Alignment of PD to Communicating Reasoning

Vision Outcome - The percentage of OUSD students scoring “below standard” on the communicating reasoning claim will decrease by 10%.

 

 

 

                             Map of PD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


OUSD Classroom Observation Tool

Date: __________  Site:  ____________________   Grade level: ______ Observer: __________________

Lesson Focus: _________________________________________________________________________

Outcome:  Instructional practices facilitate rigorous, meaningful, cohesive and accessible math instruction for all students.

Expectations:

                                                                             Growth Trajectory

      Emerging  (1)                             Applying (2)                                  Transforming  (3)

 

A. Teachers pose high quality questions and problems that prompt students’ engagement and thinking about the content of the lesson.

 

Level:  (0)  (1)  (2)  (3)

 

  • Questions are cognitively demanding (DOK Level 2)
  • Questions are open-ended
  • Questions and prompts are set within real-world context
  • Questions are cognitively demanding (DOK Level 3)
  • Prompts have two entry points
  • Questions and prompts are mathematically relevant and used to solve real-world problems
  • Questions are cognitively demanding (DOK Levels 3-4)
  • Prompts have multiple entry points
  • Questions and prompts require students to explore and understand the mathematical concepts, processes, and/or relationships

B .Teachers use variation in students’ solution methods to strengthen other students’ understanding of the content

 

 

Level: (0)  (1)  (2)  (3)

 

  • Cognitively engage some students
  • Afford students time to share out different strategies for solving the problem
  • Have students write about how they solved the problem

 

  • Cognitively engage most students
  • Provide time to examine and address solutions that are incorrect
  • Have students agree or disagree with each other’s solution methods
  • Cognitively engage all students
  • Have students expand on each other’s mathematical solutions
  • Connect different students’ responses to key mathematical ideas
  • Create mathematical visual records of the class discussion to show varying solutions

C  Teachers provide opportunities for students to engage in conversations about each other’s thinking, critique each other’s thinking, and construct viable arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level:  (0)   (1)   (2)   (3)

  • Provide time for peer-to-peer communication and discussion
  • Have students listen to and read arguments of others
  • Have students use pictures and tools to prove or disprove an idea
  • Promote the use of sentence starters to facilitate academic conversations
  • Students use academic language, with support and/or prompting

 

  • Facilitate peer discussion on why incorrect solutions have faulty logic
  • Encourage students to question the mathematical reasoning of others
  • Prompt students to challenge each other’s thinking and ask for clarification from their classmates
  • Students use academic language without stems and minimal prompting
  • Coach students on how to participate in peer-led mathematical discussions
  • Use students’ thinking to propel discussions
  • Require that students use explanations, diagrams, graphs, tables and mathematical examples to support their argument
  • Students talk to each other and use academic language without prompting/ stems to engage in debates; defend and challenge thinking; explain how they solve problems.

D. Teachers ask students to explain and justify work and provide feedback that helps students revise their thinking and work.

 

 

 

 

 

Level:  (0)   (1)   (2)   (3)

  • Use number talks that engage students in discourse
  • Identify misconceptions through meaningful discussions
  • Coaches students to use academic language in explanations that help clarify their thinking
  • Facilitate discussions of students’ explanations and use probing questions
  • Provide timely task-specific feedback after instruction
  • Explore how students respond to feedback
  • Require students to explain their thinking

 

 

  • Prompt student to re-organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking and understanding
  • Provide ongoing and timely task-specific feedback during and after instruction
  • Provide time and expect that students revise their work based on feedback, including revision of explanations and justifications
  • Have students explain and justify mathematical ideas and strategies with sufficient and significant mathematical details

 


Alignment of our MiC outcomes

Over the summer and Fall of 2015 we worked to increase the coherence between our MiC outcomes in order to better focus and streamline our work. After reviewing the 2015 CAASPP results, surveying the content of the CCSS-M and considering what major “teaching/learning” variable we might best be able to impact, we decided to focus on developing students’ abilities to communicate their reasoning. The diagram below demonstrates how our current MiC outcomes are related to each other and “communicating reasoning.”

 

Vision for math instruction - Teachers inspire all students to be responsible learners through the development and facilitation of rigorous, meaningful, cohesive, and accessible math instruction.