Download Presentation

Loading in 3 Seconds

This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.

X

Sponsored Links

- 80 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Exploring the PARCC Math Performance Level Descriptors

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Performance Level Descriptors or PLDs describe what students at each performance level know and can do relative to the grade-level or course content standards assessed.

All PLDs can be found on PARCC Online –

Assessments/Assessment Policies

- Master Claim: Students are on-track or ready for college and careers

Gives the

Sub-Claim

Performance level

ranging from 2 - 5

Concept and Standards

Factors that determine the performance levels (Cognitive Complexity)

- Mathematical Content
- Mathematical Practices
- Stimulus Material
- Response Mode
- Processing Demand

Identify each evidence statement code with the associated assessment. (PBA, EOY, or Both)

Associate each statement in the PLD with the evidence statement code(s)

Annotate the differences in the PLD level statements

- Participants will:
- Learn the process for PARCC State Educator item review
- Practice reviewing and making recommendations for sample items

- Type I
- Based on Sub Claims A, B, and E: The student solves problems involving the Major, Additional, and Supporting Content for the grade/course with connections to the Standards for Mathematical Practice, and demonstrates fluency in areas set forth in the Standards for Content in grades 3-6.

- Type II
- Based on Sub Claim C: 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.

- Type III
- Based on Sub Claim D: 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

- Does the task measure the intended evidence statement(s)?
- Does the task measure the intended mathematical practice(s)?
- Is the task mathematically correct and free from errors?
- Is the wording of the task clear, concise, and grade-level appropriate?
- Are the graphics/stimuli in the task clear, accurate, appropriate for the task, and appropriate for the grade?
- Do each prompt and all associated graphics/stimuli contribute to the quality of the task?
- Is the scoring guide/rubric clear, correct and aligned with the expectations for performance that are expressed in the task?

Each task should:

- assess the designated evidence statement
- conform to the content clarifications, limits, and emphasis associated with the evidence statement
Reviewers should:

- note alignment issues in the comments section
- accept the task with edits if the task can easily be edited to make the task align to the evidence statement
- reject the task if the task can not easily be edited to make the task fit the evidence statement

Each task should:

- contain content (text, stimuli, terminology, notation, art, etc.) that is
- mathematically correct, precise, and generally accepted by math educators
- be free from flaws
- not contain unintended mathematical errors, misconceptions,
- contradictions, or ambiguities

- Type I one-point tasks should:
- have the correct key
- Scoring Rubrics should:
- be clear enough so that the person scoring the response will know how to assign points based on different parts of the response
- assign at least 50% of the total points to the reasoning/modeling provided in the response and less than 50% of the points to a computations provided in the response for Type II and Type III tasks

Reviewers as a group

- discuss any major comments
- determine how to proceed with the task (accept, accept with edits, reject)
- A task should be edited if it has a flaw that can be fixed or needs clarification. A task should only be rejected if it has a flaw that can not be addressed.

Questions?