39
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
An Introduction to PARCC Design Principles and Evidence Tables for
ELA and Math
June 12, 2013Tennessee Department of Education, Division of Curriculum and Instruction
Webinar
2
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
3
PARCC will be given in two sessions
PBA End of Year
Feb/ March April / May
PBA II EOC II
3-8 Schedule
High School Schedule
PBA I EOC I
Feb/ March April / MayOct / Nov Dec /Jan
4
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.
Evidence-Centered Design (ECD)
Claims
Design begins with the inferences (claims) we want to make about students
Evidence
In order to support claims, we must gather evidence
Task Models
Tasks are designed to elicit specific evidence from students in support of claims
5
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
6
• 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.
What are evidence tables?
6
7
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
8
• 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
Instructional uses of the evidence statements/tables for teachers
8
9
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
10
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
PracticesThe student solves problems involving the Additional and Supporting Content for her
grade/course with connections to the Standards for Mathematical Practice.
Sub-Claim C: Highlighted Practices MP.3,6 with Connections to Content
(expressing mathematical reasoning)The student expresses grade/course-
level 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.
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).
11
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.
12
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
13
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)
14
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
15
Types of Evidence Statements
1. Evidence Statements using exact standards language
16
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
17
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.
18
Example of Integrative Evidence Statement
19
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
20
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.
21
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
22
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
23
Evidence Statement for Sample Task
• A-REI.B.4b Solve quadratic equations by inspection (e.g., for = 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.
24
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
25
ELA/Literacy Claims for the PARCC Summative Assessment
26
PARCC PBA Task types
27
ELA Task Generation Models
The task generation models outline how the claims and standards are used to generate tasks for the PBA
28
Reading an Evidence Table
GradeClaim
Standards:RL –Reading LiteraryRI – Reading Information
Evidences
28
29
Reading an Evidence Table for Grades 6 -11
Standards: In Grades 6 – 11 Literacy Standards for Reading History/Social Studies and for Reading Science/Technicalare added
RH – Reading History/Social StudiesRST – Reading Science/Technical
29
30
Reading a Writing Evidence Table
Standards: W – Writing
31
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.
31
32
Sample item:
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.
10th Grade Sample Prose Constructed Response: Literary Analysis Text
Evidences:• Written expression (Development of
ideas; Organization; Clarity of Language)
• Knowledge of Language and Conventions
Like all PARCC PCR’s, this item aligns with all writing evidences
33
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.
33
34
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.
34
35
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
36
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/assessment-administration-guidance
• PARCC accessibility accommodations and fairness: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-accessibility-accommodations-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
37
How to stay informed
• www.tncore.org – Sign up for TNCore Updates
– PARCC information (more will be added as it becomes available)
• Sign up for PARCC updates at http://www.parcconline.org/
38
Questions?
Thank you!
Lior KlirsCoordinator of English Language ArtsContent and ResourcesTennessee Department of Education [email protected]
David WilliamsCoordinator of Mathematics Content and ResourcesTennessee Department of Education [email protected]
