equip rubric & quality review training session: ela/literacy grades 6 – 8 1

EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Training Session:

ELA/Literacy Grades 6 – 8

1

2

Session Goals

Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts (ELA)/literacy.

During this session, reviewers will:1. Develop a common understanding of the EQuIP quality review process 2. Develop a common understanding of the EQuIP Rubric including its criteria and rating

scale 3. Practice using the EQuIP quality review process and rubric to evaluate and provide

feedback on CCSS-aligned instructional materials

3

EQuIP Quality Review: Principles & Agreements

1. CCSS: Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar with the CCSS.

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. Constructive: 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 the CCSS.

4

EQuIP Quality Review: Process & Rubric Dimensions

EQuIP Quality Review ProcessThe EQuIP quality review process is a collegial process that centers on the use of criteria-based rubrics for English language arts (ELA)/literacy and mathematics. The criteria are organized into four dimensions:

The Four Rubric Dimensions1. Alignment to the depth of the CCSS; 2. Key shifts in the CCSS;3. Instructional supports; and4. Assessment.

As educators examine instructional materials against the criteria in each dimension, they are able to use common standards for quality and generate evidence-based commentary and ratings on the quality and alignment of materials.

5

Using the Electronic Quality Review Rubric PDF Form

6

Using the Quality Review Rubric PDF Form

For each dimension:

• Select the checkbox for each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found.

• Make observations and suggestions related to criteria and evidence.

• Determine a rating for each dimension based on checked criteria and observations.

For Dimension I:• Use alignment rating to

determine whether to proceed with review.

7

EQuIP Quality Review ProcessThe Five Steps

Step 1. Review Materials

Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimensions II – IV

Step 4. Apply Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments

Step 5. Compare Overall Ratings and Determine Next Steps

8

EQuIP Quality Review Process

Step 1. Review Materials • Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the Quality Review Rubric PDF• Scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized • Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance• Study and measure the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit,

analyzing text complexity, quality, scope and relationship to instruction

Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS• Identify the grade-level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets• Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion• Indicate each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found • Record input on specific improvements needed to meet criteria or strengthen alignment• Compare observations and suggestions for improvement• Determine if the lesson/unit warrants a full review

9

EQuIP Quality Review Process

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimensions II–IV • Examine the lesson/unit through the “lens” of each criterion • Indicate each criterion met and record observations and feedbackWhen working in a group, individuals may choose to compare observations and suggestions for improvement after each dimension or wait until each person has rated and recorded all input for Dimensions II–IV.

Step 4. Apply an Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments • Individually review comments for Dimensions I–IV, adding/clarifying comments as needed • Individually write summary comments on the Quality Review Rubric PDFWhen working in a group, individuals should record summary comments prior to conversation.

Step 5. Determine Next Steps for Your Learning Community • What additional practice is needed on the EQuIP Review Process and Rubric?• What communication and support will the developer receive?• What other ways can the EQuIP processes and materials influence and be incorporated into

your practice.

10

EQuIP Quality Review ProcessThe Flowchart

Discussion and collaboration must occur after Dimension I and then again either for all dimensions after Dimension IV or …

… separately after each dimension and …

… always during the overall rating process and summary comments.

11

EXAMPLE: Common Unit for Review — ELA/Literacy

Grade 6— A Close Reading of The Great Fire by Jim Murphy (excerpt)

12

EXAMPLE:Step 1. Review Materials• Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the Quality Review Rubric PDF

A Close Reading of The Great Fire by Jim Murphy (excerpt)

• Scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized– Overview– TOC– Annotated text and graphs– A lesson with instructional notes and assessment opportunities– Evidence Collector Chart for the writing assignment

• Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance– Overview– Text– Directions for teachers (pg. 8)– The Lesson – Questions, Activities, and Tasks – Culminating and optional writing assignments and assessment– Evidence Collector Chart

13

EXAMPLE:Step 1. Review Materials• Study and measure the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit,

analyzing text complexity, quality, scope and relationship to instruction– Read the short text on pages 4-6.

14

Criteria for Dimension I: Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS

The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of grade-level ELA/literacy standards . Includes a clear and explicit purpose for instruction. Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-level text complexity band and are of

sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose (i.e., present vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-level exemplars in Appendices A and B).

A unit or longer lesson should: Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize

advancing literacy skills. (Grades 3–5) Build students’ content knowledge and their understanding of reading and

writing in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts.

15

Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment

INDIVIDUALLY:• Identify the grade-level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets• Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion• Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found • Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY:• Compare and discuss checks and evidence• What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked?• Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the

instructional materials?

16

EXAMPLE:Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment

The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: 1. Targets a set of grade-level ELA/literacy standards. 2. Includes a clear and explicit purpose for instruction. 3. Selects text(s) that measure within the grade-level text complexity band and are of

sufficient quality and scope for the stated purpose (i.e., present vocabulary, syntax, text structures, levels of meaning/purpose, and other qualitative characteristics similar to CCSS grade-level exemplars in Appendices A and B).

A lesson or longer unit should: 4. Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize

advancing literacy skills. 5. (Grades 3–5) Build students’ content knowledge and their understanding of reading

and writing in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through the coherent selection of texts.

NOTE: Reviewers should be able to refer to evidence to support pattern of checkboxes selected.

17

Dimension Rating and Descriptive Scales To Synthesize Judgment

Rating Scale for Dimensions I–IV:

3: Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension

2: Meets many of the criteria in the dimension

1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension

0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension

Descriptors for Dimensions I–IV:

3: Exemplifies CCSS Quality — meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension, as explained in criterion-based observations

2: Approaching CCSS Quality — meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations

1: Developing toward CCSS Quality — needs significant revision, as suggested in criterion-based observations

0: Not representing CCSS Quality — does not address the criteria in the dimension

18


Rating: 2

Approaching CCSS Quality — meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations

19

Providing Feedback

Writing effective feedback is vital to the EQuIP Quality Review Process. Below are the four qualities of effective feedback. • Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each

dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. • Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the

lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met.

• Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material.

• Clarity Provided: Written comments are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions.

20


Observations/Feedback and Rating

In this lesson students learn about the Great Fire of Chicago while developing career and college-ready skills by engaging in close reading with text-dependent tasks and questions. Students read The Great Fire by Jim Murphy an informational piece with a narrative structure, and use a map and bar graph. The lesson addresses a large set of ELA grade-level standards: 6.1 (textual evidence), 6.2 (central idea), 6.3 (analyze key details), 6.4 (meaning of words), 6.5 (text structure) 6.6 (author's point of view), 6.8 (evaluate argument). The large number of listed standards and the broad objective of "close reading" impede the clarity and focus of instruction. Furthermore, the alignment to the listed standards in the unit rests on the nature of the questions and not on any direct instruction.

Instructional alignment and clarity of purpose could be improved by limiting the focus to RI.2 and RI.3 (which the EOU writing prompt addresses). This focus on determining the central idea of a text could then be made clearer to the students. The explicitness of the questions could also decrease as the reading progressed, requiring more independence in student analysis.

21

Providing Feedback for Dimension I: Alignment

Identify where you see evidence of the first two qualities of effective feedback• Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each





22

Criteria for Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS

The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence and

discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction. Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing

about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking and text-dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video and media).

Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses or formal essays).

Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on building students’ academic vocabulary in context throughout instruction.

23

Criteria for Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS

A unit or longer lesson should: Increasing Text Complexity: Focus students on reading a progression of complex texts

drawn from the grade-level band. Provide text-centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the college- and career-ready level.

Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provide opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-specific texts.

Balance of Texts: Within a collection of grade-level units a balance of informational and literary texts is included according to guidelines in the CCSS (p. 5).

Balance of Writing: Include a balance of on-demand and process writing (e.g., multiple drafts and revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.

24

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension II: Key Shifts

INDIVIDUALLY:• Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion• Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found • Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY:• Compare and discuss checks and evidence• What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked?• Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the


25

EXAMPLE:Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension II: Key Shifts

The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence and

discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction. Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing

about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking and text-dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video and media).

Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses or formal essays).

Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on building students’ academic vocabulary in context throughout instruction.

26


A unit or longer lesson should: Increasing Text Complexity: Focus students on reading a progression of complex texts

drawn from the grade-level band. Provide text-centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent reading of complex texts at the college- and career-ready level.

Building Disciplinary Knowledge: Provide opportunities for students to build knowledge about a topic or subject through analysis of a coherent selection of strategically sequenced, discipline-specific texts.

Balance of Texts: Within a collection of grade-level units a balance of informational and literary texts is included according to guidelines in the CCSS (p. 5).

Balance of Writing: Include a balance of on-demand and process writing (e.g., multiple drafts and revisions over time) and short, focused research projects, incorporating digital texts where appropriate.

27












28


Rating: 2


29



Students read The Great Fire in three chunks, digging deeply into one section per day. The lesson featured a large set of questions, many of which required students to reread and support their answers with text-based evidence. Other questions served a variety of purposes in attempt to address multiple standards, such Day #3 Q#2 inferring author's purpose (RI.6.6).

The developer did not specifically identify how the students are to respond to the questions, so it is difficult to determine if and when students are writing during the instructional sequence. Are they to individually answer the questions or are oral strategies to be used? Are there opportunities to have students share their ideas with peers before sharing whole class? The developer leaves these questions open to teacher choice. The developer might consider providing a more structured model for working through the questions. The model developed should focus on the teacher being able to elicit formative feedback from each student to assess comprehension.

30



The final writing prompt is challenging for sixth grade students in that they have to clearly understand the factors that led to the severity of the fire and then choose reasonable solutions that may mitigate future fires: “Which two changes to the Chicago fire code might have helped lessen the impact of the Great Fire of 1871?” Such a challenging writing activity should be well -supported during instruction that leads to it. The developer might consider whether all students will be able to fairly approach this prompt with the support offered. The chart that links details about Chicago to the potential solutions is a necessary first step for this writing. Completing this chart might be easier if the prompt topic had been introduced to students earlier and parts of the chart were completed each day. If the focus of this part of the lesson is on argumentative writing rather than or reading then this sort of scaffolding appropriately supports the writing focus and mitigates the reading issues that may interfere with students demonstrating their ability to write. The developer might consider the format in which the modern building codes are presented to students: one possibility is providing a copy of these codes for students

31



Although Appendix C provides a comprehensive vocabulary list, there is little guidance from the developer as to appropriate vocabulary instructional strategies. How does the teacher use the rich vocabulary analysis in Appendix C to enhance instruction? How does this Appendix C translate into instructional opportunities for students? The developer might consider including a model of vocabulary-focused instruction as an example for teachers that are hoping to replicate this lesson. One could include examples of how to teach an 'quicker to learn' word as opposed to a 'harder to learn' word.

32

Providing Feedback

Identify where you see evidence of the last two qualities of effective feedback:• Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each





33

Criteria for Dimension III: Instructional Supports

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing and speaking about texts.

Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use.

Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text.

Focuses on challenging sections of text(s) and engages students in a productive struggle through discussion questions and other supports that build toward independence.

Integrates appropriate supports in reading, writing, listening and speaking for students who are English language learners, have disabilities or read well below the grade level text band.

Provides extensions and/or more advanced text for students who read well above the grade level text band.

34

Criteria for Dimension III: Instructional Supports

A unit or longer lesson should: Include a progression of learning where concepts and/or skills advance and deepen over

time (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Gradually remove supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-directed inquiry, analysis, evaluation and/or reflection.

Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3–5.

Indicate how students are accountable for independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

35

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension III: Instructional Supports

INDIVIDUALLY:• Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion• Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found • Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence • Write feedback using the four qualities for one of the criterion that you checked/not –

checkedCOLLECTIVELY:• Compare and discuss checks and evidence• What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked?• Do our observations and feedback reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of

evidence) in the instructional materials?• Choose one piece of feedback for the group to share with entire room

36

EXAMPLE:Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension III: Supports

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing and speaking about texts.

Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use.

Provides all students with multiple opportunities to engage with text of appropriate complexity for the grade level; includes appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of the text.

Focuses on challenging sections of text(s) and engages students in a productive struggle through discussion questions and other supports that build toward independence.

Integrates appropriate supports in reading, writing, listening and speaking for students who are English language learners, have disabilities or read well below the grade level text band.

Provides extensions and/or more advanced text for students who read well above the grade level text band.

37


A unit or longer lesson should: Include a progression of learning where concepts and/or skills advance and deepen over

time (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Gradually remove supports, requiring students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills, student-directed inquiry, analysis, evaluation and/or reflection.

Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3–5.

Indicate how students are accountable for independent reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units).

Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

38












39


Rating: 2


40



Although the author provides a rationale, the cold reading strategy paired with the lack of any sort of anticipatory set to explain the purpose of the lesson or set a purpose for reading does little to cultivate student interest. All students are provided multiple opportunities to hear and engage with the text. The developer should consider ways to engage students in the lesson helping them want to engage with the text for a clear purpose of preparing students to do the work of reading closely. The developer should consider introducing the writing purpose, preventing future fires from the outset of the lesson. (See comments in dimension 2).

41



Adequately articulated extensions and supports for readers who excel or struggle are not included in this lesson. Recommendations include grouping strategies and more scaffolded supports for written work. The developer should consider providing clear, explicit directions and instructional strategy models about how the teacher is to work with these students. An opportunity for this would be to provide the writing assignment chart that includes a few completed examples for students

The two additional texts provided in the optional homework might provide the raw material to create powerful options for extension for students reading above grade level. Additionally, the developer might consider ways of varying the complexity of the writing assignment for stronger students. (See comments in Dimension 4)

42

Providing Feedback

Each group shares their selected piece of feedback.Identify where you see evidence of the qualities of effective feedback:• Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each





43

Criteria for Dimension IV: Assessment

The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently

demonstrate the major targeted grade-level CCSS standards with appropriately complex text(s).

Assesses student proficiency using methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students.

Includes aligned rubrics or assessment guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance.

A unit or longer lesson should: Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and

self-assessment measures.

44

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension IV: Assessment

INDIVIDUALLY:• Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion• Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found • Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY:• Compare and discuss checks and evidence• What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked?• Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the


45

EXAMPLE:Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension IV: Assessment

The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently

demonstrate foundational skills and targeted grade level literacy CCSS (e.g., reading, writing, speaking and listening and/or language).

2. Assesses student proficiency using methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students.

3. Includes aligned rubrics or assessment guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance and responding to areas where students are not yet meeting standards.

A unit or longer lesson should: 4. Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and

self-assessment measures.

46












47

EXAMPLE: Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension IV: Assessment

Rating: 2


48


Observations/Feedback and RatingThere is an alignment between the standards and the assessments that extends through the formative assessment to the summative writing and multiple choice assessments. Formative assessment measures include the text dependent questions that can be monitored by the teacher during discussions. In the 'flexibility' section, teachers are asked to vary the use of these questions and how students respond either orally or in writing.

In Dimension III it was noted that no additional supports were provided for ELL's, struggling readers, and students with disabilities. In light of the limited opportunities for these students to access the text and the assessments are not unbiased. For additional assessment support, the developer could offer teachers an alternative way to use the evidence collection chart, page 21. It was provided in the teacher's section and also in the student resources. This could be used during the four/five days of the lessons and then used to provide evidence during the writing assignment. Depending on how this collection tool is used the teacher can monitor how and what evidence students are providing from the text.

49


Observations/Feedback and RatingA mini-assessment designed as a culminating activity for students to complete after the lesson set was provided. The questions are aligned to the CCSS reading standards and illustrate implications of the CCSS for assessment. The questions included in the mini-assessment are text-dependent and require close reading and analysis of the excerpt. An answer key is provided for the teacher of the mini-assessment. The text dependent questions all provide a suggested response.

50


Observations/Feedback and RatingA writing prompt is also used for assessment. Students reread a section of the text and brainstorm answers to the prompt. A note-taker captures the thinking of the group and post their responses. During a subsequent class period the students complete the argument essay. The direction to “construct an argument with a clear beginning, middle, and end describing the two changes you would make,” will be confusing to students who normally associate a beginning, middle and end with narrative writing. The developer must consider whether this is truly argumentative writing or explanatory writing and then choose appropriate prompt language for the writing type. Further, this prompt lends itself to several levels of writing, from a full essay to simply listing two changes and supporting each with reasons as to why they would help. The developer might consider options for differentiation here. This is particularly true if the writing is simply to be the draft piece of writing suggested by the 25-30 minute timeframe. The writing prompt does provide suggestions of possible approaches students could take in the essay. For the students to monitor their writing, it is recommended a rubric be included.

51

Overall Rating and Summary Comments

Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit:

E: Exemplar – Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in dimensions II, III, IV (total 11 – 12)

E/I: Exemplar if Improved – Aligned and needs some improvement in one or more dimensions (total 8 – 10)

R: Revision Needed – Aligned partially and needs significant revision in one or more dimensions (total 3 – 7)

N: Not Ready to Review – Not aligned and does not meet criteria (total 0 – 2)

52

Determining an Overall Rating

• Go back through dimensions and add up total to initially determine the rating category.• Consider how your rating based on the total points matches your overall sense of the

quality of the materials.• Consider if you have your judgments and feedback are placed within the appropriate

dimensions.• Consider how your dimensional feedback supports your judgments.• Consider if the lesson falls in the category you feel is appropriate.

53

Developing Summary Comments

Summary Comments:• Highlight the strongest aspects of the unit• Succinctly summarize key areas for improvement articulated in the dimensional comments

54

EXAMPLE:Step 4. Apply an Overall Rating

This lesson received a total of 8 points on the rating scale which indicates that with revision this lesson could be considered an exemplar. Specific areas and suggestions for revision are in the narrative feedback section included with each dimension. The strengths of this lesson include the following: • -focuses instruction on a well-written and appropriately complex text • -makes reading text closely and providing evidence from this text central to instruction • -focuses on challenging sections of the text using close reading and text-dependent questioning strategies • -includes opportunities to develop formative assessments to inform and drive instruction • -includes a summative assessment aligned to the targeted standards and purpose of instruction Suggestions for revision are as follows: • -a smaller selection of focus standards, or a differentiation between target and supporting standards • -strategies to cultivate students' engagement or provide a purpose for learning • --careful consideration of the desired genre of writing prompt response • -more support throughout the instruction to support the summative writing assignment • -inclusions of appropriate supports in reading, writing, speaking and listening for students reading below grade-level • -extensions and/or alternate texts for students reading above the grade level

E/I: Exemplar if improved

55

EQuIP Quality Review ProcessStep 5: Discuss Summary and Next Steps

Compare overall ratings and synthesize feedback:• How do our overall ratings compare?• Does this example serve as a model of CCSS instruction? What are its strengths? Areas for

improvement? • What communication and support will the developer receive?• What are the next steps for this material?

56

EQuIP Quality Review ProcessReflection• What additional practice is needed on the EQuIP Review Process and Rubric?• What other ways can the EQuIP processes and materials influence and be incorporated

into our practice? • How will we plan for applying the EQuIP Quality Review Process? Who will be involved?

57

EQuIP Quality Review ProcessThe Review Team

When forming and/or working with a review team:• Make sure all team members have training in the process and know the CCSS (at least for

their grade level).• Have a review plan that considers the experience and expertise of all team members.• Team members may choose to compare individual ratings after each dimension or wait

until each person has individually rated and recorded all input for Dimensions II–IV before beginning discussion.

• Individuals should record their overall rating prior to discussion.• Adjustments to ratings and/or commentary should take place as a part of the group

discussion.

58

Achievewww.achieve.org1400 16th Street, NW / Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036

equip rubric & quality review training session: ela/literacy grades 6 – 8 1

Documents

review team

review processes

review materialsstep

criteria evidence

use of criteria

checked criteria

collegial process

evidencebased commentary