Rigor in the Classroom

1. Rigor in the Classroom

2. Rigor means having high expectations in curriculum standards, classroom assignments, ongoing assessment, and testing.

3. All of the above must be aligned for maximum student achievement.

4. Typically, classroom expectations decline from one grade level to the next.

5. A taxonomy is a useful tool for classifying objectives, instruction, and assessment to determine level of rigor.

6. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy helps us to analyze cognitive demand along two dimensions.

7. Using the taxonomy can result in rich discussions about intentions, assumptions, and outcomes.

8. The very act of using the taxonomy can motivate us toward demanding higher levels of rigor.

9. Alignment (standards –objectives—assessment tasks--instructional strategies) is essential to raising the level of rigor.

10. We attend to what we measure! If we are serious about raising the level of rigor in our school, we must accurately assess where we are now.

11. Monitoring and measuring rigor at the classroom level is a multi-faceted, ongoing, collaborative process in which a variety of strategies should be used.

12. Recognizing Rigor in the Classroom • Students engaged in collaborative work. • Analysis, creativity, and practical application of learning occurring. • Evidence of pre-assessment for lesson content. • Teachers facilitating as students direct their own learning. • Teachers asking probing questions of students. • Students doing most of the purposeful talking. • Students actively engaged in problem solving activities. • Students using technology to learn. • Clear procedures used for all class work. • All students articulating their thinking in small groups. • Teachers doing various formative assessments of working students.

13. Continued Students engaged in higher level questioning and thinking. Students using primary sources in their investigations. Students applying learning in new areas thru projects. Students assessing their own learning. Students building and sharing their portfolios. Different regularly occurring activities that address different learning styles. Students independently recording their learning and generating their own questions. Class discussions where students compare ideas with each other. Student choice built in to assignments. Tiered assignments designed for academic readiness. Lessons moving at a brisk pace. Students’ interests driving topics of learning. Daily teacher assessments of learning outcomes.

14. Rigor Quick Check • Content: • Is the content part of the Standard Course of Study? • Does it include basic skills and important concepts? • Does the content require students to apply core academic knowledge to problems or issues?

15. Instruction: • Does the instruction require students to engage in higher order thinking skills? • Are students required to engage in elaborated communication? • Do they have to explain or justify their conclusions or thinking?

16. Assessment: • Is the assessment aligned to the lesson goals? • Does the assessment measure SCOS content? • Do students have to use higher order thinking skills on the assessment? • Do students have to explain or justify their conclusions or thinking?

17. Higher Order Thinking Skills Evaluation Knowledge level one: Limited amount of information is recalled; answer is incomplete level two: Sufficient amount of facts are recalled; answer is complete and acceptable level three: Numerous facts and details are recalled; answer is thorough

18. Comprehension level one: Brief explanation of content; little or no evidence to support level two: Overall understanding of content; implied content/ issues not addressed level three: An interrelated, holistic interpretation of literal and implied content given; uses examples and illustrations to support

19. Application level one: Solution has none or a limited number of elements to support; solution is not workable level two: Workable solution is supported by an adequate number of generalizations and principles level three: Solution has a “new slant;” supports solution with an abundant amount of facts and details

20. Analysis level one: Solution shows minimal classification of elements; no relation between elements and their relation and structure to each other level two: Solution demonstrates the relation and structure between elements; recognized patterns; rationally supported level three: Solution classifies elements, their relationship to each other while identifying the arrangement and structure connecting them in a rational and persuasive manner

21. Synthesis level one: Solution lacks self-expression; some important elements excluded; solution not workable; not clearly communicated level two: Workable solution is new and includes essential elements; adequately communicated solution to the appropriate audience; demonstrates self-expression level three: Workable solution which is new and includes all parts; demonstrates unique self-expression; communication is directed to a specific audience in a unique and highly effective manner

22. Evaluation level one: Judgments have little or no support level two: Judgments are on both cognitive and effective levels; based on given criteria or selected remembered criteria level three: Judgments based on a variety of facets at both the cognitive and effective levels

23. ASSESSMENT IN THE CLASSROOM: Classroom Assessments are rigorous if they provide specific information about student achievement of the learning and content in high standards.

24. Alignment to Standards Level one: Some classroom assessments are strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and topics of the grade-level state standards. Level two: Most classroom assessments are strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and topics of the grade-level state standards. Level three: All classroom assessments are strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and topics of the grade-level state standards and, when appropriate, go beyond grade-level standards.

25. Common Benchmark Assessments Level one: Common assessments are administered across some grades, subjects or courses. Level two: Common assessments, which include high levels of cognitive complexity, are administered across most grades, subjects or courses. Level three: Common assessments, which include high levels of cognitive complexity, are administered across all grades, subjects or courses and are regularly analyzed and revised by learning teams.

26. Using Assessment Results Level one: Teachers analyze test results to improve assessments. Level two: Teachers analyze test results to diagnose student learning and improve assessments and instruction. Level three: Teachers analyze tests results to diagnose student learning, improve assessments and instruction, and modify curriculum.

27. Assessment Literacy Level one: Teachers are generally assessment literate, understanding where and when to use a variety of assessments and recognizing quality assessments. Level two: Teachers can select high-quality, technically correct assessment items/ tasks that are aligned to higher levels of learning. Level three: Teachers can select, develop and/or revise assessment items/tasks to measure higher levels of learning.

28. Assessment Monitoring Level one: The principal and/or learning team monitors classroom assessments in some grades, subjects or courses. Level two: The principal and/or learning team monitors classroom assessments in most grades, subjects and courses. Level three: The principal and/or professional learning team monitors and recommends revisions for classroom assessments in all grades, subjects and courses.

29. COLLABORATION: Collaboration within and outside of the school is important to build a common understanding and consistent application of practices that support rigor.

30. Focusing Improvement Level one: Occasionally faculty, department and grade-level meetings focus on improving curriculum, instruction and assessment. Level two: The focus of faculty, department and grade-level meetings is often the improvement of curriculum, instruction and assessment. Level three: All faculty, department and grade-level meetings focus on the improvement of curriculum, instruction and assessments, include formal agendas, and support continuous collaboration throughout the year.

31. Using an Organizing Framework Level one: Learning teams or study groups review academic rigor based on judgment or assessment data. Level two: Learning teams or study groups use an organizing framework (taxonomy) to examine academic rigor. Level three: Learning teams or whole faculty study groups use an organizing framework (taxonomy) to produce a common way of thinking about and a common vocabulary for talking about academic rigor schoolwide.

32. Analyzing Teachers’ Work Level one: Teachers collaboratively review assignments and assessments. Level two: Teachers collaboratively analyze assignments and assessments for cognitive complexity and alignment to standards. Level three: Teachers collaboratively analyze and revise assignments and assessments to increase the cognitive complexity and alignment to standards.

33. Creating Challenging Learning Opportunities Level one: Teachers collaborate in isolated instances to create opportunities that challenge students to perform at higher levels of learning. Level two: Teachers collaborate within some departments or grade levels to create opportunities that challenge students to perform at higher levels or learning. Level three: Teachers collaborate across the school to create opportunities that challenge students to perform at higher levels of learning.

34. Communicating with Home and the Community Level one: Some school-home communication from teachers about academic progress (students’ assignments and assessment results and mastery of standards) occurs. Level two: Regular school-home communication from teachers about academic progress (students’ assignments and assessment results and mastery of standards) occurs. Level three: Frequent communication (via multiple methods) to home and community about academic progress and increasing rigor school-wide occurs.

35. CURRICULUM COHERENCE The organization and sequencing of the curriculum is critical if students are to perform at higher levels of learning.

36. Curriculum Alignment Level one: Grade level/subject area curricula are horizontally aligned (focused and connected within each grade/course/subject area). Level two: Grade level/subject area curricula are horizontally and vertically aligned (focused and connected within and across grade/course/subject area). Level three: The horizontally and vertically aligned curricula are periodically reviewed and realigned to optimize student performance and academic challenge.

37. Curriculum Quality Level one: There are few strategies in place to ensure a “tight” alignment (correlation) among the written, taught and tested curricula. Level two: There are strategies in place to ensure a “tight” alignment (correlation) among the written, taught and tested curricula in some grades/subjects. Level three: Strategies are in place and actions are taken to ensure a “tight” alignment (correlation) between the written, taught and tested curricula in most courses/subjects.

38. Curriculum Planning Level one: A standards-based curriculum guide has been developed for all subjects. Level two: A system of curriculum analysis & alignment (e.g., curriculum mapping) is implemented, and the curriculum is revised/developed based on this data. Level three: Based on data, a part of the standards-based school curriculum is reviewed/revised each year with a long-term plan to review/revise the entire curriculum every 5-7 years.

39. Cognitive Complexity of Learning Level one: Learning objectives, assignments and assessments in all classes reflect the learning and content expected for those students (usually articulated in state standards). Level two: The standards-based objectives, assignments, and assessments in some classes accelerate the learning to address the expectations for the next grade, college, or the workplace (increasing the level of cognitive complexity). Level three: The standards-based objectives, assignments and assessments in most classes accelerate the learning to address the expectations for the next grade, college, or the workplace (increasing the level of cognitive complexity).

40. Curriculum Spiraling Level one: The curricula for a few courses introduce knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the knowledge and skills in subsequent years. Level two: The curricula for core subjects introduce knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the knowledge and skills in subsequent years. Level three: The curricula for all subjects introduce knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the knowledge and skills in subsequent years.

41. . EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT WORK Expectations that teachers set for quality student work are important to communicate as students are challenged by increased rigor.

42. Explicit Expectations Level one: Expectations for performance are explicit in written or oral assignment directions. Level two: Expectations for performance are explicit in course syllabi, rubrics and assignment directions in some classes. Level three: Expectations for performance are explicit in course syllabi, rubrics and assignment directions in most classes.

43. Examples of Student Work Level one: Where possible, teachers have students share with their peers graded samples of their work that have been deemed proficient. Level two: Teachers provide examples of exemplary student work to students prior to assessments on that material. Level three: Teachers require students to analyze exemplary student work, prior to assessment on that material, to determine the qualities that make the work proficient.

44. Consensus on Proficiency Level one: Some teachers have reached consensus on what constitutes proficiency on grade-level standards. Level two: Teachers within grade levels or subject areas have reached consensus on what constitutes proficiency on grade-level standards, and there is little variation among these teachers’ expectations, rubrics and grading practices. Level three: The school’s professional staff (teachers and administrators) has reached consensus on what constitutes proficiency on grade-level standards, and there is little variation among teachers’ expectations, rubrics and grading practices.

45. Student Understanding of Quality Work Level one: Students are routinely asked to evaluate their own and peers’ work using scoring rubrics. Level two: Student evaluations of their own and peers’ work sometimes match teacher expectations and/or the scoring rubric. Level three: Students evaluations of their own and peers’ work often match teacher and/or rubric definitions for quality.

46. High Expectations for All Students Level one: School staff has a collective belief that most students can achieve at grade level. Level two: Some teachers provide the opportunity for all students to produce quality work through their grading practices, by re-teaching, and by allowing them to redo work. Level three: Schools provide the opportunity for all students to produce quality work with policies related to redoing work, re-teaching and grading.

47. INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The instructional strategies that teachers use foster higher levels of learning in their students and increased rigor in their classrooms.

48. Questioning Strategies Level one: Teachers ask mostly low-cognitive complexity questions. Level two: Teachers use an array of questioning techniques to prompt low, mid and higher level cognitive processing for some students. Level three: Teachers use an array of questioning techniques to prompt low, mid and higher level cognitive processing for all students.

49. Instruction Level one: Instructional strategies are selected based on teacher preference, experience and recommendations in text. Level two: Instructional strategies are selected based on the content and level of cognitive complexity in the standards as well as on student preference/interest. Level three: Instructional strategies are based on research and selected to match the content and cognitive complexity in the standards and to raise the cognitive complexity of student learning.

50. Instructional Leadership Level one: Supervisors note presence/absence of rigor in monitoring/evaluation of classroom instruction. Level two: Supervisors note frequency of levels of rigor in their monitoring/evaluation of classroom instruction. Level three: The levels of rigor of classroom instruction are included in personnel decisions and measure s of school accountability.