Module Three: Transcript

Table of Contents

Screencast 1: Guiding Questions and Objectives Slide 1 Module Three: English Language Proficiency Standards. Guiding Questions and Objectives.

In module three of this series, we will dig deeper into the English Language Proficiency Standards, using the last two steps of the task analysis process to do so.

In the previous module, you engaged in the first two steps of the task analysis process in order to unpack academic tasks and identify the knowledge and skills students were required to demonstrate to perform those tasks successfully.

Now in this module, we will use the last two steps of the task analysis process to help us better understand which of the core disciplinary practices and English Language Proficiency Standards are relevant to certain tasks.

This module will also help educators narrow their focus and choose the most appropriate ELP standards to highlight and support during instruction and assessment.

Slide 2 There are two guiding questions to consider as you work through this module.

First, how can educators analyze instructional tasks to identify the disciplinary practices and ELP standards that are most relevant to the tasks?

And second, how does the task analysis process support educators’ understanding and integration of the ELP standards during their own planning and instruction?

Slide 3 There are also two objectives for users of this module:  First, educators will be able to analyze and reflect on instructional tasks – from various grade levels and subject areas – through the process of identifying the relevant disciplinary practices and ELP standards  Second, educators will be able to understand the what, why, and how of utilizing the ELP standards in planning and instruction.

Screencast 2: Continuing the Task Analysis Process Slide 1 Continuing the Task Analysis Process.

In this section, we will review the task analysis process, including steps 1 and 2, which were addressed in Module 2.

We will also move forward in the process and preview steps 3 and 4, which are the focus of this module and will facilitate a more careful examination of the new English Language Proficiency Standards.

Slide 2 But before we revisit the steps of the task analysis process, let’s take a look at our expanded definition of task analysis.

Building on the definition offered in Module 2, in this module we describe task analysis as a process that involves three major actions. 1) Looking carefully at an instructional task or activity to determine what it requires students to do, know, or demonstrate – particularly in terms of content knowledge, analytical skills, and language. 2) Identifying related disciplinary practices and relevant English Language Proficiency Standards; and 3) Choosing the most appropriate standards and practices to address and assess.

Slide 3 And there are several benefits of engaging in task analysis. Most obviously, task analysis helps us to think more deeply about the structure and demands of a task, in order to

 determine whether we are pushing our students to produce the most rigorous, grade-appropriate language and thinking possible  identify roadblocks to students’ demonstrating their understanding  plan instruction to address and assess the most relevant and crucial standards and skills; and  include scaffolding and supports to better meet our students’ needs Because remember, the ultimate goal of task analysis is to ensure that our students have the necessary supports to demonstrate the thinking, knowledge, and language required to be successful on grade-level appropriate, standards-aligned activities. Slide 4 As you’ll remember, the task analysis process we follow in these modules has four main steps. The first two of these steps, steps 1 and 2, were addressed in Module 2.

To review, step 1 is to examine and identify an appropriate instructional task. This step asks you to select an instructional task for analysis and use a set of criteria to think about whether it is a fitting task to analyze. Once you have chosen an appropriate task, step 2 then requires you to identify the demands associated with the task, especially with respect to those three lenses of content knowledge, analytical skills, and language.

This brings us to Steps 3 and 4, which are the focus of this module and will allow us to more deeply examine and apply the ELP standards.

We will describe the general structure of these two steps here, and then go into more detail about each step in the Engage section of the module.

To begin, Step 3 asks you to build on what your knowledge of the task demands generated in Steps 1 and 2 in order to identify what core disciplinary practice(s) are most relevant to this task. Slide 5 And remember, the core disciplinary practices are those Math, Science, and ELA practices that are highlighted in Tina Cheuk’s Venn diagram. In other words, these are the essential analytical practices that lie at the heart of disciplinary content. And as was discussed earlier, many of these disciplinary practices – especially things like analyzing complex texts and constructing arguments - cut across different content areas. We call these high-leverage practices.

It’s also important to reiterate that nearly all of these practices carry a high linguistic demand, meaning that students must use language in nuanced ways to accomplish them.

Slide 6 The final step of the Task Analysis process, Step 4, is to identify the English Language Proficiency standards that are relevant and important to the task.

Slide 7 For this step you will ask yourself two questions: 1) Which of the 10 English Language Proficiency Standards are reflected in this task? And 2) Which of these ELP standards do you feel comfortable measuring or intend to assess?

So in essence, this is the step that will both facilitate a more careful examination of the new English Language Proficiency standards and prepare you to address and assess these standards with your students.

Slide 8 Now you may be saying to yourself, “Okay, I think I understand what Steps 3 and 4 are. But how are steps 1 and 2 connected to steps 3 and 4? And why is Step 3 necessary if my end goal is to identify, address, and assess the relevant ELP standards?”

Those are great questions.

Rest assured, that one of the goals of this module is to demonstrate how to link the steps of task analysis together to create a coherent and continuous process. And creating coherence requires us to align the task demands – which you identified in Step 2 of the process – to the relevant disciplinary practices and ELP standards, which you will identify in Steps 3 and 4 of the process.

Steps 3 and 4 are further linked together because the core disciplinary practices – Step 3 – are embedded in the ELP standards – Step 4. So in other words, identifying the core disciplinary practices in Step 3 should allow to you to more easily pinpoint the relevant and important ELP standards in Step 4.

Finally, the end goal is to use these disciplinary practices and ELP standards – and the resources that accompany them – to plan appropriate scaffolds that will allow students to access the grade-level language and content they need.

Slide 9 Now that you have reviewed Steps 1 and 2 of the task analysis process and heard a bit about Steps 3 and 4, please take a moment to reflect on the following questions:

• Recall what you did for steps 1 and 2 in Module 2. In your lesson planning and curricular development, why is it important to identify task demands? • How do you think steps 1 and 2 will inform your next steps? • What questions do you currently have about the task analysis process?

You may reflect and answer these questions on your own of course. But, if at all possible, we encourage you to explore them with colleagues, preferably within the context of a professional learning opportunity or as part of a professional learning community.

Screencast 3: English Language Proficiency Standards, Delving Deeper Slide 1 English Language Proficiency Standards: Delving Deeper In this section we will review and expand upon our earlier description in Module 1 of the ELP standards and their correspondences to the core disciplinary practices and the ELA & Literacy Standards. We will then dig deeper into the standards, explaining what each of them means and how they relate to what actually happens in the classroom. Slide 2 As you will recall from previous videos in Module 1 about the history and development of the ELPA 21 standards, they were designed for K-12 educators – both for teachers of English language development, also known as English as a Second Language as well as for content-area teachers. The standards are developed to align with and support the language demands of the new college and career ready content standards. The language proficiency standards also focus on more on language functions, which refers to what students do with language to accomplish content-specific tasks. Although there are three ELP standards that focus on the micro-level linguistic features of language or language forms, which refer to the vocabulary, grammar, and discourse specific to a particular content or discipline. Slide 3 These new ELP standards represent a significant shift in the way we view English language learners and language learning because they move away from considering “What language does a student have?” to “What is a student able to do with language within content areas?”

Slide 4 This new emphasis on what students can do with language has various implications for planning and instruction of English language learner students. First of all, rather than simplifying texts and activities, teachers should now provide rigorous grade- level texts and content as well as the appropriate scaffolds to access them. In addition, while the old standards emphasized accuracy and correct grammar and vocabulary, the emphasis of the new standards is on language development that is focused on comprehension, production and interaction. Finally, rather than treating English language development as a precursor to content area learning, the new standards emphasize that language learning should take place alongside content learning. Slides 5 Remember, these new English Language Proficiency Standards are divided into 10 standards that apply to all of the grade levels. Slide 6 The original organization displays standards 1-7, which focus on language functions, followed by standards 8-10 which focus on language forms. Slide 7 An alternate way of organizing the standards, however, is by the modalities of receptive, productive, and interactive. ‘ The receptive modality refers to the language students must understand in order to complete a task. The productive modality refers to the language students must use to complete the task. The interactive modality, which is a specific type of productive modality, refers to communication that requires two-way interaction and negotiation of meaning. Slide 8 Finally, it is important to remember that when drawing up the new ELP standards, the creators designed them to meet the language demands of the core content-area practices.. This Venn diagram shows that there are several high leverage practices that are relevant in various content areas. The ELP Standards support students by addressing the language proficiency needed to engage in these practices. Slide 9 Each standard directly aligns with at least one of the ELA practices, Mathematical practices, or Science Practices. The inverse is also true - each of the content-area practices aligns with at least one or more of the ELP Standards. Thus the K-12 Practices Matrix, which outlines that alignment can be read in both directions. For example, when considering the science practice 1 of ask questions and define problems, you will notice that it maps onto the ELP Standards 1, 6, 7, 8. The matrix can also be read by starting with an ELP standard and looking at where it intersects with certain content-area practices. In summary, the matrix provides another way to see and understand the correspondence of the ELP Standards with the core disciplinary practices. Slide 10 It is important to remember that a student’s ELP proficiency level represents a current performance level and not a fixed status. In addition, a student may demonstrate different proficiency levels for different standards.

Along those same lines, it is important to remember that language proficiency does increase along a predictable set of dimensions as conceptualized by Bailey and Heritage (2013) in the Proficiency Level Descriptors document, which you can find in the Resources. While these dimensions represent an ongoing continuum, the basic idea is that students will continue to use English words and phrases in more sophisticated ways and will demonstrate greater autonomy and mastery as their language develops. This does not mean that students’ language develops in a linear fashion, but that there is a general pattern of development in proficiency. Slide 11 We will now dig deeper into each individual standard and what it means for your students. Throughout our descriptions we will approach the standards through the lens of student work. When thinking about actually using the standards, it is important to first analyze tasks to identify the skills that a student needs to develop in order to participate in that task or activity. From there, think about what standards are appropriate for the targeted skills. Finally, you will consider the proficiency levels of students and what you want them to be able to do with language. Module 4 will function to assist you in this last step.

The next section will first take you through the first 7 standards, which describe language functions. After introducing each standard and its key components, we will then share a classroom example. These examples are intended to illuminate the standards and what they could look like in your classroom. But also remember that they only represent one application example.

As you are viewing the screencast, feel free to jot down other classroom examples that might make sense for your classroom. After reviewing the first seven standards, we will ask you to pause and reflect on what you have learned. You can do this individually, with a partner or as part of a small group reflection activity. The screencast will then address standards 8 through 10, which focus more on micro-linguistic language features or language forms.

At the end we will stop and reflect on those final standards as well as the overall standards. Slide 12 Standard 1: construct meaning from oral presentations and literary and informational text through grade-appropriate listening, reading, and viewing. This standard intentionally uses the verb construct in contrast to previous standards which asked students to determine meaning. This purposeful change emphasizes that students are actively doing something - constructing meaning - with language. In addition, the notion of constructing meaning allows for multiple meanings and perspectives rather than focusing on one pre-determined meaning. The standard also encourages student engagement with a variety of text types: oral presentations and different types of written text, such as literary and informational. Finally, it introduces the idea of “grade-appropriate” which appears in several of the standards. This is a shift from the old perspective of simplifying texts and academic activities for English Language Learners to a new perspective in which students engage with complex texts and rigorous activities involving listening, reading, and viewing, assisted by appropriate scaffolds. Slide 13 Standard 1 is applicable in the classroom whenever students engage in activities such as 1) reading a text, such as a newspaper article or an advertisement and then determining the author’s purpose. Or alternatively, students might listen to a poem being read aloud and determine the tone of the poem based on the word choice and figurative language of the author.

Both of these examples highlight how students are constructing meaning by listening and reading complex and grade-appropriate texts. Slide 14 Standard 2: participate in grade-appropriate oral and written exchanges of information, ideas, and analyses, responding to peer, audience, or reader comments and questions.

This standard focuses on exchanging and responding during discussion and the language that is used to convey ideas, information and analyses. This interaction necessitates active participation by students.

Because this is just one element of class discussion, it is likely that this standard could and should be paired with other standards that support students in preparing for, participating in, or reflecting on class discussion. This type of exchanging and responding in the classroom can include academic and/or social language as students participate and respond interact in order to develop content understanding. Slide 15 Two examples of this standard in action include class discussions that are facilitated through structures such as think-pair-shares or whole class fishbowl discussions. The important element in these examples is that students are actively listening to as well as building up and building on student ideas and teacher comments. This type of exchange can also occur during informal class discussion when students are actively participating. Slide 16 Standard 3: speak and write about grade-appropriate complex literary and informational texts and topics.

As you recall, Standard 1 referred to the receptive language students use to construct meaning from listening and reading. This standard now addresses the productive language students use to speak and write about text and topics. Once again, the language that students use to do this may include both formal language, as well as informal classroom discourse. The key functions of language here are to summarize key ideas and to organize and develop topics in oral and written language. Slide 17 Standard 3 is applicable during a situation in which students have read a literary work, and then discuss and take notes about the character development of the main character. The language students use to respond to the text helps them to organize their ideas and interpretations. Slide 18 Standard 4: construct grade-appropriate oral and written claims and support them with reasoning and evidence.

This standard focuses on constructing an argument, which involves a claim and reasoning or a justification, and evidence. This standard is a good example of a language function, constructing an argument. But Students use language to participate in the activity of constructing an argument, which also requires specific language forms.

For those of you working in early elementary, it is important to remember that even though argumentation is not addressed in the college- and career-ready standards until later grades, having an opinion IS setting the early foundation for argumentation. Therefore, this standard is relevant for all grade levels. Slide 19 Standard 4 is relevant any time that students are engaged in aspects of argumentation. For example, when students write a persuasive letter and include the essential elements of an argument, such as a claim, reasoning or justification, and evidence, they are enacting Standard 4. And again, for early grade levels, Standard 4 is relevant anytime students take a side on an issue and share evidence and reasons for their opinion. Slide 20 Standard 5: conduct research and evaluate and communicate findings to answer questions or solve problems.

This standard is an example of interactive language that involves gathering and responding to information. The term “research” encompasses both text research through print or online materials as well as scientific research that involves conducting and observing an experiment. This standard exemplifies the way the core disciplinary practices are deeply embedded in the ELP standards since research is a key component of scientific practices. Slide 21 For example, when students conduct research online in order to gather information and evidence to take a stand on a controversial issue, they are enacting ELP Standard 5. Another example of this standard is when students conduct scientific research to explore a hypothesis. Slide 22 Standard 6: analyze and critique the arguments of others orally and in writing. This standard also consists of interactive language, which incorporates both constructing and evaluating meaning and then offering a response or analysis. This standard involves a great level of cognitive complexity and increasingly difficult academic language demands. It is also a kind of extension of Standard 4, which involves the student him or herself making an argument, but not necessarily critiquing the arguments of others. Slide 23 Standard 6 is in play when students participate in an oral debate and present two sides of a controversial topic. In the debate, students must actively listen to the other side, construct understanding of the topic and ideas, and then develop a response using appropriate language. Slide 24 Standard 7: adapt language choices to purpose, task, and audience when speaking and writing.

This standard is grounded in the idea that language is socially constructed, meaning that language is used and learned according to a particular context and thus will vary according the social or cultural situation of the person or text. Thus, students need to select precise language for specific social and academic contexts based on the language environment, task or activity, topic, and genre or register needed. It is the responsibility of the teacher to make explicit to students how language patterns and expectations change according to the sociocultural or disciplinary context. For example, a specific discipline, such as mathematics, will have certain discourse structures – like “greater than, less than, etc.” and vocabulary specific to that discipline and students will have to navigate and use that language appropriately. Teachers should also support students as they strive to understand other perspectives, cultures, and disciplines and how these contexts may shape language.

Slide 25 Students are incorporating Standard 7 when they, for example employ questions during a science lab because they are demonstrating their understanding of how important inquiry is in the scientific process.

It is also relevant when a teacher provides sentence frames to foster academic discussions between students (for example, “I agree with ______. However, ______.”) because the students are being scaffolded into the expected language practices associated with academic discourse, and that are closer to the more highly valued ways of school-based communication.

It is important to point out again that these school-based discourse practices are socially constructed, or made up by humans, and must be acquired by students. Slide 26 You have now finished digging deeper into the first seven ELP standards, which focus more on the extraction of meaning during particular language functions. So now let’s reflect on what you have learned. You may work individually, with a partner, or in a small group to discuss the following questions.

1. Notice that many of these standards refer to grade-level appropriate skills, practices, and content. • What does grade-level appropriate mean to you? • How can you make content and skills grade-level appropriate in your class? 2. Which standards could support each other and be paired in a lesson or activity? Think about how the productive, receptive, and interactive modalities work together. Slide 27 As a reminder, the last three standards address micro-linguistic features of language or language forms that act in service of the previous seven standards.

Language functions refer to what people do with language, the action of language as they engage with content or interact with other people. Language forms refer to the grammatical structures of words or phrases, and to the words themselves.

When we say that standards 8, 9, and 10 are in service to the other seven standards, this is because students cannot learn how to communicate in English merely by being taught the forms of language. Language forms are what teachers address in the context of students doing useful and purposeful things with language, or performing language functions.

However, even though teachers should be addressing both language functions and forms in the development of English language proficiency, both of these are better conceptualized as part of the language practices of the math, science, and ELA classroom. Slide 28 Standard 8: determine the meaning of words and phrases in oral presentations and literary and informational texts.

This standard focuses on academic vocabulary development. And please note that does not limit vocabulary to just words, but also includes phrases. Vocabulary instruction should not be an isolated activity, but should clearly and intentionally work to support the previous seven standards. In other words, vocabulary development should be in service of the development of core language functions that will enable students to access disciplinary content. Slide 29 Standard 8 is ubiquitous in classrooms, but one of the most common examples of the standard in action might occur during a read aloud, when students pause and ask questions of teacher and peers to try to clarify understanding of new and difficult vocabulary. Or perhaps students are reading independently, and - on their own - use context clues to determine meaning of words or phrases. Slide 30 Standard 9: Create clear and coherent grade-appropriate speech and text.

It is first important to consider what is meant by the terms “clear” and “coherent.” Clear speech and text is understandable and messages that are effectively conveyed. The term “coherent” refers to the structure of discourse. Meaning that coherent speech and text follows a logical and socially constructed organizational structure. When considering this standard, also keep in mind that verbal language is just as important as written language because the standards emphasize the notion of language as action or language for use. Slide 31 Standard 9 is also ubiquitous in classrooms, and particularly when other standards, such as Standard 4 are relevant. For example, when students appropriately choose a text structure for writing based on the content and purpose of their writing and then use that organizational structure coherently, they are employing ELP Standard 9. Slide 32 Standard 10: make accurate use of standard English to communicate in grade- appropriate speech and writing.

This standard focuses on students’ use of appropriate and accurate language forms. Some example of language forms that may be addressed when considering this standard include the verbs conjunctions and verb phrases, inflections, syntactical structures, etc. You can also refer back to the handout on language functions and forms provided in Module 2 to recall some of the common language forms and link them to specific actions or functions. It is important to consider this standard in light of standard 7 as there are different conventions according to context. So students must make choices about what and how to use conventions based on audience, purpose, etc..

It is also important to remember that students will come to you with different proficiencies and different dialects of English. Standard English is only one dialect, but it is predominant and valued in school and work settings. As such, it is important to explicitly teach students standard English. But also remember that students will be in the process of developing proficiency. Implementing this standard should not be confused with foreclosing students from participating in language and academic tasks based on correctness and accuracy of Standard English. Students can and should be able to participate in rigorous academic and language tasks regardless of their Standard English proficiency. Slide 33 And like the previous 2 standard, Standard 10 can be applied to almost any classroom activity, depending on what part of the activity you are emphasizing. For example, students and teachers may consider Standard 10 in situations where students begin to use appropriate tense, syntax, and sentence structure to communicate ideas. The key here, however, is that the students are using this language to communicate ideas, not simply using “accurate language forms” for the sake of being “correct.” Slide 34 Now let’s reflect on these last three standards and how they connect to the previous seven standards. Again, you may work individually, with a partner, or in small groups to discuss the following questions. 1. How do the last three standards support the language functions of the first seven? • Specifically, how could you make connections between the language forms that are needed to accomplish language functions that are central to the first seven standards? 2. Different disciplines use and require different discourse patterns. What then is your role in helping students to become aware of these language patterns and make choices about their use?

Screencast 4: Task Analysis Process: Steps 3 and 4 Slide 1 Task Analysis Process, Steps 3 and 4

This section of the module takes a more detailed look at the task analysis process, reviewing steps 1 and 2, which were addressed in Module 2, and engaging deeply with Steps 3 and 4. It also walks you through an application of the process, using the same instructional task that was used in Module 2.

Slide 2 In Module 2 and in a previous screencast, you were introduced to the four steps of the task analysis process, as well as to its purpose and potential benefits. It was also mentioned that in this module – Module 3 – we will primarily focus on the last two steps of the task analysis process: identify relevant disciplinary practices and English Language Proficiency Standards. These two steps will facilitate a more careful examination of the new English Language Proficiency standards, and will prepare you to address and assess the ELP standards most essential to your chosen tasks. Slide 3 In a nutshell, the specific purposes of steps 3 and 4 include:

 Identifying what disciplinary practices and ELP standards are relevant to the focal task  Making links between the ELP standards and the core disciplinary practices  And helping educators choose which ELP standards make sense to focus on and assess

But before we dig deeper into steps 3 and 4 of the task analysis process, let’s review the essential elements and purposes of the first two steps, which were originally addressed in Module 2. Slide 4 Step 1, if you’ll remember, was to “examine and identify whether an particular task was appropriate for task analysis.”

Slide 5 When engaging in this step, we asked ourselves several questions about the focal task, including:  Is this task clear in its expectations?  Is this task grade-level appropriate?  Is this task aligned to the standards?  And does this task require students to use language and analytical skills to demonstrate their content knowledge?

If the answer to most of these questions is yes, then the task is appropriate for task analysis and we can move on to step 2.

If the answer to most of the questions is no, then the task may not be appropriate for task analysis or, much more importantly, the task may not be rigorous enough or appropriate for the students. And if this is indeed the case, we may still want to continue with task analysis to figure out what aspects of the task might need to be strengthened. Slide 6 Step 2 of the task analysis process is to identify the task demands, in terms of content knowledge, analytical skills and language. Slide 7 So for this step, what we are really asking is what do students need to do and know in terms of content knowledge, analytical skills, and language? In order to answer this question, we need to read or watch the focal task and write down everything that students need to demonstrate, know, or do in order to complete this task.

In Module 2, we went through this complex step in detail, describing how each of the resources provided on the Task Analysis Tool could help you to identify the task demands with respect to these three lenses. Slide 8 And that is where Module 2 left off, with step 2 of the task analysis process. Now we will continue with the process, specifically focusing on Step 3 - Identifying the core disciplinary practices that are relevant to the task being analyzed - and step 4, identifying the relevant English language proficiency standards and choosing which ones to focus on and assess. Slide 9 So let’s start with Step 3, identify the core disciplinary practices. In order to do this step, we first need to be clear on what is meant by the phrase “core disciplinary practices.” Slide 10 Which brings us back to this familiar Venn diagram, which was featured several times in both Module 1 and Module 2 of this series. As you will remember, the graphic, which was created by Tina Cheuk at Understanding Language, identifies the core analytical practices found in the new standards with respect to three disciplines – mathematics, English Language Arts, and Science. The graphic also maps out where these practices converge, or in other words, what they have in common, identifying the highest-leverage practices in the center of the diagram. Slide 11 So now that we are clear on what the disciplinary practices are, let’s go back to Step 3 and ask ourselves the guiding question: What disciplinary practice or practices are most relevant to this task? But in order to answer this question we, of course, need to have a focal task in mind.

Slide 12 So we will now return to the original task we analyzed in Module 2 – the second grade English Language Arts task created by Oregon teachers in collaboration with the Oregon Office of Learning’s Educational Equity Unit, which addresses making claims and involves a text entitled “Frog Girl” by Paul Own Lewis.

Please take a minute, pausing the video if necessary, to review the task, reading through its description and instructions. We also recommend that you download a copy of the Frog Girl Task in the Resources section of this module – if you do not already have one from Module 2 - because we will be referring back to it several times during the course of this screencast. The main requirement of the task is that after reading the story Frog Girl, students are supposed to discuss one or more of the following questions with a partner.  Which word best describes Frog Girl….helpful, courageous, or compassionate? Explain why you think that way, using examples from the story?  And – which big ideas (i.e. theme or message) in the story is the most important – being courageous or showing kindness to all creatures? Explain your thinking, using examples from the story? Slide 13 So keeping this Frog Girl task in mind, we now ask ourselves, “What disciplinary practices are most relevant to this task?”

And in addition to the core practices Venn diagram that we just reviewed, we have two references that we can call upon to answer this question – the Core Disciplinary Practices PDF and an interactive PDF that outlines the correspondence between these practices, analytical skills or tasks, and language functions.

Take a minute to stop the video and download these documents from the Resources section if you have not already done so. Slide 14 Let’s take a look at the Core Disciplinary Practices PDF first, as it is the more straightforward of the two resources. This document lists the core disciplinary practices – the same ones that are featured in the colorful Venn diagram we just reviewed – in a clear and easy-to-read format. And as you can see here, the eight core practices for math are listed first, on the left-hand side, followed by the eight core science practices and then the six core English language arts practices. So our job now is to decide which of these core practices are relevant to the Frog Girl task we just reviewed.

Slide 15 One way to go about accomplishing this would be to go back to the Frog Girl task and scrutinize it to decide which of these disciplinary practices are relevant. But that approach would disregard all the Frog Girl work we have ALREADY done with respect to Steps 1 and 2 of the task analysis process back in Module 2. It would also disregard the tight linkages between the identified analytical skills and language needed for this task and the relevant core disciplinary practices. Slide 16 So a more systematic approach would be to go back and review what we identified in Module 2 in terms of the content knowledge, analytical skills and language that students need to demonstrate, know or do in order to successfully complete the Frog Girl task. Reviewing these and identifying where they might overlap with the core disciplinary practices allows us both to build on the work we have already done as well as to more deeply understand the links between the task demands and the relevant practices.

So here is a copy of the final task demands table we came up with in Module 2 for Step 2. As you can see, there are a lot more task demands than one might expect at first glance, in respect to all three lenses – content knowledge, analytical skills, and language. Slide 17 And if we look at the task demands table from step 2 and the core disciplinary practices PDF side-by-side, we can ascertain which core practices line up with the already-identified task demands. Slide 18 And what we begin to see through this process is how certain task demands, such as “use information from text to demonstrate understanding of Frog Girl character and theme” and “Analyze text to draw a conclusion regarding which big idea (or theme) is most important” line up with certain English Language Arts practices, like practice #1 – Support analyses of a range of grade-level complex texts with evidence.

From the task demands chart we also can see that the Frog Girl task requires students to analyze which theme in the story is most important and use examples from the story to support that thinking, but does not require that they critique the reasoning of others. This lines up with part of ELA Practice 3, which requires that students construct valid arguments from evidence and critique the reasoning of others.

Additionally, in the Frog Girl task students are asked to analyze textual meaning with a partner, listening to and comprehending their partner’s textual analysis as well as presenting their own character and thematic analyses. Thus ELA Practice 5 should fit here, which requires students to “Build upon the ideas of others and articulate their own when working collaboratively”.

Finally, students are required to use a variety of language forms such as descriptive adjectives, verbal phrases, and textual language to perform different functions such as characterizing, describing, and supporting claims. These demands line up nicely with ELA practice 6, which is to use English structures to communicate context- specific messages. Slide 19 So to sum up what we’ve found, there are 4 English Language Arts practices that are relevant to this Frog Girl Task.  ELA Practice 1 – Support analyses of a range of grade-level complex texts with evidence  Part of ELA Practice 3 – construct valid arguments from evidence  ELA Practice 5 – Build on the ideas of others and articulate their own when working collaboratively  And finally, ELA Practice 6 – use English structures to communicate context- specific messages. Slide 20 We can also use the Interactive Correspondences PDF as a check to ensure whether the disciplinary practices we chose overlap with the analytical skills and language functions that the task demands. Slide 21 We refer to this document as interactive because for instance, if you click on ELA practice number 1, the document jumps down to the corresponding analytical skills and language functions that most closely correspond. So if your choice of corresponding practices seems to match those in the document, than you are on the right track. Please take a moment to try out this interactive document, clicking on ELA Practice 3 and 5 that we identified as overlapping in the Frog Girl task. Slide 22 & 23 Now that we’ve identified the most relevant disciplinary practices used in this task, we will move on to Step 4 of the task analysis process, Identify the pertinent English Language Proficiency Standards and choose which ones to address and assess. But before we do that, please pause the video and discuss step 3 with your colleagues asking and addressing any questions you may have about the process so far. Slide 24 Let’s take a look at the guiding questions for Step 4. The first question for this step asks: “What English Language Proficiency Standards are reflected in this task?” The second questions asks, “Which of these ELP standards do you feel comfortable measuring or intend to assess?”

In order to answer these 2 questions, you’ll first need to make sure that you’ve located the following 3 documents from the resources section: • The ELP Standards, • The Alternative Organization of Standards; and • The K-12 Practices Matrix Slide 25 Now let’s take a moment to remind ourselves of the task which addresses making claims and involves a text titled “Frog Girl” by Paul Own Lewis. Please take a minute, pausing the video if necessary, to review the task, reading through its description and instructions. Slide 26 What will help us the most with Step 4 – Identify the ELP Standards– is to use the disciplinary practices we just identified and recognize which overlap with the relevant ELP standards. And remembering that we’ve identified ELA practice 1, 3, 5, and 6 as the most relevant to this task, let’s take a look at the ten ELP standards to see which seem to most closely match. Slide 27 Let’s take a look at Table 1: Organization of the ELP standards in relation to participation in content-area practices.

If you’ll remember from Module 2, the ELP standards 1-7 involve the language necessary for English learners to engage in the central content-specific practices associated with ELA and Literacy, Mathematics, and Science. So in other words, these standards are functional and focus on meaning. ELP Standards 8-10 then focus in on some of the more micro linguistic features, or language forms that are in service to the other standards. Slide 28 In light of the disciplinary practices we identified as most relevant to the Frog Girl task, we then choose the following ELP standards, which focus on language functions, or what students must do with language: • ELP1: Construct meaning through oral presentations and literary and informational text through grade-level appropriate listening, reading and viewing • ELP2: Participate in grade-level appropriate oral and written exchanges of information, ideas and analyses, responding to peer, audience or reader comments and questions • ELP4: Construct grade-appropriate oral and written claims and support them with reasoning and evidence

But we still have not matched up English Language Arts practice 6 with any ELP standards. In order to do this, let’s go back and look at the language demands identified for this task in step 2. Slide 29 Besides listening and comprehending others, analyzing, and supporting analyses with evidence, all analytical demands, this task also requires students to comprehend what is read, use adjectives and phrases to characterize and describe, use conjunctions to link descriptions and to use textual language to support claims. As we referenced earlier, most of these demands line up with English Language Arts Practice 6. Slide 30 These language demands also overlap with English Language Proficiency standards 8-10, which hone in on some of the more microlinguistic features of language, or language forms used in service of the language functions. So after looking at the specific language demands, we can see that ELP standard 8, Determine the meaning of words and phrases in oral presentations and literary and informational text, and ELP standard 10, Make accurate use of Standard English to communicate in grade- appropriate speech and writing, are also appropriate here. Slide 31 We can also use the K-12 practices matrix as a check to make sure that we’ve identified all of the relevant ELP standards that correspond with our chosen disciplinary practices. For example, if I look at the column for ELP standard 2 on the right side of the matrix document, you can see that 2 of the ELA practices that we’ve identified as relevant to this task, ELA practice 1 and ELA practice 5 overlap with this standard. Slide 32 Now that we have decided which of the ELP Standards are most relevant to this task, let’s look at the second guiding question, “Which of these ELP standards do you feel comfortable measuring or intend to assess?” Slide 33 Although each of the five chosen standards are reflected in the lesson, it is important when planning an activity to think about which you will focus on. It would be difficult to measure all five in one activity, so it’d be best to hone in on one or two that you can assess during the task.

For this part of the task analysis, three documents will be helpful. • The ELP Standards • The Alternative Organization of Standards • And The K-12 Practices Matrix

If you have not already done so, please stop the video now, and locate these documents. Slide 34 Now, if you remember, the alternative organization frames the standards in relation to the receptive, productive, or interactive modalities.

The receptive modality allows for emphasis on the learner as a reader, or listener/viewer, so these standards would map onto practices related to reading a text, or listening to a lecture. The productive modality places emphasis on the learner as a speaker or writer for an audience that they are not interacting with. The interactive modality emphasizes the collaborative use of language where two- way communication and negotiation of meaning can be observed. Slide 35 So, because the Frog Girl task requires students to read and then construct meaning from a text, analyze that text in relation to the questions, and then discuss their thoughts with a partner, the ELP standards that might make most sense to assess would involve the interactive modality, which combines both receptive and productive modalities, but also focus on the need for English learners to meaningfully engage with their peers.

In light of the collaborative demands of the task in relation to the modalities, the standard that might most sense to focus on and assess in this case, is ELP 2: “Participate in grade-level appropriate oral and written exchanges of information, ideas and analyses, responding to peer, audience or reader comments and questions.”

However, depending on what you have focused on in the past or plan to focus on in the future, you might decide to address and assess a different ELP standard. Deciding which standard to focus on and measure is very context-specific and will change depending on your students’ previous experience and trajectories. But it is perhaps the most important step of the task analysis process, as it sets you up to actually focus on instruction that will meet your students’ needs. Slide 36 Now we have finally completed all four steps of the task analysis process. In the next few videos, you review how to use the Task Analysis Tool as well as watch a group of teachers collaboratively working through Steps 3 and 4 of the process. Slide 37 But before moving on to the next video, please take a minute to reflect on what you have learned during this section of the module, pausing to answer the following reflection questions.

You may reflect and answer these questions on your own of course. But, if at all possible, we encourage you to explore them with colleagues, preferably within the context of a professional learning opportunity or as part of a professional learning community.

Screencast 5: Task Analysis Tool Slide 1 Now that you have had the chance to examine Steps 3 and 4 of the Task Analysis process in depth, we are going to revisit the Task Analysis Tool. As a reminder, you can download the task analysis tool in the “Resources” section of this module. Reviewing the tool is important, especially since in the next few videos, you will see teachers capturing their ideas using this tool. We also hope that you will use the tool yourself in the “Apply” section. Slide 2 You will recall from the previous module and the previous screencast, the tool provides guiding questions to help you focus your thoughts, as well as a space for you to write down (or type out) notes pertaining to your analysis. As discussed, Step 1 focuses on examining and identifying appropriate instructional task. Step 2 then involves identifying the task demands. Slide 3 As you know, in this module we focus on steps 3 and 4 of the task analysis process. In step 3, educators identify what disciplinary practices are relevant for this task. The Core Disciplinary Practices PDF and Interactive Correspondence between Practices, Tasks, and Functions are listed here as references and can be found in the “Resources” section.

Step 4 looks at what ELP standards are reflected in the task and which of the ELP standards the educator feels comfortable measuring or assessing. The resources that support this task, which are listed here, are the ELP Standards, the Alternative Organization of the Standards and the K-12 Practices Matrix. You may also find these in the “Resources” section. These resources are a starting point, but we expect that you will also utilize your own ideas and experience as well as that of your colleagues in order to make the task analysis process productive and meaningful for you and your students.

Screencast 6: K-2nd Grade Teacher Analysis Slide 1 Kindergarten through 2nd grade: Task and Teacher Analysis

This portion of the Engage section focuses on four different tasks, at different grade level bands and in different content areas. It also features a group of educators analyzing the disciplinary practices and ELP standards that are relevant for the task, using the task analysis tool. This section builds on the work done by teachers in the previous modules by describing what happens during steps three and four of the task analysis process.

This particular video features an integrated first grade science and English language development lesson. It is particularly helpful for teachers serving students in the early elementary grades or any educator seeking more models of the task analysis process. Slide 2 The purpose of this integrated lesson is for pairs of first grade students to engage in constructive conversations about predicted animal adaptations. Leading up to this lesson, the class had been engrossed in unit of study about animal adaptations for nearly two weeks, and had previously read a portion of the featured text, What do you do when something wants to eat you? By Steve Jenkins.

The two learning goals for this lesson are that: • Students understand how different animal adaptations help animals to survive. • Students understand that constructive conversations involve responding to a partner’s ideas and jointly creating ideas together.

The specific conversation prompt that was given to the students before they engaged in partner conversations was:

How do you think this puffer fish will defend itself? Come up with an idea together with your partner. Slide 3 We will not be showing the video again, but if you would like to review it, please go to module 2 or you can also find the video in the Resources section of this module. You can also download a copy of the full lesson plan which is available in the resources section of the module. Slide 4 In the next few minutes, you will watch a group of educators, some of whom are from Oregon, Sandy Boe, Elizabeth Prusko, and Kerri West, and one Renae Skarin who's from Understanding Language at Stanford University. These educators collaboratively analyze this task using the Task Analysis Tool. This discussion is included to provide you with a model of a professional learning community collaboratively working through steps three and four of the task analysis process. Their goal for this process is to better understand and identify the disciplinary practices and English Language Proficiency Standards that are relevant to and important for this task. Slide 5 At this point, we strongly encourage you to pause the video and download a copy of the Task Analysis Tool from the Resources section, if you have not already done so. Throughout their analysis, the teachers will be referencing this tool, so you may find it difficult to follow along without it in front of you. You may also find it useful to download and reference a copy of the English Language Proficiency Standards to refer to as teachers mention them during the video. Teacher Analysis EP: The first step on the task analysis was talked about in module 2 was, was this an appropriate task. So that’s step one of the task analysis process. So what did the module 2 teachers say? What were their thoughts about the appropriateness of the task? SB: It was my recollection that they thought it was definitely appropriate and fairly rigorous as well.

KW: And it was clear in its expectations to the students.

EP: One of the things that I remember them focusing on is that there was clearly defined goals in terms of what the expectation was, and also that it wasn’t overly narrow, there was room for more than one response. So that was part of what made it appropriate. Are there any other comments to add about step one? No? Okay. So, moving onto step two of the task analysis process this is where we would really analyze in terms of the content knowledge, the analytical skills, and the language practices involved. There were quite a few that came out of the module 2 discussion, including some standards. Looking at the content knowledge, there were some ELA standards that were called out. For example, “asking and answering questions about informational texts,” “Identifying the main topics,” and also “participating in collaborative conversations.” Then they also called out a science standard, “determining patterns and behavior of parents and offspring that help them to survive.” Those were some of the content standards that came out about how animals adapt their environment and their survival skills and that sort of thing. So in terms of analytical skills, they need to identify cause and effect, and draw inferences, cite some evidence to justify their thinking, and kind of synthesize ideas with their partner. And in terms of language practices, they need to build on the ideas of others and contribute and listen in a conversation, and expressing their opinion, persuading in terms of that conversation. So, that was what was accomplished in step 2 and now we’re going to be moving into step 3, which is to identify which disciplinary analytical practices are most relevant to this task. So, what disciplinary analytical practices do you see coming out of this task?

KW: I definitely had the English Language Arts Practice 5, “build upon the ideas of others and work collaboratively” just because I know that a big part of the lesson was to work with others to come up with an idea.

RS: Yeah, I thought also ELA practice 3, because they are using evidence, the picture of the puffer fish, and they’re constructing a shared argument as to how it might defend itself.

ES: Do you think that it goes into 6 at all in terms of having to do it in a certain way? The idea of register, and… I’m looking at the Venn diagram that has all of the ELA practices. That was one that I was just questioning for myself about using English structures to communicate context-specific messages.

RS: Yeah, I put English practice 6 because she’s explicitly teaching these discourse structures… She’s not actually teaching them in terms of focusing on form, but she’s asking them to use these structures, “our idea is…”. So, definitely 6 was in there. KW: And I also had English language arts practice 2 also because I know at the end after their discussion, they’re supposed to write a sentence, which I felt for this grade level that worked for “produce clear and coherent writing.” Did anyone else have that one?

EP: I did too, I was thinking along the same lines. Are there any other practices that we can identify?

KW: I wasn’t sure about this one, I had the science practice number 6 but only have of it. So it’s “construct explanations for science.” Because I felt that, I wanted to run that by you guys if you felt that that was, they’re coming up with what it can do to escape.

RS: I agree. It goes along with English practice 5, or both 3 and 5. Yeah, it’s kind of matched.

EP: Science practice 6. Alright.

EP: Well it sounds like we’ve identified the content area practices, and so that takes us through step 3 of the task analysis process. So now, moving on and looking at step 4, identifying the ELP standards, the question we would ask ourselves is what English language proficiency standards are reflected in this task. So what thoughts do you have about that?

SB: I think I mostly did, well first of all, it makes me think of ELP 1, because I think that constructing meaning from the read-aloud, they need to be able to understand what’s going on. But the big one for me was the oral exchange, building on the ideas of others and just keeping that conversation and language going. So they’re sort of apprenticing to language as they learn.

EP: I would agree. It seems to me that that was a really emphasized piece of the lesson. When I watched the video, it looked like that was a really critical part of the way that the lesson was structured.

KW: I agree. I think definitely number 1, constructing meaning through listening of the text. And they’re exchanging information in the partner dialogue. They’re creating, they’re responding to each other.

RS: Yeah, I would add to that, English language practice 3, because they’re definitely speaking about a grade-appropriate informational text. And then 4, if you consider a hypothesis a kind of claim. You know they’re constructing a hypothesis about how the puffer fish might defend itself based on the evidence, the picture in the book. Um, so, I’d add those two.

EP: So, I have a question about that, because I was looking at English language proficiency standard 3 and 4, and to me I felt like there was a crossover, in that if you’re making a claim, if you are making a written claim, then you are producing a written piece. So I was kind of wondering what the difference was between standard 3 and standard 4. What thoughts do you guys have about that? Should it be both, or should it be one or the other?

SB: I think for me on standards 3 and 4, I think I would have to look at the proficiency descriptors. First of all, I know that this is a K-2 piece, and so I’d need to know what the expectations are to really make a clear distinction on it. I felt like in standard 4 there was definitely the beginnings of creating a claim there, because of the “I agree” or “I disagree.” And if they do end up writing a sentence, I think we said earlier that they might be writing something at some point, although I can’t remember where it is in the lesson.

EP: I think toward the end they have to…

SB: Yeah, I think at the beginning of that, but I don’t know that …that as my focus. My focus, if this were my lesson, would be about the oral exchange and just speaking about what they knew. Because speaking about what they know about the text will help me to understand what they know about the text in the first place, which is ELP 1, “Constructing meaning from the text.” Does that make sense?

KW: Yeah, I think you’re saying, I think there is definitely standard 3 because they are going to be writing about grade-appropriate informational text. But 4, I mean, the other one would be easier to measure. I feel like with 4, they might be constructing a claim, but I don’t know if they’d be supporting it with evidence. I feel like they might just say “I think it would do this…” and not have a complex sentence and say “because…” and therefore supporting with logical evidence. So I understand what you’re saying.

RS: When she gave the sentence frames, did she say anything like “because…”. I can’t remember.

EP: No, I don’t think so. I think it was just “Our idea is…” RS: Yeah. Maybe they aren’t using evidence. So 4 might not be as appropriate.

KW: I know we were going to first list what ELP standards apply to this task and then go back and discuss which ones we would feel comfortable measuring. And maybe that’s where we’ll come back later and say, “Well, it has both, but I really feel more comfortable measuring ELP 1 because of those reasons.”

EP: Yeah, exactly. What do you guys think? It seems we’ve been talking about some of those more task oriented standards of the ELP standards 1 to 7. What are your thoughts about standards 8, 9, and 10, since they seem to be a little bit different in nature? SB: I think ELP 8, if we’re thinking about the vocabulary piece, this content is going to have, in this particular lesson, some specific vocabulary that we need to focus on. I also, I am hoping or would prompt students in a way that would ask them to use that vocabulary in context. So I think ELP 8 is there. I think 9 and 10, with the cause and effect and the inferencing, and the ideas… And then if I were, would be standard 9, and then just the form, if I want them to talk as if it were happened in the past or I am asking them to talk in the present, or in the future, being explicit about that. I don’t know if it’s explicit here in this lesson. But as a teacher, I could see focusing a little bit on 8, 9 and 10. I could also see focusing on it a little bit later once we have some background knowledge around puffer fish.

EP: I hear what you’re saying. I’m looking at the lesson plan and the conversation prompt says “How do you think this octopus will defend itself?” And then so that’s kind of implying a prediction into the future. And then it goes onto say “How might the puffer fish defend himself?” But it doesn’t seem like there’s… With first graders you don’t really know which direction you’re going to go. I don’t see anything in the lesson plan that indicated that they were going to specifically emphasize a certain verb tense or anything like that.

SB: Right, there’s definitely higher level forms there I feel like. But whether or not they’re going to explicitly draw that out and ask the students to use that same higher-level form and vocabulary, I’m not sure about that.

EP: So are there any other ELP standards that we want to put on the table to consider. We have our list of standards that we sorta called out.

KW: I don’t think this one would be measurable, but if you were walking around observing, ELP Standard 6 might apply if they were having a back and forth and saying, “Well, I don’t think that’s a really good idea because…” But I think that’s not explicitly called out, it’s just come up with an idea together. So I think some students might be participating in ELP standard 6 during this activity. Not that I would necessarily assess it.

SB: I have to agree, especially with the responses, the starters there with “I agree”, “I disagree” “I have another idea”, “ I want to add…”. So that oral exchange… So you have to analyze just a little bit what your partner is saying and then you can continue on with the discussion. So I’d chosen 6 a little bit as well.

EP: Alright, so we have quite a few standards on the table. We have 1, 2, we’ve talked about 3, we kind of 4, 6, and then 8 and 9, not so much on 10. Is that… I think that’s where we left off with that. That’s a lot of standards. Obviously, no teacher is going to want to worry about assessing all those standards. And they’re not all equally emphasized in the lesson plan itself. And so now, as part of step 4 in the task analysis process, now we want to take a look and see which of these ELP standards we feel that we would be comfortable, or be prepared to assess, what our priorities would be. Because we really want to narrow it down to 3 or fewer standards to really focus on. So what are your thoughts about emphasis and priorities in terms of these standards?

RS: I feel 2 seems to be the most relevant to me. In two, they’re exchanging ideas about puffer defense and responding to each other’s ideas. And I think if you were a teacher circulating around the class, that would be the easiest to formatively assess.

KW: I agree. I had ELP standard 2 as something that you could walk around and listen to the conversations and see if they are participating and talking about the text with each other, having a back and forth, and yes, I agree with that one.

SB: For me, measurement, I chose 1,2, 4, and 8, but I would emphasize mostly 1 and 2 because I always want to see whether they are understanding the input piece. I would have to do that through standard 2, through the oral exchange. If they’re not understanding the text, then I need to obviously redo something in order for the oral exchange to be better. So I think those 2 need to go hand in hand.

EP: Sandy, you mentioned 4, and I think Renae, maybe it was you that had indicated previously that you think 3 was more, that you thought it was leaning more toward 3. But Sandy, you think it’s leaning more toward 4 than 3? You want to talk about that a little bit?

SB: I struggled honestly between 3 and 4 a little bit, because I think there’s the beginnings of a claim with the “I agree”, and “I disagree” piece. And with it being K-2, and I still feel like we are in the beginning of a school year possibly that we may not be to the point where we can do much more than that. So, I just, the measurement piece I think is a little bit dicey. 3, when you’re speaking about it, I think I lean heavily toward 2 rather than 3, because I think I would leverage their understanding through the oral exchange. I think that that creates deeper understanding in what the text is. So I struggled just a little bit. That’s why I backed down and kinda said 1 and 2 more than 4. I don’t know, based on this lesson, if I’m really ready to measure that, but I do want to see where they are with their responses, especially with “I agree” I disagree”, so I know where to move next in my lesson.

RS: Yeah I think that, building on that, I think that in the next lesson, you could build in, on the claims, supporting claims with reasoning and evidence. It’s not asked for, it’s not shown as we talked about before, it’s not shown in the sentence frames. She’s not actually requiring them to use evidence from the text. But I think that, maybe even the next step in this particular task could be, “what evidence do you see that would support your idea in this picture?”

EP: Alright, and then we mentioned 8. I know that they did in the lesson, they talked about, the kids had to kind of pare it back, to survive, adaptation. And so it seemed clear to me that that was an important part of the lesson, and so I would agree that that that vocabulary it sounded to me like that was something that was really being emphasized in the lesson, and it seemed like it would be pretty easy to assess. KW: I think you could assess it while you were listening to the conversations. How many of those terms are they actually using when they are having their back and forth dialogues. And then, ultimately, in their piece of writing, did they use some of the words like “defend” and “puffer fish.” Did they actually use some of those vocabulary words.

EP: So, to kind of sum up our conversation, would we concur that standard 1 is a standard that we would want to emphasize?

All: Yeah. EP: And standard 2, in terms of that discourse, is that something critical to assess? All: Yes, I think so.

EP: 3 and 4 we’re kind of on the fence about and maybe we should look further before we could make a decision on what role that standard is going to play. Maybe it’s something we’re giving instruction in, but we are not ready to assess yet? And then bringing us to standard 8, and making sure they are getting that science vocabulary, because this is an integrated English language arts and science lesson. Do we agree on that?

All: yes.

EP: Well, if we look at 1,3, and 8, we are down to three standards, which is a manageable number for a teacher to assess. Yay, we did it. KW: Sounds good!

Screencast 7: 3-5th Grade Teacher Analysis Slide 1 3rd through 5th grade: Task and Teacher Analysis

This portion of the Engage section focuses on a third grade math task and features a group of educators analyzing the disciplinary practices and ELP standards that are relevant for the task, using the task analysis tool. This video is particularly helpful for teachers serving third through fifth grade students or any educator seeking more models of the task analysis process. This section builds on the work done by teachers in the previous modules by describing what happens during steps three and four of the task analysis process. Slide 2-3 This math performance task, from the New York Department of Education, is meant to be embedded into a 4-5 week unit on interpreting and linking representations, modeling situations, solving non-routine problems and justifying arguments of multiplication and division. You can access the entire performance task and supplementary materials, which include samples of student work, in the Resources section of the module.

For this performance task, which is meant to be completed individually, students are asked to imagine that Clear Creek School is fundraising. They are selling Cookie Dough in tubs. They are then given the prices per tub for chocolate chip cookie dough, peanut butter cookie dough, and oatmeal cookie dough.

Please note that while there are 4 items in the original task, we are only focusing on the fourth item, which states: Jermaine’s mother loves oatmeal cookies. She has $20 to spend. What is the greatest number of tubs of Oatmeal Cookie Dough she can buy? Explain how you figured it out. Students are then given a physical space to write out their mathematical explanation. Slide 4 In the next few minutes, you will watch a group of educators, some of whom are from Oregon, Sandy Boe, Elizabeth Prusko, and Kerri West, and one Renae Skarin who's from Stanford University. These educators collaboratively analyze this task using the Task Analysis Tool. This discussion is included to provide you with a model of a professional learning community collaboratively working through steps three and four of the task analysis process. Their goal for this process is to better understand and identify the disciplinary practices and English Language Proficiency Standards that are relevant to and important for this task. Slide 5 At this point, we strongly encourage you to pause the video and download a copy of the Task Analysis Tool from the Resources section, if you have not already done so. Throughout their analysis, the teachers will be referencing this tool, so you may find it difficult to follow along without it in front of you. You may also find it useful to download and reference a copy of the ELP Standards to refer to as teachers mention them during the video. Teacher Analysis KW: When I went back to kinda review, to review what had happened in steps one and two, I just tried to pull up their analysis. And I remember they went over all the third grade math standards and there were at least eight that this applied to. So they felt it was definitely grade-level appropriate; it was aligned to standards. They agree it was clear in expectations. And then I also just went back and read over their notes to see if I could see a pattern and just to kinda help me for what practices and ELP standards to look for. And I noticed… In the content knowledge they have solve a word problem, read a table. In the analytical skills they’re talking about interpreting a table, explaining their thinking, reading a table, interpreting data. And then in the language practices also they have read a table, explain their thinkings. So I just kinda was making, underlining some things I saw as a pattern before then analyzing myself. And then when I started to get ready to analyze it for the disciplinary practices and the ELP standards, I just went ahead and I kind of did the task myself. And then I started to look at the practices and see what I noticed, what would I engage in. So, I’ll just kinda start maybe with some of the practices that I found and then see if you guys agree. Well the first one, obviously there was a bunch of math ones cause it’s a math assessment question. I had math practice one, make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. I thought that was evident here. Did anyone else have that one?

All: Yeah.

KW: Ok, I also had, I thought that math practice two, reason abstractly and quantitatively, more so the quantitatively because the student has to figure out only the amount of oatmeal cookie dough so I felt like that was reasoning quantitatively.

RS: I agree.

KW: I also felt that math practice three, even though it says explain how you figured out. This is where I wanted to get your feedback. Math practice three is constructing a viable argument, do you feel like that was applicable here. They were explaining how to figure it out.

RS: Yes.

SB: For me, I chose three because it says construct an argument and I looked at the answer key and that’s what they were looking for. But I don’t know, as a student, if I would have maybe constructed an argument. I might have just explained rather than give what they want, so I wasn’t sure on that one.

RS: So, I wonder cause I thought the same thing, but there wasn’t really anything in here about explaining your reasoning, so I thought maybe when they said construct a viable argument they meant explain your reasoning.

SB: Yeah, no I can see that.

EP: Yeah, I was kinda thinking about it as because it’s the students way of figuring it out. They’re constructing an argument to say this is a way to figure this out versus retelling a way that someone else figured it out. For example, if you show them one way to figure it out and say explain how this person figured it out, then that’s not really making a claim, that’s just explaining something that is in front of you. But because they have to come up with their own way of figuring it out, they’re making a claim that says this is a viable way of solving this problem. Well, that’s I guess why I thought it was applicable.

KW: I agree, because it does say construct valid arguments, or sorry, construct viable arguments. And I feel like in the question, what is the greatest number of tubs of oatmeal cookie dough, they’re saying how many tubs of cookie dough she can buy and they’re explaining how they figured it out, which I feel like is the support. So I feel like it applied here. And one that I didn’t originally put, but when I went back and looked back at the notes, I noticed the teachers had listed math practice four which is model with mathematics. When I looked at just the sheet which has the practices, I felt like I needed to look at more explanation of what that one actually meant. If you look under the model with mathematics, because I was trying to find out how is this model with mathematics and I saw apply math to everyday situations outside of school and on the job. I was just thinking like the cookie dough fundraiser. And then here it says identify and map relationships among important quantities and then decide on quantities, which quantities are relevant. And that’s where I was thinking they have to look at the information in the chart and realize that they are only going to use the oatmeal cookie dough price to find the right solution to the problem that that might be deciding which quantities are relevant. Do you guys agree with that?

RS: hmm mm EP: Yes, very much. KW: So then that’s kind of what helped me figure it out. RS: Yeah, and you’re analyzing relationships among quantities as well, right?

KW: Yeah, I think so. And I was kinda on the fence about math practice six which is attend to precision. And I said, I wrote, because you have to only use the price of the cookie dough. Kinda the same reason, but I don’t know, I wasn’t sure. So, I’m going to go down to six and show you guys what I underlined, right here. So it was attend to precision, make claims that apply to a precise set of situations and then calculate, commute and use arithmetic procedures appropriately, accurately, and efficiently. Which almost makes me feel like almost any kind of math problem would fall under that but that’s why I had that in there. So I’m ok if we don’t feel that it really applies to attend to precision, but that’s kinda why I was thinking that it might.

RS: I agree with you that it might, that they do have to attend to precision. I mean they have to come up with a definite number that applies to the situation. But, as you said, it seems like most math problems, there’s not a lot of interpretation involved.

KW: Ok, does anyone have any other practices in science or ELA that they felt were applicable here? In my notes, I have English Language Arts practice 6, use English structures to communicate context specific messages, just because they have to explain how they figured it out in writing. I don’t know what you guys think about that one.

EP: Well maybe it gets subsumed under the constructing viable arguments piece because that’s the form of productive language that they’re doing. It’s taking the form of writing.

KW: Exactly. And it’s under math so that makes sense. That makes sense. Ok, well I think we have many of the practices and moving on to what the ELP standards are applicable. I had ELP standard one. I felt like the student would need to construct meaning of a grade appropriate math problem either by reading it or maybe if the teacher reads it to them. Did you also have that one?

RS: Yes. EP: I did as well.

KW: And because they have to individually explain how they figured out the answer, I had ELP three, just they’re writing about grade-appropriate complex informational text. I was assuming that a math problem is considered an informational text so I had that also.

RS: I agree. I had the same thing.

KW: And again I know we’ve discussed this a little bit with the math practice of constructing a viable argument. For ELP standard four, I felt like again when they state how many tubs of the oatmeal cookie dough they are stating a claim and they are supporting it when they have to explain their answer. It’s not really like a heated debate, but it’s more explaining their mathematical thinking. So I did have that. Does anyone else have ELP four?

SB: I did have ELP four and I think I’m finally making the connection between the math practice, by looking at the matrix... By looking at the matrix, construct, oh math practice three, because of the justification… If we’re teaching kids to explain it, they’re sort of justifying their answer at the same time, and I think justification and argument sort of go together with that evidence. So that’s sorta why I chose four but I didn’t make the connection to math practice three until just now.

KW: Ok, so I’m just gonna go back to we were listing which standards. I think this conversation will lead itself nicely into which ones do we feel comfortable assessing. I did have ELP standard seven just in the sense that adapt language choices to purpose and audience when writing. I feel like there’s a certain register and what you are suing when you’re writing about math that’s a little bit different. Did anyone else have that?

RS: Yeah, I felt like it was very discourse specific and they have to use procedural language which is specific to math and science. EP: Yeah, I think that would have to be really thought about in the instructions and I don’t know, I’d have to look at the lesson plan again to see how that was addressed. But I’m wondering if the student didn’t use more academic discourse in their explanation but their mathematical explanation was still valid, would that undermine the quality of their response? Is that something that’s being explicitly taught and focused on? Because it just says explain how you figured it out. It doesn’t say explain how you figured out, something about, speaking as a mathematician. You know what I mean, it doesn’t have anything, it doesn’t call out anything to that. So I don’t know how heavily that was emphasized. KW: Yeah and I believe it’s a math assessment that they’re doing individually so to your point, I’m not sure if the teacher spent time talking about that when you’re you know writing in math, you know, so. Well we can maybe just leave it that it’s there but it’s not necessarily one that you would assess because of the nature of the activity.

RS: I think it’s implicit in the task. I don’t think they could get away with not using procedural language, but you might not assess it because it was not focused on in the instructions. I think that we all agree that it may be not what we’re focusing on in terms of our assessment but if we thought that a student were having trouble you know logically explaining a procedure then we would definitely intervene.

KW: Yeah and I think that to me the logically explain the procedure that I think of like transitional words, also which to me would fall under ELP 9. Do you guys think that also? That those first, next, then, that’s why I had, I felt like this applied, ELP standard 9 - create clear and coherent grade-appropriate text - was applicable here. Do you guys have that also?

EP: Yeah.

KW: Ok, and then I skipped eight. I do think that is just obviously, I felt like they would definitely have to know the term and the meaning of words and phrases in informational texts so in the word problem they have to know the meaning of words. Did anyone else have that also?

EP: I’m not sure what vocabulary specifically it’s being emphasized, although like you said they would probably have to use some mathematical terms like I added or I multiplied. So there’s some vocabulary. I’m not sure if that’s something that would be explicitly assessed or not in this type of an assessment.

KW: I was intrigued by with, I’m not sure what this falls under, but the fact that they have to know, when it says what is the greatest number of tubs of oatmeal cookie dough. They need to know the connotation of greatest. Meaning in this sense we’re talking the most or largest and I think that that could be confusing. So I definitely felt, and I feel that that was definitely under one of the math practices, so I’m gonna look where I had that. But I think that would mean the also determine the meaning of words in informational text. That’s really important. If they don’t get that, then they’re not going to have the correct answer.

RS: Yeah, I think that’s a really great point because I think we make a lot of assumptions. We think that students at this point should be able to understand this language but when we are talking about English learners, a phrase like the greatest number of can be quite confusing. KW: Ok, so that’s a lot of standards that we have that are in this task. So obviously they were right that this is you know a meaty enough task for students, for teachers to analyze and for students to do. What did you guys feel would be the standards that you would feel comfortable assessing with this task?

RS: Yeah, I definitely feel like ELP one is one of the most important and ELP four. I would say that those two are the key or the core from my point of view.

KW: I remember going back and forth on this also and at first ELP one jumped out at me because they’re definitely going to need to understand the math problem construct meaning. But then I was also wondering if they had the wrong answer it could mean something more about content. Like maybe they weren’t sure which operation to use. So that’s why I’m thinking I might not wanna assess ELP one because I wouldn’t be exactly sure why they didn’t get the right answer. Was it because they didn’t understand the math problem or did they understand the problem but they actually don’t know that then some of the examples show the students skip counting like how many times three can go into twenty to get their answer. I myself divided so did you guys have any thoughts about that?

EP: I feel like it would depend on the nature of the response. Because sometimes you can get a sense of the student’s mathematical reasoning in spite of, maybe you can tell they misunderstood something so they did something. Maybe they got greatest and fewest mixed up or something and they said the fewest they could buy is one because or the greatest they could buy is one, you know what I mean? Sometimes you can deconstruct their response and get a sense of whether it was mathematical reasoning or it was misunderstanding of the problems. But like you said, sometimes you can’t so there’s the math, assessing the math content knowledge, and then under the ELP standards we’re not necessarily assessing their math knowledge.

KW: Exactly EP: We’re just assessing their language ability.

KW: That’s why I was reluctant to say I would use, you know I would assess ELP standard one. I felt like even if they didn’t necessarily have the right math computation to get the right answer, that I felt like I could assess ELP standard three. And maybe eight and nine, like are they using the content specific vocabulary words correctly and is it clear and coherent? Even if their math was wrong, I felt like I could assess those. But I don’t know. What do you guys think?

SB: I think if this were our biggest assessment and say this were school wide or even grade level, you would probably just to get a baseline data, you would look at it and say standard, definitely not standard one. Ok, you don’t have the time you’re just looking for answers. But I think as an ELL teacher or if it’s just in your classroom I think you always have to have standard one at the back of your head because you need to know how to target the intervention. Is it the student didn’t understand the math? Or is it the student didn’t understand the problem and then where do I go from there? I think that as a teacher, on a day to day basis, you have to have that in your background or really in the back of your mind. It really depends on what the nature of the assessment is, to be honest.

KW: Well, exactly, are we, is this an assessment to measure their math knowledge at this point or are you looking at language or are you looking at both? I would agree with you as a teacher that when you take a look at it, you’re going to take that information to move forward no matter where the gaps are.

RS: I think that you can’t, you can’t separate the two, right, especially with English learners, you have to constantly be looking at their language proficiency. Or are they able to construct meaning from this. They may be able to do the math if they had the problem in a different form and not in a word form, for example.

KW: When I look at the problem, I’m remembering it’s really two parts so what is the greatest number of tubs of oatmeal cookie dough she can buy, so the student has the opportunity to give the correct math answer there. And then there’s a second part, explain how you figured it out. And I feel like that’s something where if I see they have the correct answer but they can’t really explain to me or it’s very stilted or it’s confusing, then I would obviously want to assist with maybe some transitional words, that’s kinda where I would go.

EP: I feel like in terms of student feedback I would probably focus on three in terms of their explanation. And how they explained it also tying in nine and how does nine support three? How is their ability to use those specific language structures for clear and coherent expression of their ideas. How does that contribute toward their, their written explanation? But I think for standard one I would probably approach it from an ELD teacher perspective, I would probably approach it from as more of a formative assessment for myself. I’m not sure that it would warrant, you know I don’t know that I would give a certain feedback piece back to students like in the form of a grade or an assessment piece for them. But just for myself tracking their progress and trying to tease out how much do I think they understood and where do I think the confusion is coming in and if there is confusion I might use it formatively in my instruction.

KW: So I think we have some agreement that the ELP standards that one might feel comfortable assessing would be one, three, eight, and nine. Am I recalling that correctly? Ok.

Screencast 8: 6-8th Grade Teacher Analysis Slide 1 6th through 8th grade: Task and Teacher Analysis This portion of the Engage section focuses on four different tasks, at different grade level bands and in different content areas. It also features a group of educators analyzing the disciplinary practices and ELP standards that are relevant for the task, using the task analysis tool. This section builds on the work done by teachers in the previous modules by describing what happens during steps three and four of the task analysis process.

This particular video focuses on a eighth grade science task. It is particularly helpful for teachers serving middle school students or any educator seeking more models of the task analysis process. Slide 2 This task, which was created by the University of the State of New York, is actually part of an intermediate-level science test, created for the 2014 eighth grade Regents exam. You can access the entire test in the Resources section of the module.

Please note that while the test in its entirety is quite long, we are only focusing on three questions in this task analysis exercise, questions 48 through 50, which are included in part 2 of the test. For these three questions, students are given a paragraph that detailed an experiment that compared the growth of two different plants, one watered with acidic rainwater and the other watered with non-acidic rainwater. They are also given a table that provided details about the height of the plant watered with acid rainwater across a specific span of time.

Students are instructed to base their answers to questions 48 through 50 on the information presented in the paragraph and the chart as well as their knowledge of science. Slide 3 The students are then presented with three tasks in questions 48 through 50:  First, they are asked to plot the height of the plant watered with nonacidic rainwater for each day shown in the data table provided.  Then, they are required to describe how the data support the student’s original hypothesis.  And finally, they are asked to describe one way in which the students might improve the design of this experiment if it were repeated. Slide 4 In the next few minutes, you will watch a group of educators, some of whom are from Oregon, Sandy Boe, Elizabeth Prusko, and Kerri West, and one Renae Skarin who's from Stanford University. These educators collaboratively analyze this task using the Task Analysis Tool. This discussion is included to provide you with a model of a professional learning community collaboratively working through steps three and four of the task analysis process. Their goal for this process is to better understand and identify the disciplinary practices and English Language Proficiency Standards that are relevant to and important for this task. Slide 5 At this point, we strongly encourage you to pause the video and download a copy of the Task Analysis Tool from the Resources section, if you have not already done so. Throughout their analysis, the teachers will be referencing this tool, so you may find it difficult to follow along without it in front of you. You may also find it useful to download and reference a copy of the ELP Standards to refer to as the teachers mention them during the video. Teacher Analysis SB: If we look at what, how they analyze this task in module two, they first kinda look to see if it was an appropriate task for the grade level. And basically if you remember, they said it was. They said the grade level science task also required students to use language and analytical skills and to justify and explain their reasoning and they felt it was aligned with the standards. So it seems like a pretty typical task for our eighth grade students. But if we go back too and we look at sorta how they analyze the task, you ‘ll see kinda that in content they had a whole long list of the table, the graph, the data, they had to read and interpret it. The analytical skills, again label, graph and interpret, so those too they needed to understand how to do that within the content but also just as a skill. They had to compare the data, critique the design, draw conclusions. They had to evaluate it, modify the experiment based on the prompt that asked them to prove it, and then sorta construct an argument, identify patterns, tell and explain the data that supports the hypothesis. Then they went in to language and they came up with a whole bunch of pieces that they thought the students needed there as well. So, describe in writing, support a claim, draw conclusions, make predictions, interpret the data, confirm the hypothesis. So you’ll see some overlap just a little bit between the three categories of content knowledge, analytical skills, and language. So, since they’ve already gone through that, our task was to kinda take the task, analyze it a little bit ourselves as well as look at what the teachers before us had done and then determine some of the disciplinary practices and I, as well as the ELP standards. So for me, what was the easiest was to look at the K twelve practices matrix on page thirty-four of our ELP standards. But feel free now to just kinda share some of the practices that you felt it hit and then we can just kinda talk about that and then we’ll head into the standards and what standards we saw and which ones we chose to measure the task with. Somebody want to start us off with what practices they felt it hit?

KW: I’d say I definitely had science practice four where they analyze and interpret data. I felt like they analyzed and interpreted data when they had to plot the acidic plant growth and describe the results.

EP: I agree with that and then I also identified, I was looking at the, I was looking at the, I like to use the Venn diagram cause it’s easy for me to find the information. But I identified science practice six to construct explanations and design solutions and in this one they really specifically had to design a solution because they’re asked to describe one way in which the student might improve the design so I thought that one was relevant. RS: Yep, and then I picked science practice eight because they have to use the evidence of variation in the plant growth and they have to argue to support the original hypothesis and effectively communicate that to an audience.

KW: I must ask you guys, I had, I wasn’t sure about this, it was science practice five, using mathematics and computational thinking. I didn’t know if that would apply here with the plotting the data and the like use of centimeters. So, it’s ok if people don’t agree with that, I wasn’t quite sure.

SB: I didn’t choose, I was wondering about the math piece as well, just a little bit, but I didn’t choose that one. I did venture into a couple math practices and actually I got one ELA practice. Did anyone else get something that was outside of the science practices?

EP: I didn’t look, I just focused on the science.

RS: I looked at ELA three, because they must construct an argument and then I put math practices one, two, and three which have to do with quantitative reasoning and development of an argument. But I think they’re very closely related to the science practices so I don’t think it’s necessary to overlap it necessarily.

EP: One of the concerns that I had about it, I guess one of the reasons I focused only on the science is because I’m trying to see it through the lens of a middle school science teacher and I don’t think it’s realistic to expect a science teacher to be looking at math or ELA standards and I just don’t think they’re going to be. So I think that’s why I just really focused on the science and then there will be the ELP part of it but I just didn’t wanna venture to far out of the realm of what the classroom teacher using this would be doing.

RS: Yeah, maybe if they were looking at the relationships and convergences they might, you know, see the overlaps, but you’re right I don’t think they would spend a lot of time going to the practices specifically.

SB: Oh, in our district we’re asking our science and math teachers to take a look, especially in the ELA piece of it and especially because math practice three is around constructing viable arguments and we’re trying to get all of us, every content area in middle school to head that direction instead of it just being subject area specific. And we really want kids to be able to not only adapt language but transfer their language to different contexts so that’s why I head there but I definitely see your point.

RS: Well, I think that’s a really important point because now that we are focusing on the content, you know, integrating the Common Core State Standards, there is a huge focus on all of the content areas supporting literacy practices and really focusing in on the language needed to perform analytical tasks across the content areas. KW: Well, I’m just gonna add a little too. I feel like a lot of what we’ve been talking about with our ESL teachers is the alignment, how the ELP standards were written to support language success in all the different content areas. So I feel like it is important to see the overlaps. I did have some. I had some of the English Language Arts practices also. I had the one which I feel like comes up over and over again which is the ELA practice two, produce clear and coherent writing, especially with the appropriate to task, when they have to write about how the students could improve on the experiment. I had that one.

SB: I wondered about that one too and it’s hard cause I was looking at that one particularly through the ELA lens and I kept thinking as an eighth grade language arts teacher the whole organization, and style and audience how they take it to a different level than science. So that one I definitely saw appropriate to task. But I definitely see your point there. Let’s see, so anybody else choose any math practices? Did we already discuss that?

KW: I had math practice three, you know the construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others. I think the reason I have the critique the reasoning of others is just that third part where they have to describe one way in which students might improve the design of this experiment if it were repeated.

SB: Yeah.

EP: So, in that sense, they’re critiquing the reasoning of the person who originally did the experiment.

RS: And if you look at the, if you look at the relationships and convergences Venn diagram, that relates to English practice three. So, just pointing that out.

SB: Ok, so let’s go ahead and take a look at some of the ELP standards that maybe this task fits. Does somebody maybe want to start us off on that one like what they were kinda thinking or chose?

KW: I definitely had construct, ELP standard one again, construct meaning of the science, just first of all the problem. In order to do any parts of it, I feel like they would have to construct meaning.

EP: I have ELP standard three because they have to in writing describe how the data relates to the hypothesis and then offer a suggestion which the suggestion maybe that could fall under ELP standard four. But initially they’re explaining how the data.

RS: Yeah, they have to use the evidence presented in the text and make a claim about it, right, so that would be ELP four. KW: Yeah, I have ELP four also. Question forty-nine when it says describe how the data supports the original hypothesis I felt like that’s making, that’s a written claim, with reasoning and evidence.

SB: Four was a big one for me also and then one. I think standard one is probably my favorite, obviously I choose it almost every time. But I also was kinda headed into standard seven this time where they were adapting the language because it seems like they really have to do content specific language in the science and then they have to put it into their own words and justify and that justification language kinda goes across contents. But standard seven is also kinda a tricky one for me on how that looks each time and where the student, where does automaticity come in versus being knowledgeable about that. Did anybody else think about standard seven?

RS: Yeah, I didn’t put it down but I agree with you and I think that with the Common Core focus we’re really trying to move students toward showing their reasoning for their thinking, right, so always showing evidence supporting their reasoning, showing logic, externalizing their thinking.

EP: And again I think that leads into nine. I think seven and nine are very related, because they do have to have, when you describe how something supports a claim, that’s going to require specific structures of language in order to make that clear and coherent and I think that’s challenging. So that in and of itself I think it going to bring out nine.

KW: I was just wondering if anyone had ELP standard six? I wasn’t, I had critique arguments of others when they suggest how others can improve design of the experiment. Did anyone think that would fall under?

EP: Yes. SB: Absolutely. RS: Yeah, that’s a great point.

EP: I’m wondering if we should add eight in there because there was a specific reference made to the vocabulary, in fact it’s in italics, non-acidic and acidic.

SB: Standard eight I automatically think they have to determine the meaning but then I think about the specific task and do they have to know the meaning of acidic and non-acidic or can the chart just tell them which is which?

EP: That’s a good point.

SB: So I didn’t know. I was trying to figure, I was trying to figure that out, if they would be able to get away with. But there’s a lot of content heavy language in there and then I go back to standard one construct meaning. Are they able to understand it and then, maybe standard one and standard eight they just have to go hand in hand. I wasn’t sure. Ok, so now if we’re looking at the standards, which ones do you think you would want to assess? Again, we have quite a few here. How would we narrow it down and which would be the meatiest to give students feedback on?

RS: Yeah I definitely think that ELP four is probably in my mind the most salient cause we’re asking them to really use evidence presented in the text and make a claim about it and of course that implies one. If they’re not understanding the meaning of the text, they’re not going to be able to effectively use evidence and so on. But four seems to be the most measurable for this particular task.

EP: I would agree and I would add that standard six also is important to question fifty because they’re having to critique the way in which the experiment was designed to begin with.

SB: I think standard six and four as well and then especially if students are able to analyze and critique the ideas of others. Then we’re really getting into a clearer picture into if they really even understood the task in the first place so standard one comes back into play. I think, yeah I think those are the pieces where I could give the most feedback to students to move them forward. Any other standards we feel like might be a possibility? EP: I feel like nine and or ten. I don’t know, I’m trying to figure out which one it would be. For example, if the student is struggling to find the right words to describe how the data supports the original hypothesis. If it’s kinda awkward and they’re stumbling over it, from an ELD perspective, I would probably want to look at how much comfort and control do they have over the language that they need in order to connect that data to the hypothesis. So I think I will probably... What do you guys think? Does that fit more under nine or under ten?

KW: Well, it’s interesting. You’re giving me an idea, I’m thinking about standard nine. If they really can’t answer fifty, if they really have a hard time saying one way the students might improve the design of the experiment if it were repeated, I feel like then I can definitely use that to kinda guide my instruction and I need to talk about how do you, what forms do you use. In just the function of describing, what’s necessary language you have to have to do that.

RS: Yeah, definitely. It would guide your instruction and maybe help you to scaffold their language use so that maybe they can externalize their thinking in English.

SB: Yeah, so I think, so we have if we’re thinking about measuring and trying to bring down the number of tasks that we started with. I’m thinking one, four, and six and nine it sounds like among us that nine might inform our instruction just a little bit but it wouldn’t necessarily be what we would be giving feedback on through the science lens. But maybe through the ELD lens we add that one on.

RS: I think that, so when I’m thinking about teaching science for example, I would look at what students are able to produce and then that would inform how I would go about scaffolding language. And so I might then bring in sentence frames or do a mini lesson on a particular discourse pattern that we use in science or I might explain procedural language or whatever it is that students need to be able to do with language to do this task.

SB: So, I like that we’re looking at this. We definitely came at this task when we’re thinking about assessment as far as what kids are producing and we’re looking at it through different lenses and I like that we came up with or we’re thinking about yeah I’m going to give feedback but I’m also getting feedback for myself on how I need to scaffold kids moving forward. So I like that we were able to bring in that scaffolded piece in order to make sure kids were still thinking and producing.

Screencast 9: 9-12th Grade Teacher Analysis Slide 1 9th through 12th grade: Task and Teacher Analysis

This portion of the Engage section focuses on four different tasks, at different grade level bands and in different content areas. It also features a group of educators analyzing the disciplinary practices and ELP standards that are relevant for the task, using the task analysis tool. This section builds on the work done by teachers in the previous modules by describing what happens during steps three and four of the task analysis process.

This particular video features an eleventh grade US history task. It is particularly helpful for teachers serving high school students or any educator seeking more models of the task analysis process. Slide 2 This task is part of the “Reading like a Historian” curriculum created by the Stanford History Education Group and recorded by the Teaching Channel. The objective of this particular lesson is for students to take sides about why people opposed the Vietnam War. In the following clip, you will see the teacher, Valerie Ziegler from Abraham Lincoln H.S. in San Francisco, introduce the task and use the “philosophical chairs” convention to stimulate student engagement and discussion.

We will not be showing the video again, but if you would like to review it, please go to module 2 or you can also find the video in the Resources section of this module. You can also download a copy of the full lesson plan which is available in the resources section of this module. Slide 3 In the next few minutes, you will watch a group of educators, some of whom are from Oregon, Sandy Boe, Elizabeth Prusko, and Kerri West, and one Renae Skarin who's from Stanford University. These educators collaboratively analyze this task using the Task Analysis Tool. This discussion is included to provide you with a model of a professional learning community collaboratively working through steps three and four of the task analysis process. Their goal for this process is to better understand and identify the disciplinary practices and English Language Proficiency Standards that are relevant to and important for this task. Slide 4 At this point, we strongly encourage you to pause the video and download a copy of the Task Analysis Tool from the Resources section, if you have not already done so. Throughout their analysis, the teachers will be referencing this tool, so you may find it difficult to follow along without it in front of you. You may also find it useful to download and reference a copy of the ELP Standards to refer to as teachers mention them during the video. Teacher Analysis RS: So, let’s just quickly review steps 1 and 2, which they did in module 2. So, looking back at the guiding questions, did module 2 teachers think that this was an appropriate task for task analysis? And yes, they did. They thought expectations for the task were clear, that the task and the content were at grade level, the task was aligned to the Common Core State Standards, and the task required rich use of content knowledge, complex analytical skills, and language practices. So, the content area is obviously history, and the most salient analytical skills are constructing and summarizing opinions, analyzing texts and other’s oral arguments, citing evidence from texts, synthesizing information to create a strong argument, comprehending and interpreting complex texts. So, moving on to step 3 where we identify the relevant disciplinary practices, I’ll put it out to you, what do you think are the most relevant disciplinary practices to this task?

EP: Well, I thought clearly English language arts practice 1, analysis of texts was critical because they had to analyze texts to even start the tasks.

RS: I should review that the texts that they had to analyze were the two primary sources, one was a speech by John Kerry, an anti-war speech by John Kerry, and another one was an anti-war speech by Martin Luther King Jr.

KW: Yeah, I had English language arts practice 1 as well. I also had English language arts practice 3, construct valid arguments from evidence. I feel like that has both parts, critique the reasoning of others, just the nature of philosophical chairs, they’re talking back and forth and trying to convince each other.

SB: I added English language arts practice 5 just because through that process you’re building up on the ideas of others through the discussion prompts and the actual activity.

EP: I agree KW: I agree, I have that practice as well. SB: I also added, I’m not sure, but English language practice 6, because they are communicating context, specific messages, they have to understand the context to in order to be able to use those English structures and communicate your thinking.

KW: I agree also and especially for people to understand their arguments they’re going to have to use those specific structures to state their arguments and disagree or agree.

EP: And it seemed clear to me that they had received instruction on the appropriate way to debate, the appropriate polite discourse for engaging in an academic debate.

RS: I agree with all of those. Those are the four that I chose as well. Do we have any others that people chose?

SB: So did we just choose all of them?

KW: No, I thought we had English language arts practice 1, then we had 3…

RS: We had 1, 3, 5, and 6.

KW: I was torn with the English language arts practice 4 because it says build and present knowledge through research by integrating, comparing and synthesizing ideas from texts. I think they were definitely synthesizing ideas from texts and possibly comparing. But the teacher had done all the research so that’s why I didn’t know if we should put that one in or not.

SB: I was wondering the same thing, but I kept thinking that, yeah, I was wondering the same thing. It’s high school, how much of the research are they supposed to do. So that piece I go back and forth on. But there were enough of the others so I thought I don’t have to worry about that right now.

KW: I think maybe the important component of that one is that they’re conducting their own research and I felt that she provided all the sources for them so maybe that’s just a better one to hold off, even though they’re synthesizing ideas but…

EP: Although they might have been able to get away with not synthesizing it if they focused on one of the tasks and not the other and their argument and their position was justified only through one of the texts.

KW: Exactly, so maybe that’s a better one to leave off.

RS: Okay, well let’s move to step 4 of the task analysis process, identify the relevant ELP standards for this 9-12th grade task. So, I’ll throw it out to you all… What do you think?

KW: Well we know the favorite one is there… EP: I’m just waiting for Sandy to say it because I know she wants to… SB: Standard one, one.

RS: I think this one is really important, though. These are both complex texts, and I think constructing meaning, this will be essential to their being able to make relevant arguments, because they have to take the ideas from the texts and use them as evidence.

KW: Which I know we discussed earlier that when you’re focusing on argumentation you really automatically are going to have to do an excellent job of helping them construct meaning in order for them to create those arguments.

EP: The other one, obviously I feel like this one hits is this is a big discussion one so standard 2 as well.

RS: There’s a big component of critiquing each other’s arguments, right?

EP: Yeah, and I feel like that really mapped nicely with English language arts practice 5. So that building on the ideas of others that interplayed with ELP standard 2.

KW: Exactly. EP: And I also felt ELP standard 4 was big because that’s what they had to present was their claim, their reasoning. RS: Based on the evidence found in the speeches.

SB: My original analysis, I kind of said standard 3, as well as 4. But, through our conversation here, I keep looking at standard 4 and how we’ve been going back and forth between standard 3 and 4 and which one is it. With this one being more of a debate, or more around argumentation, I feel like I could drop standard 3 in this case and focus more on standard 4.

RS: Did we cover 6 already, because I feel like they definitely had to analyze and critique the arguments of others orally. KW: Definitely, I have that also.

RS: And in the task they were also told that they can change sides, oppose other’s arguments, or if they felt another’s arguments were more valid then they could change sides based on that.

SB: Which, actually standards 9 and 10 had to be pretty evident in order for someone to be persuaded to another side, right? So it seems like standards 9 and 10 are pretty important. I don’t know that I would assess them necessarily, but they’re pretty important to the overall discussion and task. RS: And again, if you’re seeing that students are not able to create that clear and coherent grade-appropriate speech, then how would you adjust your instruction to support or scaffold that language use.

SB: Absolutely. The task would fall flat. The whole activity would fall flat if they weren’t able to understand it and then communicate that understanding.

KW: Well, exactly. And I think if the teacher is taking observational notes and they notice that some students don’t participate and maybe they’re just following, then you know that maybe you might want to work with those students individually before the next philosophical chairs and maybe give them some sentence frames so that they can participate and say one idea.

SB: And celebrate those kiddos who are doing awesome at it. You can be super excited. KW: Exactly.

EP: I also included ELP standard 7 because I felt like there was evidence of a particular register, that was kind of that register of academic debate, and so I included 7 as well.

RS: And reasoning with evidence, right? Yeah, I put that as well. KW: Yeah, I had 7 also.

RS: Were there any others? I think we almost covered them all.

KW: Yeah, I think again 8, 9, and 10 seemed to be inherent in all of the activities just because, especially the meanings of words and phrases. In order to articulate their ideas, they need to understand the meanings of words. I feel like those are in there also.

RS: I was going to say that the standards also state that they are in service to the other seven standards. I think that’s really what you’re saying.

KW: That’s exactly what I was going to say as well.

RS: So, which of these do we think are the most important to assess in this particular task?

EP: Well, I felt 4 and 6 are really critical, because the whole way that it’s set up is as a debate structure, and so that ability to state a claim and support it, and address and critique the claims of others would be a critical piece too to assess.

RS: I might add 7 onto that because this is a particular register as you said and it’s a socially constructed register. We do it in everyday life as well, but not every culture does this. There are some cultures where debate is not socially acceptable to debate. So it has to be a taught school practice.

EP: Yeah, and I can see those three ELP standards being assessed together. As a teacher, if I’m taking notes on the students who are participating and I’m listening for which students made a claim and how well did they do that, how effective was that claim communicated, and did they respond to someone else’s. And then I can also be, while I’m listening to that I’m listening for that register. I’m listening for them show me that they understand that particular context. And I think they can be done all together from an assessment standpoint.

KW: And I think, if you’re doing philosophical chairs with an entire classroom of kids, I think it’s really hard. You can be walking around taking notes, but I feel like recording back and listening later is an excellent way… maybe you don’t know specifically who said what, but just to guide your formative assessment for your entire class. Like we’re really strong in making the arguments this way, but we’re not sure of the language used to refute an argument or something else, if you can listen to the whole class.

SB: So, I’m wondering about standard 2, 4 and 6. They’re all super similar. And I think that in this activity kids are looking at, they’re responding to peers. They have comments, they have questions, they’re participating in the discussion. I’m wondering if that supersedes, in this particular activity supersedes 4 or 6 in any way. I know 6 is analyzing the arguments of others orally. So they have to analyze the reasoning. And then I’m wondering about 4. It’s mostly about creating a claim, but I don’t know if they’re always going to create a claim in this activity. Sometimes you’re going to go based on someone else’s claim and then use the evidence. So, I’m just trying to figure out if I were assessing this, which one would I want to do the most. I just felt like they were super similar and I was trying to figure out how we could narrow it down and just focus on the meatiest one in this particular activity.

RS: I feel like 2 doesn’t necessarily require you to make an argument. It requires you to exchange information with others, exchange ideas or information, but it doesn’t necessarily require you to make a claim, and I think this particular task requires you to make a strong claim and then to respond to other’s claims.

KW: Yeah, I feel like this activity would lend itself to assess standard 4 just in the nature of you’re trying to convince people of your argument and make your claim and support it. I actually had 1, 4, and 6 as assessing. But it sounds like we have some agreement that 4 is standing out the most.

RS: 4 and 6 for me. I mean, that’s what I would assess and give feedback to students on. EP: Makes sense. RS: Okay, it seems like we’ve come to some agreement that 4 and 6 seem to be the most salient in terms of feedback for students and the ones that we would explicitly assess, and I think that’s the end of the task!

Screencast 10: Apply — Introduction In the previous section of the module, we took an in-depth look at the task analysis process, and you had a chance to watch a panel of teachers model the process using four different grade-level specific tasks.

Now, in the “Apply” section of this module, you will have an opportunity to try out the task analysis process yourself using four new tasks. While you can complete these task analyses individually, we strongly encourage you to work with fellow educators in your department, grade level, or within a professional learning community to analyze these tasks, so that you can draw from each other’s insights and support each other in the process.

You can choose the grade level or levels that are most relevant to you and your colleagues, or take a look at tasks from various grade levels for further practice.

Screencast 11: Sample Task (K-2) Slide 1 Kindergarten through Second Grade: Sample Task.

Slide 2 This example is a second grade math task from the New York City Department of Education. In it, students are expected to use their understanding of the meaning of base ten to compare the magnitude of numbers, using the number line as a tool to articulate their understanding.

Slide 3 In the first part of the task, students are shown Carol’s three number cards. They are then asked:  What is the largest three-digit number Carol can make with her cards?  What is the smallest three-digit number Carol can make with her cards?  And finally, they are asked to explain to Carol how she can make the smallest possible number using her three cards. In the second part of the task, students are shown a number line and asked to place three different numbers along the number line. Finally, they are asked to explain to Carol how they knew where to place the number 31, and why. You can click the button on the last page of this video to download the entire task and its accompanying materials or download from the Resources section of the module. Slide 4 Now is your chance to apply the Task Analysis Process to this task. You can click the buttons on the screen to download the instructional task and a blank copy of the Task Analysis Tool, or you can find them in the Resources section of this module. If you would like, you can review some of the videos in the “Engage” section to refresh your memory. Once you are finished, you can compare your analysis with that of an actual teacher who analyzed this task by clicking the button to download the “expert analysis,” which can also be found in the Resources section.

Screencast 12: Sample Task (3-5) Slide 1 Third through Fifth Grade: Sample Task. Slide 2 This sample task is a third grade English Language Arts and Science task from the Oregon Department of Education. Before engaging in this task, students should have read the story Frog Girl by Paul Owen Lewis and a nonfiction text about volcanoes. For this task, students are asked to share their thoughts with a partner regarding how the Native American people use stories to explain or describe human nature and natural phenomena. Then students are supposed to choose one or more of the following prompts to demonstrate their understanding of Frog Girl:  1) use the text and illustrations from the story to explain the connections between what the Native people believed caused volcanic eruptions and what we have learned to be the cause of volcanic eruptions.  Or 2) explain in writing how the frogs being captured could be considered an example of today’s human and animal relationship. Describe the relationship and effects, and make connections to the events in the story. Slide 3 Now is your chance to apply the Task Analysis Process to this task. You can click the buttons on the screen to download the instructional task and a blank copy of the Task Analysis Tool, or you can find them in the Resources section of this module. If you would like, you can review some of the videos in the “Engage” section to refresh your memory. Once you are finished, you can compare your analysis with that of an actual teacher who analyzed this task by clicking the button to download the “expert analysis,” which can also be found in the Resources section. Screencast 13: Sample Task (6-8) Slide 1 Sixth through Eighth Grade: Sample Task. Slide 2 This sample 6th grade math sample performance task from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium assesses students’ ability to use mathematics to make a decision based on their understanding of proportional reasoning, including the application of unit rates. Because the task has several steps, we recommend that you download the full task before starting the task analysis process. The full task is available in the Resources section or by clicking on the button on the last page of this video.

In this task, students are told to imagine that they are going on a field trip to one of three possible destinations: an aquarium, a science museum, or a zoo. Students are given a list of their classmates’ first and second choices for the field trip as in the task they will have to determine where the class should go, based on the survey results and the cost per student.

Students are also provided with a map of their school and the three different field trip locations. Slide 3 For the first part of the task, students are provided with tables that show the results of their classmates’ survey regarding which place to visit for the field trip. Then, they are asked to make a recommendation for where the class should go on the field trip, based only on the results of the class’ votes, making sure to show their work or explain how they found their answer. Slide 4 Next, students are given some more facts about the trip, such as entrance costs, the number of buses required, and other considerations.

Using this additional information, students are then asked to determine how much each student would pay to go to each possible destination, and whether they agree with one student that it will cost less to go to the zoo.

The final, culminating piece of the task requires students to write a note to their teacher stating where they think the class should go on its field trip based on how they evaluated all the different factors, including student votes, costs, distance, and what they thought would be fun. Slide 5 Now is your chance to apply the Task Analysis Process to this task. You can click the buttons on the screen to download the instructional task and a blank copy of the Task Analysis Tool, or you can find them in the Resources section of this module. If you would like, you can review some of the videos in the “Engage” section to refresh your memory. Once you are finished, you can compare your analysis with that of an actual teacher who analyzed this task by clicking the button to download the “expert analysis,” which can also be found in the Resources section.

Screencast 14: Sample Task (9-12) Slide 1 9th through 12th grade, Sample Task.

Before we discuss this task, please note that unlike the other three apply tasks, this task is not exactly the same as the high school task that was presented in Module 2. While it is similar, it has been changed to address older students. Slide 2 Leading up to this 11th and 12th grade task, students have just completed a unit of study on persuasion and propaganda strategies. In this unit, students investigated the theme of war, and the style of the personal memoir by reading Ishmael Baeh’s book “A Long Way Gone.” They have also analyzed war-time propaganda using ephemera from the National Archives, and have studied the issues of child soldiers via Amnesty International and UNICEF. They have also studied graphical information related to child soldiers over the past 20 years, and data about countries that continue to have child soldiers. During this unit, students created their own propaganda posters against allowing child soldiers, to help bring attention to the plight of these children.

Please note that this unit is recommended for use in upper high school grades due to the rigor of the text and some disturbing content, but it could be studied at any high school level with adequate topic preparation.

Students are given a persuasive writing project as a final unit assessment. This task is also meant to prepare them for the state summative assessment in writing. Slide 3 The specific task is to write a five-paragraph persuasive letter in business format to a state senator, urging him or her to contact the President of the United States to ask that the U.S. stop providing weapons to countries that recruit child soldiers despite the ban on this practice. In their letters, students should introduce themselves and state their position on the topic. Then, they must provide three well-defined and supported reasons, and cite evidence from the informational texts and the graphical information they studied to support their argument. The goal is to convince the reader, in this case the state senator above, with a logical, well-organized letter that clearly argues their point and compels the senator to contact the President. Slide 4 Along with their final drafts, students must submit a 1-page reflection discussing the process they underwent to complete the writing task, what they learned from the experience, what parts they liked or disliked, and how they think the writing experience might serve them for graduation/testing requirements. During this task, students are expected to develop and display the academic and language skills needed to engage in argumentation, using textual and graphical evidence. Slide 5 Now is your chance to apply the task analysis process to this task. You can click the buttons on the screen to download the instructional task and a blank copy of the task analysis tool, or you can find them in the Resources section of this module. If you would like, you can review some of the videos in the Engage section to refresh your memory. Once you are finished, you can compare your analysis with that of an actual teacher who analyzed this task by clicking on the button to download the expert analysis which can also be found in the Resources section.

Screencast 15: Session Review Slide 1 Module Three: English Language Proficiency Standards, Session Review. Slide 2 Now that you’ve gone through the entire module, let’s review the guiding questions and objectives that were presented at the beginning.

In the first screencast, we posed the following questions to guide your thinking:  First, how can educators analyze instructional tasks to identify the disciplinary practices and ELP standards that are most relevant to the tasks?  And second, how does the task analysis process support educators’ understanding and integration of the ELP standards during their own planning and instruction?

Reflect for a moment – or discuss with your colleagues - on how you would answer these questions after working through the module.

Slide 3 Now let’s reflect on whether the objectives of the module were met.  Are you able to analyze and reflect on instructional tasks (from various grade levels and subject areas) through the process of identifying the relevant disciplinary practices and ELP standards  Do you now understand the what, why, and how of utilizing the ELP standards in planning and instruction If you answered yes to these two questions, then the module objectives have been met. Slide 4 In this module, we walked you through the last two steps of the task analysis process: Step 3 - “Identify Disciplinary Practices” and Step 4 - “Identify English Language Proficiency Standards” and we also introduced the new ELP standards and how they correspond with the content standards and related practices.

When using the task analysis process in your setting, you may wish to adapt the process or it’s sequence based on your own context and needs. For example, if you are an English Language Development or ESL teacher, you may be asked to address the ELP standards directly or to use those as your starting point for instruction. If this is the case, then you may find switching the order of the steps in the task analysis process beneficial. Slide 5 In module 4, we will move on to discuss the Proficiency Level Descriptors of the ELP standards. Teachers will learn how to use the Proficiency Level Descriptors as scaffolds that support English language learners at differing levels. In this module, we will also address how to understand the relationship between the Proficiency Level Descriptors and the ELP assessment.