Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12) Version 5
Grade: Literacy Lesson/Unit Title: Overall Rating:
."
! ! ! !
I.!Alignment!to!the!Depth!of!the!CCSS! II.!Key!Shifts!in!the!CCSS! III.!Instructional!Supports! IV.!Assessment!
Reading!Text!Closely: Text@Based!Evidence: Writing!from!Sources: Academic!Vocabulary:! Increasing!Text!Complexity:! Building!Disciplinary!Knowledge: Balance!of!Texts:! Balance!of!Writing:
Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3-5) and ELA (Grades 6-12) Version 5
Grade: Literacy Lesson/Unit Title: Overall Rating:
."
! ! ! !
I.!Alignment!to!the!Depth!of!the!CCSS! II.!Key!Shifts!in!the!CCSS! III.!Instructional!Supports! IV.!Assessment!
Reading!Text!Closely: Text@Based!Evidence: Writing!from!Sources: Academic!Vocabulary:! Increasing!Text!Complexity:! Building!Disciplinary!Knowledge: Balance!of!Texts:! Balance!of!Writing:
Unit Evaluation Questionnaire
based on “Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3–12” (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012)
Text Selection
1. Is the text appropriately complex for the level and the timing in the year, based on qualitative, quantitative, and task measures?
2. Is appropriate scaffolding available for students who will have trouble reaching the text?
3. Are there short, challenging texts for close reading?
4. Is there a variety in the lengths, levels, and density of texts?
5. Is there an appropriate balance of literature and literary nonfiction? 6. Are the texts of high quality?
Questions and tasks
1. Are a significant percentage of tasks and questions text-dependent, helping students build knowledge, gather evidence, and make connections?
2. Does the sequencing of questions and tasks help students make deeper inferences and analyses?
3. Do the questions and tasks require the use of textual evidence?
4. Are there questions worth answering, so to motivate student interest and engagement to dig into the texts and topics?
5. Do the materials encourage comparing and integrating multiple sources? 6. Does the scaffolding encourage and enable lower-level students to encounter
the text (rather than replacing reading the text)?
7. Are reading strategies and broad themes/questions interwoven into the task of reading, rather than taught discretely?
8. Are there opportunities for whole-group, small-group, and individual instruction?
9. Is sufficient class time given for students to practice encountering texts without scaffolding?
10. Do the questions and tasks demand careful text comprehension before asking students to evaluate/interpret?
11. Is the unit focused, avoiding extraneous material that could be distracting from the main focus of text-based reading/writing/speaking/listening? 12. Do frequent assessments require students to demonstrate their
independence in reading/writing? Vocabulary
1. Are there materials focused on academic vocabulary?
2. Are students asked to explain the impact of word choice in their reading? 3. Are students given plenty of opportunities to practice using the academic
4. Are there support materials for ELL and other students to learn other high- frequency words on their own?
Writing
1. Are students given extensive opportunities to write in response to what they read?
2. Do the writing tasks demand analysis and synthesis of sources, using evidence?
3. Are there rubrics and samples for assignments?
4. Is the writing balanced among argumentative, informative, and narrative writing (with a slight preference for the first two)?
5. Will writing be evaluated not on a formulaic structure but on elements of good writing?
6. Are short research projects included (several annually)? Additional Criteria
1. Do materials give chances for students to build fluency in reading?
2. Are there chances for students to have real, substantive discussions to share preparation, evidence, and research? Will they be required to listen, respond to and challenge their peers?
3. Do the materials use multimedia and technology to deepen attention to texts, such as comparing interpretations or evidence?
References
Achieve. (2010). Comparing the Common Core State Standards for English language arts &
literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects and the National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) Frameworks in Reading for 2009 and Writing for 2011. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://achieve.org/CCSS-ELA-NAEP-
Framework
Alvermann, D. E. (2000). Classroom talk about texts: Is it dear, cheap, or a bargain at any price?
In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning:
Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 136–151). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and New York: Teachers College Press. Teacher, 43, 478–484.
Armstrong, S. L., & Newman, M. (2011). Teaching textual conversations: Intertextuality in the
college reading classroom. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2) 6-21.
Barnett, E. A., & Fay, M. P. (2013). The Common Core State Standards: Implications for
community colleges and student preparedness for college. National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from
http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/i/a/document/25958_common-core-state-
standards_2.pdf
Beers, G. K., Warriner, J. E., & Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, inc. (2003). Holt literature &
language arts. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing
California Department of Education. (2013). Executive summary explaining the Academic
Performance Index (API). Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/apiexecsummary.pdf
California Department of Education. (2014). 2012-13 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR):
2013 growth API school report - Rancho Santa Margarita Intermediate. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2013/2013GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=30736356111561
California Department of Education. (2014). Curriculum frameworks & instructional materials.
Curriculum Resources (CA Dept of Education). Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/
Cappiello, M. A., & Dawes, E. T. (2013). Teaching with text sets. Huntington Beach, Calif: Shell
Education.
Carmichael, S., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., Wilson, W., & Thomas B. Fordham, I. (2010).
The state of state standards and the common core in 2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved March 15, 2014 from
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-
common-core-in-2010.html
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1995). Great transitions: Preparing adolescents
for a new century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Coleman, D. & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State
Standards in English Language Arts and literacy, grades 3‒12. Retrieved April 15, 2014 from www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers (2014). Guide to creating text sets. Retrieved April 12,
2014 from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/Text Complexity/Showroom Models/Guide
to Creating Text Sets.docx
Crafton, L. K. (1991). Whole language: Getting started-- moving forward. Katonah, N.Y: R.C.
Owen.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
EngageNY (2012). Common Core shifts. Accessed April 18, 2014 at
https://www.engageny.org/file/4981/download/common-core-shifts.pdf.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: a framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hartman, D.K., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple
texts. In Gambrell, L. B., & Almasi, J. F. (Eds), Lively discussions!: Fostering engaged
reading (pp.106-133). Newark, Del: International Reading Association.
Israel, Elfie. Examining multiple perspectives in literature. In Inquiry and the literary text:
constructing discussions in the English classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st
century. Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving
Clearinghouse. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=8
Krashen, S. (January 01, 2014). The Common Core: A disaster for libraries, a disaster for
language arts, a disaster for American education. Knowledge Quest, 42(3), 36-45.
Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (September 01, 2005). The role of top-down and
bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology: an International
Quarterly, 26, 335-362.
Lattimer, H. (2003). Thinking through genre: Units of study in reading and writing workshops 4-
12. Portland, Me: Stenhouse Publishers.
Lehman, C., Roberts, K., & Miller, D. (2014). Falling in love with close reading: Lessons for
analyzing texts - and life. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Lenski, S. D. (1998). Intertextual intentions: making connections across texts. The Clearing
House: a Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 72(2), 74-80.
Lenski, S. D. (2001). Intertextual connections during discussions about literature. Reading
Psychology, 22(4), 313-35.
Lenski, S. D., & Johns, J. L. (1997). Patterns of reading-to-write. Reading Research and
Instruction, 37(1), 15-38.
Liebtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation:
Possibilities and potential problems. Journal Of Curriculum & Instruction, 7(2), 56-70.
Mackey, M. 1997. Good-enough reading: Momentum and accuracy in the reading of complex
fiction. Research in the Teaching of English 31(4), 428-58.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of
procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal Of Psychology
Of Education - EJPE (Instituto Superior De Psicologia Aplicada), 24(4), 435-451. Mctighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Common Core big idea 4: Map backward from intended
results. Edutopia. Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/common-
core-map-backwards-jay-mctighe-grant-wiggins
Metametrics (2013). Online state databases. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from
http://cdn.lexile.com/m/cms_page_media/135/RTData_July_13.pdf
National Council of Teachers of English (2012). Resolution on teacher expertise and the
Common Core State Standards. NCTE Comprehensive News. Retrieved April 12, 2014,
from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/teacherexpertise
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2014). About the standards. Common Core State Standards Initiative About the
Standards Comments. Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2014). Key design considerations. Common Core State Standards Initiative.
Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2014). Key shifts in English language arts. Common Core State Standards
Initiative. Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.corestandards.org/other- resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/
National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young
adolescents. Westerville, Ohio: Association for Middle Level Education.
Nichols, M. (2009). Expanding comprehension with multigenre text sets. New York: Scholastic.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Opitz, M. F. (1998). Text sets: One way to flex your grouping--In first grade, too!. Reading
Teacher, 51(7), 622-24.
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2011). PARCC model
content frameworks: English language arts/literacy grades 3–11. Retrieved from www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/ PARCCMCFELALiteracyAugust2012_
FINAL.pdf
Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY:
International University Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2011). Navigating implementation of the common core state standards.
Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn Press.
Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (2014). Best practices in reading. Reading Teacher, 67(7), 507-511.
doi:10.1002/trtr.1248
Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common: the Common Core Standards and the next chapter
Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college
students' processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature,
4(1), 5-33.
Short, K. G., Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and
inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Stotsky, S. (2012). The death and resurrection of a coherent literature curriculum: What
secondary English teachers can do. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Strop, J. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). Multimedia text sets: Changing the shape of engagement and
learning. Winnipeg: Portage & Main Press.
SVUSD English Language Arts. (2013). Haiku learning : curricular maps. Retrieved May 1,
2014, from
https://saddlespace.haikulearning.com/daoust/languageartstest/cms_page/view/263869
Swanson, C.B. & Stevenson, D.L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state
policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27.
Tri-State Collaborative (2013). Quality review rubric for lessons & units: ELA/literacy (grades
3-5) and ELA (grades 6-12) version 5. Accessed April 10, 2015 at
https://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/tri-state-ela-rubric.pdf
United States & American Institutes for Research (2010). Reading framework for the 2011
National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Dept. of Education.
United States National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform: a report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: The Commission.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2012, December 4). Common Core big idea series 3: A new
blueprint. Retrieved January 20, 2014.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. A. (2012). Best practice: Bringing standards to life in