from several printing companies and has narrowed his choice down to two:

• Aloha Printing Company charges $10 for every 25 postcards printed

• 808 Designs Company charges a $30 fee to begin the printing plus $10 for every 50 postcards

1. Using C for the cost of the printing and t for the number of tickets, Zach writes a function for each of the printing companies. For the Aloha Printing Company, Zach creates the function

C =10( t25 )

a. Write a function to represent the cost for the 808 Designs Company.

10

2. Graph (and LABEL) both functions in the coordinate plane below.

3. What do the two graphs tell us about the cost of printing postcards at both companies? What company should Zachary choose for different circumstances? Explain your answer using any information from the graphs to help support your conclusion.

4. Zachary wants to set up an equation to determine when the cost of printing the postcards would be the same for both companies.

a. Set up an equation for Zachary and then solve it.

b. Write a brief explanation to Zachary about what your solution means in terms of this situation.

11

Scoring Guide/Rubric

Criteria PointsPossible

points for section

5. Gives the correct function, such astC =30+10( 50 )

• Partial credit may be awarded for

tC =30+( 50 )or

t+10C =30+( 50 ).

2

(1)

26. Draws the correct graph for

tC =10( 25 ) Ö Graph should go through (0, 0), (100, 40), (200, 80), etc.

Draws the correct graph for

C ( t=30+10 50 ).

Ö Graph should go through (0, 30), (100, 50), (200, 70), etc.

Ö Full credit should be awarded for a correct graph based upon an incorrect function stated in question 1.

2

2

47. Gives a correct explanation such as,

“If Zachary orders less than 150 postcards, Aloha Printing would be cheaper. If he orders more than 150 postcards, 808 Designs would be cheaper.”

Ö Full credit should be awarded for a correct explanation based upon an incorrect function stated in question 1.

• Partial credit may be awarded for a partially correct explanation

2

(1)

2

12

8. a. Gives a correct equation, such as

t10 ( )=30+10( t25 50 ).

Shows correct work to solve the equation:

( 2t ) =30( t5 5 )2t =150+t

t=150 Ö Full credit should be awarded for a correct solution based upon an incorrect

function stated in question 1.

• Partial credit may be awarded for an incorrect solution resulting from a minor error in the student’s work to solve the equation.

b. Gives a correct explanation such as, “If Zachary orders 150 postcards then both companies will charge him the same amount.”

Ö Full credit should be awarded for a correct explanation based upon an incorrect function stated in question 1.

1 2

(1) 1

4

Proficient: 10 – 12 points Approaching Proficiency: 7 – 9 points Limited Proficiency: 1 – 6 points

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe assessment includes rigorous constructed-response items. The author includes a scoring guide, clarifying how the assessment will be scored.

It is valuable to document the alignment between content and assessment items. For example, the author might consider adding a column to the Scoring Guide/Rubric to indicate which assessment items measure which standards. Also, consider measuring each standard using multiple items to increase reliability. Is this one measure alone enough?

13

SLOs as a SMART GoalStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe teacher defines the SLO by writing a goal that is:

• Specific

• Measurable

• Attainable

• Realistic

• Time Specific

SMART goals are a way to not only decide what to do, but how to do it in a way that can easily be tracked to determine whether or not progress is made and know when the goals are met.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT90% of students will create equations and build and analyze functions and are able to obtain proficient-10 or better on a 12-point scoring guide by the end of the year.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author identifies a percentage of students and a minimum score that teachers and evaluators will use to determine the outcome of this SLO. However, the wording of the element creates some confusion. The use of the conjunction “and” after the statement that “90% of students will create equations and build and analyze functions” suggests that these activities are distinct from their obtaining a 10, 11 or 12 on the scoring guide.

Clarity is integral to target setting. While an evaluator would likely be able to infer what the author means here, the author should leave nothing to chance by writing clear goal statements. Presenting a table with clear pre-assessment scores for each individual student in the population as well as an individualized target would produce greater clarity for this SLO.

Overview of Hawaii Algebra 1 (Grades 7-9)This is an incomplete Algebra I SLO, but it has a promising foundation upon which to build. The author identifies a reasonable amount of central content and includes the actual assessment and scoring guide, though there should be some discussion as to whether adding items to the assessment would provide a more accurate picture of student learning. Further refinement of other elements would be possible once the author identifies a student population and collects data to analyze and delineate need. Because the author paraphrases the standards instead of citing them verbatim, it is difficult to determine if the standards and the assessments align.

14

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across JurisdictionsHawaii Element Name Standardized Name

Priority Learning Targets Learning Content

Needs Assessment/Rationale Rationale

Student Population Student Population

Instructional Approaches/Strategies Instructional Strategies

Assessment Method(s) Assessments

SLOs as a SMART Goal Student Growth Targets

An earlier version of this document was developed under the auspices of the Reform Support Network, with funding from the U.S. Department of Education under contract #GS-23F-8182H. This publication features information from public and private organizations and links to additional information created by those organizations. Inclusion of this information does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any products or services offered or views expressed, nor does the Department of Education control its accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness.