Acquisition Lesson Plan - DOC by tit19163

VIEWS: 424 PAGES: 4

									       Delaware ELA Prioritized Curriculum and ELA Common Core
               Standards Training the Trainer Component 2
                  Segment 3: Local Alignment with CCSS

Segment 3: Workshop Essential Questions:
     What shifts in our district/department curriculum might need to happen to completely align
with DE Prioritized ELA Curriculum and CCSS?

Activating Strategy: (Learners Mentally Active)                                Acceleration/Previewing: (Key
                                                                               Vocabulary / Words needed to answer the
Teachers will have two envelopes: One with verbs (assorted                     EQ)
                                                                                Verbs (describe, analyze, apply, use,
verbs found in CCSS standards) and one with definitions.                           identify, compare and contrast, explain,
- With a partner, teachers will first arrange the verbs in order                   synthesize etc.)
from lower to higher cognitive level.                                           Text structures, text features (all);
- Then, teachers will use definitions in second envelope to                        perspective, point of view
match to verbs.
[If the group is small enough, can do above as a kinesthetic
activity. “Verbs” stand and arrange themselves in order;
“definitions” find their match]

Teaching Strategies: (Collaborative Pairs; Graphic Organizers, etc.)
            Sorting activity with sentence strips
            Collaborative Pairs
            Gallery Walk

Learning Plan: Segment 3
PART I OVERVIEW – Model & Guided Practice comparison between district curriculum and CCS
   standard/DE PI & GLE
“Now that we’ve compared the CCSS standards with the Delaware standards, it is time to see that our
local curriculum is aligned. Remember the 502 alignment process that each district engaged in a few
years ago? This process is much the same.
Power point slide #2 – copy of Grade 4 Reading Craft and Structure CCSS standard #5.
“Here is a copy of CCSS Anchor standard # 5 (p. 10 in the Standards Document) for grade 4
informational reading (p. 14). [read aloud] Turn to a partner and, in your own words, decode this
standard. What does it mean? [allow time for pairs to talk it through – record answers – differentiating
between CONTENT and TASK/COGNITIVE SKILS. Discuss – come to consensus. May talk about
KUDs here if not previously discussed] What would students need to know, do, and understand to show
mastery?”
Show slide #3 [showing deconstructed standard: key concepts – 1) text structures; major sections and
how they contribute to whole; 2) cognitive level – “analyze” (implies recognize first), “describe”].
Slide #4 “Here is the accompanying PI/GLE for text structure and text features. Does the CONTENT
“match” the CCSS standard? Does the TASK or COGNITIVE DEMAND (the VERB) “match” the
CCSS standards requirement?”[answers SHOULD include the note that there IS a match; however,
DE’s PI/GLE adds text features and the CCSS does not. They should also note that the CCSS anchor
statements requires ANALYSIS but the DE document only asks students to describe. Nonetheless, at
this level, there is a match in cognitive requirement between “Describe” and “identify” – refer back to
acquisition activity]
Segment 3-Lesson Plan Format from Learning-Focused Solutions. Designed by Bonnie Albertson & Chris Evans, June 2010.          1
       Delaware ELA Prioritized Curriculum and ELA Common Core
               Standards Training the Trainer Component 2
                  Segment 3: Local Alignment with CCSS

Slide #5 [if time permits and facilitator desires. If participants are not familiar with LFS, this activity
would just complicate things; if they are, the slide should “make sense.”]
“Slide 5 and 6 show how to deconstruct the standard to make a KUD chart. Note that the Knows are
red; the “Dos” (Verbs) are blue, and together they help lead students to “Understandings” – slide 6

 Slide #7
“Here is a Delaware grade 4 curriculum document. Note what they say about text structure and text
features. Is this local curriculum adequate? Do we need to add/revise anything?”
(Point to be made): There IS a content match. Again, ask if there is a difference between describe and
identify?] “Note that text features is not a part of the CCSS standard. Perhaps it appears somewhere
else in the CCSS document?”

 Slide #8
“Here are the CCSS grade level standards for grade 3 and 5. You can see that indeed, text features are
covered, but in grade 3. They are dropped in grade 4” Refer to grade 3 and grade 5 CCSS on written
copy. Does that mean we stop teaching that? See notes on facilitator copy.

 Slide #9
“Here is a different excerpt from the same district’s curriculum guide; it comes from the district’s
adopted anthology. Which of these texts/passage/stories from the district’s anthology could be used to
teach this standard?”
 [Point to be made: technically, this standard is for INFORMATIVE TEXT; therefore, the fiction
selections would NOT be used for this purpose. The text features (graphics in this document) would
align with the state PI/GLEs, but not the grade 4 CCSS standard (it WOULD align with the CCSS
grade 3)
ASSESSMENT PROMPT #1: Complete QUESTION #1 on the Alignment Continuum sheet
[distribute copies if not in binder]

See Materials Section for OPTIONS – after initial modeling with 2.4b I/T and CCR Anchor Standard
9, facilitators have alternatives:
    1. Show and discuss [in small groups] model charts on grade 8 inferencing - PIs (2.4i & 4.2a) and
         Common Core standard (#1). THEN break into grade level teams. Elementary cohort uses
         compare/contrast (PI 2.4g, CCR #9). Secondary reviews PI (2.4f & 4.2f) and Common Core
         (#6)*
    2. Break directly into grade level groups. Elementary cohort uses compare/contrast (PI 2.4g, CCR
         #9). Secondary uses grade 8 inferencing - PIs (2.4i & 4.2a) and Common Core standard (#1).


*CCR Anchor standard #6 does not have a one-to-one match with a single DE Performance Indicator.
It is also linked to a high school unit of come complexity. Therefore, it may be too “muddy” for
teachers this early in the process. It is, however, important for teachers to understand that not all
matches between CCR and DE will be “clean and neat



Segment 3-Lesson Plan Format from Learning-Focused Solutions. Designed by Bonnie Albertson & Chris Evans, June 2010.   2
       Delaware ELA Prioritized Curriculum and ELA Common Core
               Standards Training the Trainer Component 2
                  Segment 3: Local Alignment with CCSS

PART I, CONTINUED – grade level-specific, guided practice.
[Break into elementary and secondary cohorts or stay as one group for grade 8 model and then break
into groups]. Teachers will look at different CCSS standards – one for grade 3 (CCSS reading standard
#9) and one for grade 8 (CCSS reading standard #1) , one for grade 9/10 (CCSS standard #6)[see
attached materials]. Follow same procedure (regardless of grade level) described:
    1. Decode the CCSS anchor standard AND the grade level standard
            a. What is the content requirement?
            b. What is the task or cognitive load requirement (verb demand)?
    2. Compare the corollary DE PI with the CCSS anchor standard & the CCSS grade level standard
        with the corollary DE GLE.
            a. Is there a content match? If there is a match, how close is the match? What differences
               are there? How important are those differences?
            b. Is there a task/cognitive level match? What differences are there? How important are
               those differences?
    3. Compare the district curriculum recommendations for teaching the DE PI/GLE with the CCSS
        standard.
            a. Is there a content match? If there is a match, how close is the match? What differences
               are there? How important are those differences?
            b. Is there a task/cognitive level match? What differences are there? How important are
               those differences?
ASSESSMENT PROMPT #2: Answer the appropriate version of QUESTION #2 on the Alignment
Continuum sheet

IF TIME – “Here is a template with another CCSS standard and its corresponding PI/GLE. Use your
district’s materials (curriculum guide, pacing guide, learning map, prescribed text book for ELA, or
whatever you brought with you) to complete the middle column] Then consider the following:
             a. Is there a content match? If there is a match, how close is the match? What differences
                 are there? How important are those differences?
             b. Is there a task/cognitive level match? What differences are there? How important are
                 those differences?
Answer the question on the alignment continuum. (QUESTION # 3)
Now think about the materials you use to teach this standard. Are they appropriate to cover the CCSS
standard? (QUESTION # 4)
[After participants have completed their chart, invite participants to do a gallery walk to see how
different districts cover – or fail to cover – the standard. NOTE: when trainers train in their districts,
this activity would be modified. If each school uses different materials, they can complete the chart by
school. If all schools use the same materials, or there is only one MS/HS, etc., then each group could
complete a different chart for a different PI. Trainers can select from KUD charts posted on the DOE
website]




Segment 3-Lesson Plan Format from Learning-Focused Solutions. Designed by Bonnie Albertson & Chris Evans, June 2010.   3
       Delaware ELA Prioritized Curriculum and ELA Common Core
               Standards Training the Trainer Component 2
                  Segment 3: Local Alignment with CCSS

PART II OVERVIEW – Comparing the “text complexity” requirements from CCSS with district
reading lists.
“Next, we want to turn your attention to pages 31 (for elementary) or p. 56 (for secondary) in your
CCSS standards document. These sections describe the types of texts, the genre requirements, and
exemplars for reading. The first question is, Where do these recommendations come from? [Slide 10
shows the NAEP framework]. You can see that the CCSS has adopted the general framework of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress. The question is, how do these requirements align to your
district’s framework? Let’s start by going back to our original model, standard 2.4bI/T for 4th grade.
Here is a corresponding list of texts in the 4th grade anthology, listed by reading skill/strategy and
genre. [Slide 11-13] You can see that the chart lists selection titles, their genre, and the skill or
strategy identified by the publisher. Below the chart is the recommended range of text types/genre and
the exemplars that typify the text complexity expected by CCSS. Take a minute or two to read them
carefully and then work with a partner to answer the following questions: How aligned are the local
district’s texts/passages with the requirements of the CCSS standard?”
Allow time to complete. Pairs report out to table; table leader tracks responses and reports out to group.
Discuss.

Break into elementary/secondary cohort. Distribute reading lists that accompany the same models used
earlier: CCSS standard 6 for elementary and CCSS standard 9 for secondary. Repeat above procedure
but have individuals consider lists and complete assessment prompt before sharing with table. [in
grade level groups: direct attention to appropriate handout in materials section – reading list]. [Slide
14]

ASSESSMENT PROMPT #3: [Alignment Continuum – QUESTION #5 - How aligned are the
local district’s texts/passages with the requirements of the CCSS standard?]


 Summarizing Strategies: (Learners Summarize & Answer Essential Question)
Write an action plan (bullet points) or a position paper recommending necessary changes for your
school or district.




Segment 3-Lesson Plan Format from Learning-Focused Solutions. Designed by Bonnie Albertson & Chris Evans, June 2010.   4

								
To top