Instructional Plans

Student Work

Assessment

Expectations

Managing Student Behavior

Environment

Respectful Culture

Standards and Objectives

Motivating Students

Presenting Instructional Content

Lesson Structure and Pacing

Activities and Materials

Questioning

Academic Feedback

Grouping Students

Teacher Content Knowledge

Teacher Knowledge of Students

Thinking

Problem Solving

Technology TAP Crosswalk Document

Designing and Planning Instruction

Exemplary (5)

Proficient (3)

Unsatisfactory (1)

Instructional Plans

Original

Instructional plans include:

  1. measurable and explicit goals aligned to state content standards;
  2. activities, materials, and assessments that:
  1. are aligned to state standards.
  2. are sequenced from basic to complex.
  3. build on prior student knowledge, are relevant to students’ lives, and integrate other disciplines.
  4. provide appropriate time for student work, student reflection, and lesson and unit closure;
  1. evidence that plan is appropriate for the age, knowledge, and interests of all learners and;
  2. evidence that the plan provides regular opportunities to accommodate individual student needs.

Instructional plans include:

  1. goals aligned to state content standards;
  2. activities, materials, and assessments that:
  1. are aligned to state standards
  2. are sequenced from basic to complex
  3. build on prior student knowledge
  4. provide appropriate time for student work, and lesson and unit closure
  1. evidence that plan is appropriate for the age, knowledge, and interests of most learners and;
  2. evidence that the plan provides some opportunities to accommodate individual student need

Instructional plans include:

  1. few goals aligned to state content standards;
  2. activities, materials, and assessments that:
  1. are rarely aligned to state standards.
  2. are rarely logically sequenced.
  3. rarely build on prior student knowledge.
  4. inconsistently provide time for student work, and lesson and unit closure;
  1. little evidence that plan is appropriate for the age, knowledge, or interests of the learners and;
  2. little evidence that the plan provides some opportunities to accommodate individual student needs.

Instructional Plans

Crosswalk

Instructional plans or projects include:

  1. measurable goals aligned to the governing board adopted coding curriculum
  2. activities, puzzles, projects, materials, and assessments that:
  1. are aligned to the governing board adopted coding curriculum.
  2. are logically sequenced from basic to complex.
  3. build on prior student knowledge, are relevant to students’ lives, and integrate other disciplines.
  4. provide appropriate time for student work, student reflection, and puzzle/project discussion;
  1. evidence that puzzles/projects are appropriate for the age, knowledge, or interests of the learners and;
  2. evidence that puzzles/projects provide regular opportunities to accommodate individual student needs.

Instructional plans or projects include:

  1. goals aligned to the governing board adopted coding curriculum
  2. activities, puzzles, projects, materials, and assessments that
  1. are aligned to the governing board adopted coding curriculum.
  2. are logically sequenced from basic to complex
  3. build on prior student knowledge
  4. provide appropriate time for student work, and puzzle/project discussion
  1. evidence that puzzles/projects are appropriate for the age, knowledge, or interests of the learners and;
  2. evidence that puzzles/projects provides some opportunities to accommodate individual student needs

Instructional plans or projects include:

  1. few goals aligned to the governing board adopted coding curriculum
  2. activities, puzzles, projects, materials, and assessments that
  1. are rarely aligned to the governing board adopted coding curriculum.
  2. are rarely logically sequenced.
  3. rarely build on prior student knowledge.
  4. inconsistently provide time for student work, and puzzle/project discussion;
  1. little evidence that puzzles/projects are appropriate for the age, knowledge, or interests of the learners and;
  2. little evidence that puzzles/projects provides some opportunities to accommodate individual student needs.

Crosswalk explanation

How might instructional plans differ?

Instructional plans may include very little large group direct instruction. Instead, plans might include an opening sequence or directive, a significant portion of time for working on a multitude of individual or group puzzles/projects, and a closure that allows for reflecting and sharing learning, debugging success, inquiries, or unresolved debugging challenges. Instructional plans might also include projects that last for one or more lessons, or even the option to explore one of several projects designed by the teacher or other students in the district. Rather than a pre sequenced lesson that explains how a project works, concepts can be explored rhizomatically by embedding direct instruction into the project itself or through supplemental resources that assist with debugging sequences or elaborating on concepts. This is possible because coding projects can include comments within the blocks or text that explains how a particular function within a program works, as well as use questions to ask how else the student could change the coding (e.g., a project Jared designed). Or, instructional plans might include using a sequenced, self-paced coding platform where the role of the teacher is to facilitate by providing additional resources or guiding through questioning techniques.

Student Work

Original

Assignments require students to:

  1. organize, interpret, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information rather than reproduce it;
  2. draw conclusions, make generalizations, and produce arguments that are supported through extended writing and;
  3. connect what they are learning to experiences, observations, feelings, or situations significant in their daily lives, both inside and outside of school.

Assignments require students to:

  1. interpret information rather than reproduce it
  2. draw conclusions  and support them through writing and;
  3. connect what they are learning to prior learning and some life experiences

Assignments require students to:

  1. mostly reproduce information;
  2. rarely draw conclusions and support them through writing and;
  3. rarely connect what they are learning to prior learning or some life experiences.

Student Work

Crosswalk

  1. Based on the parameters set in the lesson, project, or unit objectives, students are able to synthesize their learning and apply them within a project or to solve a puzzle using written coding language (blocks or text) that they have not previously seen or done
  2. Through the coding language (blocks or text) used in the lesson/project, students debug a puzzle/project, and support their conclusions with code that they can generalize beyond the puzzle/project they were debugging.
  3. Puzzles/projects connect with previous puzzles/projects and life experiences in meaningful ways both inside and outside of school
  1. Based on the parameters set in the lesson, project, or unit objectives, students are able to take their learning and apply  within a project or to solve a puzzle using written coding language (blocks or text)
  2. Through the coding language (blocks or text) used in the lesson/project, students debug a puzzle/project, and support their conclusions with code.
  3. Puzzles/projects connect with previous puzzles/projects and some life experiences
  1. Based on the parameters set in the lesson, project, or unit objectives, students are able to reproduce a tutorial or direct instruction using a written coding language (blocks or text)
  2. Through the coding language (blocks or text) used in the lesson/project, students rarely draw conclusions on why algorithms do/n’t work in a puzzle/project.
  3. Puzzles/projects rarely connect with previous puzzles/projects or life experiences.

Crosswalk explanation

How might student work differ?

Student work should revolve around computational thinking as outlined within the governing board adopted coding curriculum. Computational thinking concepts should be demonstrated through coding languages (blocks or text) in a manner that connects with previous learning and life experiences; for an example, click here. Because everyone is learning at a different pace, or working on different puzzles/projects, classrooms need not have everyone engaging in the same puzzle/project at the same time. Instead, coding classes can utilize the affordances of having one-to-one technology access to allow for student work that matches learning through individualized or small group puzzles/projects; however, coding classes might also engage in full group puzzles/projects when a teacher uses an assessment for/of/as learning and determines it would benefit a class.

Assessment

Original

Assessment Plans:

  1. are aligned with state content standards;
  2. have clear measurement criteria;
  3. measure student performance in more than three ways (e.g., in the form of a project, experiment, presentation, essay, short answer, or multiple choice test);
  4. require extended written tasks;
  5. are portfolio based with clear illustrations of student progress toward state content standards and;
  6. include descriptions of how assessment results will be used to inform future instruction.

Assessment Plans:

  1. are aligned with state content standards;
  2. have measurement criteria;
  3. measure student performance in more than two ways (e.g., in the form of a project, experiment, presentation, essay, short answer, or multiple choice test);
  4. require written tasks and;
  5. include performance checks throughout the school year.

Assessment Plans:

  1. are rarely aligned with state content standards;
  2. have ambiguous measurement criteria;
  3. measure student performance in less than two ways (e.g., in the form of a project, experiment, presentation, essay, short answer, or multiple choice test) and;
  4. include performance checks, although the purpose of these checks is not clear.

Assessment

Crosswalk

Assessment Plans:

  1. are aligned with the governing board adopted coding curriculum
  2. have clear measurement criteria based on each student’s individual needs
  3. assess in more than three ways (e.g., puzzles, challenges, projects, in/formal discussions, project comments/instructions, coding algorithms, tests, observation, etc.)
  4. Require extended tasks/projects through a written coding language (block or text)
  5. Are portfolio/project based with clear illustrations of student progress toward district coding standards
  6. Include descriptions of how assessment results will be used to inform future puzzles, projects, or instruction

Assessment Plans:

  1. are aligned with the governing board adopted coding curriculum
  2. have measurement criteria
  3. assess in more than two ways (e.g., puzzles, challenges, projects, in/formal discussions, project comments/instructions, coding algorithms, tests, observation, etc.)
  4. Require demonstrations of learning through a coding language (block or text)
  5. include assessment of learning throughout the school year

Assessment Plans:

  1. are rarely aligned with the governing board adopted coding curriculum
  2. have ambiguous measurement criteria;
  3. assess in less than two ways (e.g., puzzles, challenges, projects, in/formal discussions, project comments/instructions, coding algorithms, tests, observation, etc.)
  4. assess for learning; however, the purpose of these assessments is unclear

Crosswalk explanation

How might assessment differ?

The main difference in assessments is not related to what assessments are used for, but what assessments look like. Assessment of computational thinking can take place through assessments as learning, assessments for learning, or assessments of learning; as well as in in/formal contexts. One can assess by having students writing in comments or instructions for the projects/code, asking students at the end of class to share with a neighbor how something in their project/code works and having their neighbor ask follow-up questions, having the teacher/facilitator walk around and informally assess how everyone is doing by looking at their algorithms, engaging in informal discussions in small or large groups, taking a multiple choice quiz on a concept related to computational thinking, assessing progress with puzzles/projects, and many more. Informal assessments occur throughout class time; however, formal assessments might only occur once per quarter (for instance, turning in a quarterly project). All assessments should in some way incorporate coding language either in the form of blocks or text (pseudo, modified, or full). Exit tickets are one form of an assessment tool, as coding language can be assessed through such forms as manipulative algorithms, written or typed text, coding blocks, body movements (such as reading an algorithm that tells you how to move), and more. In addition, written out exit tickets might be decontextualized from coding practices.

The Learning Environment

Exemplary (5)

Proficient (3)

Unsatisfactory (1)

Expectations

Original

  1. Teacher sets high and demanding academic expectations for every student.
  2. Teacher encourages students to learn from mistakes.
  3. Teacher creates learning opportunities where all students can experience success.
  4. Students take initiative and follow through with their own work.
  5. Teacher optimizes instructional time, teaches for material, and demands better performance from every student.
  1. Teacher sets high and demanding academic expectations for every student.
  2. Teacher encourages students to learn from mistakes.
  3. Teacher creates learning opportunities where most students can experience success.
  4. Students complete their work according to teacher expectations.

  1. Teacher expectations are not sufficiently high for every student.
  2. Teacher creates an environment where mistakes and failure are not viewed as learning experiences.
  3. Students demonstrate little or no pride in the quality of their work.  

Expectations

Crosswalk

  1. Teacher expectations are individualized for every student and high
  2. Teacher encourages debugging practices as part of regular coding practices
  3. Teacher provides puzzles, projects, or challenges where all students experience success in variegated manners.
  4. Students complete puzzles/projects according to their own expectations
  5. Teacher optimizes class time to focus primarily on actively engaging in computational thinking by coding through blocks or text, or engaging in “unplugged” experiences.
  • Active engagement in computational thinking can be in the form of individualized, small group, or large group practices
  1. Teacher expectations are individualized for every student and high
  2. Teacher encourages debugging practices as part of regular coding practices
  3. Teacher provides puzzles, projects, or challenges where most students experience success in variegated manners.
  4. Students complete puzzles/projects according to teacher expectations
  5. TIme managed adequately for class period by teacher and students.

  1. Teacher expectations are not individualized or high enough for each student
  2. Teacher does not encourage debugging practices as part of regular coding practices
  3. Students demonstrate little or no pride in the quality of their puzzles, projects, or challenges.
  4. Class time not managed well by students or teacher.

Crosswalk explanation

How might expectations differ?

Expectations in one-to-one technology environments need to reflect the self-pacing one-to-one computers can provide and the varied levels of learning inherent within any content area. As such, expectations are to remain high, yet personalized to match each student where they are at with their current learning. The primary focus of class time should be on computational thinking, which may take place in digital or “unplugged” experiences. Because expectations and pacing within a one-to-one environment can be 100% personalized to meet the needs of each student where they are at, full group instruction may not be necessary for each lesson or even for the majority of a lesson.

Managing Student Behavior

Original

  1. Students are consistently well-behaved and on task.
  2. Teacher and students establish clear rules for learning and behavior.
  3. The teacher uses several techniques, such as social approval, contingent activities, and consequences to maintain appropriate student behavior.
  4. The teacher overlooks inconsequential behavior.
  5. The teacher deals with students who have caused disruptions rather than the entire class.
  6. The teacher attends to disruptions quickly and firmly.
  1. Students are mostly well-behaved and on task, some minor learning disruptions may occur.
  2. Teacher establishes rules for learning and behavior.
  3. The teacher uses some techniques, such as social approval, contingent activities, and consequences to maintain appropriate student behavior.
  4. The teacher overlooks some inconsequential behavior, but other times addresses it, stopping the lesson.
  5. The teacher deals with students who have caused disruptions, yet sometimes he or she addresses the entire class.
  1. Students are not well-behaved and are often off task.
  2. Teacher establishes few rules for learning and behavior.
  3. The teacher uses few techniques to maintain appropriate student behavior.
  4. The teacher cannot distinguish between inconsequential behavior and inappropriate behavior.
  5. Disruptions frequently interrupt instruction.

Managing

Student

Behavior

Crosswalk

  1. Students are consistently well-behaved and engaging in computational thinking..
  2. Teacher and students establish clear rules for learning and behavior.
  3. The teacher uses several techniques, such as social approval, contingent activities, and consequences to maintain appropriate student behavior.
  4. The teacher overlooks inconsequential behavior.
  5. The teacher deals with students who have caused disruptions rather than the entire class.
  6. The teacher attends to disruptions quickly and appropriately.
  1. Students are mostly well-behaved and coding, some minor learning disruptions may occur.
  2. Teacher establishes rules for learning and behavior.
  3. The teacher uses some techniques, such as social approval, contingent activities, and consequences to maintain appropriate student behavior.
  4. The teacher overlooks some inconsequential behavior, but other times addresses it, stopping the lesson.
  5. The teacher deals with students who have caused disruptions, yet sometimes he or she addresses the entire class.
  1. Students are not well-behaved and are often not engaging in computational thinking.
  2. Teacher establishes few rules for learning and behavior.
  3. The teacher uses few techniques to maintain appropriate student behavior.
  4. The teacher cannot distinguish between inconsequential behavior and inappropriate behavior.
  5. Disruptions frequently interrupt time spent working on coding.

Crosswalk explanation

How might managing student behavior differ?

In short, it’s not very different. The main difference is that being on-task means engaging in computational thinking. This can include variegated forms of computational thinking (e.g, activities, puzzles, challenges, projects, discussions, debates, inquiries) that take place with or without computers.

Environment

Original

The classroom:

  1. welcomes all members and guests.
  2. is organized and understandable to all students.
  3. supplies, equipment, and resources are easily and readily accessible.
  4. displays student work that frequently changes.
  5. is arranged to promote individual and group learning.

The classroom:

  1. welcomes most members and guests.
  2. is organized and understandable to most students.
  3. supplies, equipment, and resources are easily and accessible.  
  4. displays student work.
  5. is arranged to promote individual and group learning.

The classroom:

  1. is somewhat cold and uninviting.
  2. is not well organized and understandable to students.
  3. supplies, equipment, and resources are difficult to access.
  4. does not display student work.
  5. is not arranged to promote group learning.

Environment Crosswalk

The classroom and online spaces:

  1. welcome all members and guests.
  2. are organized and understandable to all students.
  3. supplies, equipment, and resources are easily and readily accessible.
  4. display student work that frequently changes.
  5. are arranged to promote individual and group learning.

The classroom and online spaces:

  1. welcome most members and guests.
  2. are organized and understandable to most students.
  3. supplies, equipment, and resources are easily and accessible.  
  4. display student work.
  5. are arranged to promote individual and group learning.

The classroom and online spaces:

  1. are somewhat cold and uninviting.
  2. are not well organized and understandable to students.
  3. supplies, equipment, and resources are difficult to access.
  4. do not display student work.
  5. are not arranged to promote individual or group learning.

Crosswalk explanation

How might our learning environments differ from other learning environments?  

The main difference is that the classroom environment extends into the web environment rather than the room itself.

Respectful Culture

Original

  1. Teacher-student interactions demonstrate caring and respect for one another.
  2. Students exhibit caring and respect for one another.
  3. Teacher seeks out and is receptive to the interests and opinions of all students.
  4. Positive relationships and interdependence characterize the classroom.
  1. Teacher-student interactions are generally friendly, but may reflect occasional inconsistencies, favoritism, or disregard for students’ cultures.
  2. Students exhibit respect for the teacher and are generally polite to each other.
  3. Teacher is sometimes receptive to the interests and opinions of all students.
  1. Teacher-student interactions are sometimes authoritarian, negative, or inappropriate.
  2. Students exhibit disrespect for the teacher.
  3. Student interaction is characterized by conflict, sarcasm, or put-downs.
  4. Teacher is not receptive to the interests and opinions of all students.

Respectful Culture Crosswalk

  1. Teacher-student interactions demonstrate caring and respect for one another.
  2. Students exhibit caring and respect for one another online and offline.
  3. Teacher seeks out and is receptive to the interests and opinions of all students, and encourages students to incorporate them into their coding..
  4. Positive relationships and interdependence characterize the learning environment.
  1. Teacher-student interactions are generally friendly, but may reflect occasional inconsistencies, favoritism, or disregard for students’ cultures.
  2. Students exhibit respect for the teacher and are generally polite to each other online or offline.
  3. Teacher is sometimes receptive to the interests and opinions of all students.
  1. Teacher-student interactions are sometimes authoritarian, negative, or inappropriate.
  2. Students exhibit disrespect for the teacher.
  3. Student interaction is characterized by conflict, sarcasm, or put-downs online or offline.
  4. Teacher is not receptive to the interests and opinions of all students.

Crosswalk explanation

How might our classes differ from other respectful cultures?

Very little is different with the face-to-face interactions; however, the respectful culture moves beyond the classroom itself into the online learning environment. A marking of five indicates that not only is the classroom respectful to each other in person, but are respectful to others online. This relates to digital citizenship and respect in online spaces. Another difference is that interests and opinions in box five are incorporated into coding puzzles or projects.

Instruction

Exemplary (5)

Proficient (3)

Unsatisfactory (1)

Standards and Objectives

Original

  1. All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.
  2. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.
  3. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.
  4. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high.
  5. State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson. (A&M)
  6. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
  1. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
  2. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
  3. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.
  4. Expectations for student performance are clear.
  5. State standards (or objectives) are displayed.
  6. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
  1. Few learning objectives and state content standards re communicated.
  2. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
  3. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.
  4. Expectations for student performance are vague.
  5. State standards are displayed.
  6. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

Standards and Objectives

Crosswalk

  1. All learning objectives and district coding standards are communicated (either as questions or statements).
  2. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.
  3. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.
  4. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high.
  5. District coding standards are displayed online or within the classroom space as questions or statements, and are referenced as questions or statements in relation to one-on-one, small group, or full class instruction or assistance
  6. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
  1. Most learning objectives and district coding standards are communicated (either as questions or statements).
  2. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
  3. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.
  4. Expectations for student performance are clear.
  5. District coding standards are displayed online or within the classroom space as questions or statements
  6. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
  1. Few learning objectives and district coding standards are communicated (either as questions or statements).
  2. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
  3. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.
  4. Expectations for student performance are vague.
  5. District coding standards are displayed online or within the classroom space as questions or statements
  6. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

Crosswalk explanation

How might standards and objectives differ?

When creating algorithms to solve puzzles or challenges, demonstration of learning may be evident within a single lesson; however, mastery of concepts within a project may take several days, weeks, or months. Evidence of progress towards mastery can be obtained through in/formal assessments; however, not all lessons will include mastery of an objective that is expected to take an extended period of time to complete. I.e., if the objectives are for a project that lasts more than one lesson, progress is demonstrated in each class; however, mastery is not expected until the end of a project. Because we are pushing for rigour within our coding curriculum, standards and objectives may take an extended period of time to demonstrate mastery and may be different for each student. Standards and objectives are not referenced a prescribed number of times throughout the class, but in response to specific learning and facilitating within a given class. Because everyone within the class might be working on different puzzles/projects at any given moment, the entire set of our governing board adopted coding curriculum may be engaged in at any given moment by anyone in the class (this is a good thing).

Motivating Students

Original

  1. The teacher consistently organizes the content so that it is personally meaningful and relevant to students.
  2. The teacher consistently develops learning experiences where inquiry, curiosity, and exploration are valued.
  3. The teacher regularly reinforces and rewards effort.
  1. The teacher sometimes organizes the content so that it is personally meaningful and relevant to students.
  2. The teacher sometimes develops learning experiences where inquiry, curiosity, and exploration are valued.
  3. The teacher sometimes reinforces and rewards effort.

(TKS)

  1. The teacher rarely organizes the content so that it is personally meaningful and relevant to students.
  2. The teacher rarely develops learning experiences where inquiry, curiosity, and exploration are valued.
  3. The teacher rarely reinforces and rewards effort.

Motivating Students

Crosswalk

  1. The teacher consistently organizes the content so that it is personally meaningful and relevant to students.
  • Meaning and relevance are student-centered rather than teacher-centered.
  1. The teacher consistently develops learning experiences where inquiry, curiosity, and exploration are valued.
  2. The teacher regularly reinforces and rewards effort.
  1. The teacher sometimes organizes the content so that it is personally meaningful and relevant to students.
  2. The teacher sometimes develops learning experiences where inquiry, curiosity, and exploration are valued.
  3. The teacher sometimes reinforces and rewards effort.

  1. The teacher rarely organizes the content so that it is personally meaningful and relevant to students.
  2. The teacher rarely develops learning experiences where inquiry, curiosity, and exploration are valued.
  3. The teacher rarely reinforces and rewards effort.

Crosswalk explanation

 How might motivating students differ?

Student motivation might include offline or online forms of motivation. For instance, reinforcing and rewarding efforts might include sharing student created projects across grade levels or schools (click the following links for an example of sharing DT Scratch and Khan projects). Or, printing certificates, interesting algorithms, or student projects and displaying them on the classroom wall. Content might motivate students by providing project choices, encouraging creativity, or using inquiry and curiosity to encourage self-guided learning of computational thinking.

Presenting Instructional Content

Original

Presentation of content always includes:

  1. visuals that establish the purpose of the lesson, preview the organization of the lesson, and include internal summaries of the lesson;
  2. examples, illustrations, analogies, and labels for new concepts and ideas;
  3. modeling by the teacher to demonstrate his or her performance expectations;
  4. concise communication;
  5. logical sequencing and segmenting;
  6. all essential information and;
  7. no irrelevant, confusing, or nonessential information.

Presentation of content most of the time includes:

  1. visuals that establish the purpose of the lesson, preview the organization of the lesson, and include internal summaries of the lesson;
  2. examples, illustrations, analogies, and labels for new concepts and ideas;
  3. modeling by the teacher to demonstrate his or her performance expectations;
  4. concise communication;
  5. logical sequencing and segmenting;
  6. all essential information and;
  7. no irrelevant, confusing, or nonessential information.

Presentation of content rarely includes:

  1. visuals that establish the purpose of the lesion, preview the organization of the lesson, and include internal summaries of the lesson;
  2. examples, illustrations, analogies, and labels for new concepts and ideas;
  3. modeling by the teacher to demonstrate his or her performance expectations;
  4. concise communication; logical sequencing and segmenting;
  5. all essential information and;
  6. no irrelevant, confusing, or nonessential information.

Presenting Instructional Content

Crosswalk

Presentation or design of content in offline and online settings always includes:

  1. visuals that establish the purpose of the lesion, preview the organization of the lesson, and include internal summaries of the lesson;
  2. examples, illustrations, analogies, and labels for new concepts and ideas;
  3. modeling by the teacher to demonstrate his or her performance expectations;
  4. concise communication;
  5. logical sequencing and segmenting;
  6. all essential information and;
  7. no irrelevant, confusing, or nonessential information.

Presentation or design of content in offline and online settings most of the time includes:

  1. visuals that establish the purpose of the lesson, preview the organization of the lesson, and include internal summaries of the lesson;
  2. examples, illustrations, analogies, and labels for new concepts and ideas;
  3. modeling by the teacher to demonstrate his or her performance expectations;
  4. concise communication;
  5. logical sequencing and segmenting;
  6. all essential information and;
  7. no irrelevant, confusing, or nonessential information.

Presentation or design of content in offline and online settings rarely includes:

  1. visuals that establish the purpose of the lesson, preview the organization of the lesson, and include internal summaries of the lesson;
  2. examples, illustrations, analogies, and labels for new concepts and ideas;
  3. modeling by the teacher to demonstrate his or her performance expectations;
  4. concise communication; logical sequencing and segmenting;
  5. all essential information and;
  6. no irrelevant, confusing, or nonessential information.

Crosswalk explanation

How is facilitating or presenting instructional content different?

In a one-to-one technology setting, presentation of instructional content can take on many different forms. For instance, the Minotaur sprite in this project is an example of artificial intelligence in that the Minotaur sprite will navigate the maze to try and catch Blockman (the player). Instructional content within this complicated project is explained within the project itself as a functional text rather than by the teacher who designed it (Jared). Each section of code is explained in a comment that can be referenced in later projects in order to build connect concepts across projects. This allows students to not only engage in a practice of reading comments to understand coding (a practice common in most coding languages), it offloads presenting the content within the project’s design. This allows a student to work on any of these projects Jared designed without having to ask how something works, in addition to having questions built into most of the comments to encourage higher order thinking and creativity. Instead of relying on a one-time explanation from a teacher, students consult the teacher for clarification or assistance in a complicated project when the comments do not provide enough scaffolding for a particular coding problem or debugging. In puzzles/projects not designed by teachers in Avondale, presentation of instructional content is often offloaded into the platform itself (i.e., Code.org or Khan Academy). This is not to say that we do not present instructional content; it just looks different than settings without one-to-one technology. This allows for individualized pacing as teachers can spend more time assisting one-on-one while new concepts might be introduced to students through a platform or designed project. In an observation, the observer should consider how a teacher/facilitator presents instructional content both in class and online as one-to-one technology allows us to offload instruction to the online resources we have designed or cultivated for the students we work with.

Lesson Structure and Pacing

Original

  1. All lessons start promptly.
  2. The lesson’s structure is coherent, with a beginning, middle, end, and time for reflection.
  3. Pacing is brisk and provides many opportunities for individual students who progress at different learning rates.
  4. Routines for distributing materials are seamless.
  5. No instructional time is lost during transitions.
  1. Most lessons start promptly.
  2. The lesson’s structure is coherent, with a beginning, middle, and end.
  3. Pacing is appropriate and sometimes provides opportunities for students who progress at different learning rates.
  4. Routines for distributing materials are efficient.
  5. Little instructional time is lost during transitions.

  1. Lessons are not started promptly.
  2. The lesson has a structure, but may be missing closure or introductory elements.
  3. Pacing is appropriate for less than half of the students and rarely provides opportunities for students who progress at different learning rates.
  4. Routines for distributing materials are inefficient.
  5. Considerable time is lost during transitions.

Lesson Structure and Pacing Crosswalk

  1. All lessons start promptly.
  2. The lesson’s structure is coherent, with a beginning, middle, end, and time for reflection.
  3. Pacing is individualized and provides many opportunities for individual students who progress at different learning rates.
  4. Routines for distributing materials are seamless.
  • Materials are distributed online in a space that also allows them to access the materials at home.
  1. No instructional time is lost during transitions.
  1. Most lessons start promptly.
  2. The lesson’s structure is coherent, with a beginning, middle, and end.
  3. Pacing is appropriate and sometimes provides opportunities for students who progress at different learning rates.
  4. Routines for distributing materials are efficient.
  5. Little instructional time is lost during transitions.

  1. Lessons are not started promptly.
  2. The lesson has a structure, but may be missing closure or introductory elements.
  3. Pacing is appropriate for less than half of the students and rarely provides opportunities for students who progress at different learning rates.
  4. Routines for distributing materials are inefficient.
  5. Considerable time is lost during transitions.

Crosswalk explanation

How might lesson structure and pacing differ?

When projects last more than one class period, observers might not observe all parts (beginning, middle, and end with reflection) of a project; however, an individual lesson’s structure should include a beginning, middle, end, and time for reflection. Because of this, both the observer and teacher should engage in a dialogue about how the observed class’ lesson is situated within previous and upcoming classes. While engaging in an extended project, lessons can, however, have a beginning, middle, and end with reflection. For example, the start of class may include a brief discussion or explanation of a coding concept, the middle of a class could include continuing self-guided work on a project while the teacher facilitates one-on-one or in small group, and the end of the class could involve sharing with others what they worked on. During the time at the end, students can ask each other questions to reflect on processes and learning as they connect their previous learning to their current project goals. The goal is to have individualized pacing that matches the students’ learning.Each campus in the district has a different Special Areas Schedule. That said, it is common for students to be working on projects over several weeks in some cases, whereas others may see the same class each day.This is why it is crucial that no instructional time is lost. Instructors must make sure classes pick up right where they left off no matter their schedule.

Activities and Materials

Original

Activities and materials include all of the following:

  • support the lesson objectives;
  • are challenging;
  • sustain students’ attention;
  • elicit a variety of thinking;
  • provide time for reflection;
  • are relevant to students’ lives;
  • provide opportunities for student-to-student interaction;
  • induce student curiosity and suspense;
  • provide students with choices;
  • incorporate multimedia and technology and;
  • incorporate resources beyond the school curriculum texts (e.g., teacher-made materials, manipulatives, resources from museums, cultural centers, etc.).
  • In addition, sometimes activities are game-like, involve simulations, require creating products, and demand self-direction and self-monitoring.

Activities and materials include most of the following:

  • support the lesson objectives;  
  • are challenging;
  • elicit a variety of thinking;
  • provide time for reflection;
  • are relevant to students’ lives;

2.  Student-Centered

  • sustain students’ attention;
  • provide opportunities for student-to-student interaction;
  • induce student curiosity and suspense;
  • provide students with choices;

3.  Materials

  • incorporate multimedia and technology and;
  • incorporate resources beyond the school curriculum texts (e.g., teacher-made materials, manipulatives, resources from museums, cultural centers, etc.).

Activities and materials include few of the following:

  • support the lesson objectives;
  • are challenging;
  • sustain students’ attention;
  • elicit a variety of thinking;
  • provide time for reflection;
  • are relevant to students’ lives;
  • provide opportunities for student-to-student interaction;
  • induce student curiosity and suspense;
  • provide students with choices;
  • incorporate multimedia and technology and;
  • incorporate resources beyond the school curriculum texts (e.g., teacher-made materials, manipulatives, resources from museums, cultural centers, etc.).

Activities and Materials Crosswalk

Activities and materials include all of the following:

  • support the lesson/project objectives;
  • are challenging;
  • sustain students’ attention;
  • elicit a variety of thinking;
  • provide time for reflection;
  • are relevant to students’ lives;
  • provide opportunities for student-to-student interaction in online or offline settings;
  • induce student curiosity and suspense;
  • provide students with choices;
  • incorporate multimedia and technology that is available for use at home;
  • incorporate resources beyond the school curriculum texts (e.g., teacher-made materials, projects, manipulatives, links, videos, algorithms).
  • In addition, activities are game-like, involve simulations, require creating products, and demand self-direction and self-monitoring.

Activities and materials include most of the following:

1.  Content Related

  • support the lesson/project objectives;
  • are challenging;
  • elicit a variety of thinking;
  • provide time for reflection;
  • are relevant to students’ lives;

2.  Student-Centered

  • sustain students’ attention;
  • provide opportunities for student-to-student interaction in online or offline settings;
  • induce student curiosity and suspense;
  • provide students with choices;

3.  Materials

  • incorporate multimedia and technology that is available for use at home;
  • incorporate resources beyond the school curriculum texts (e.g., teacher-made materials, projects, manipulatives, links, videos, algorithms).

Activities and materials include few of the following:

  • support the lesson/project objectives;
  • are challenging;
  • sustain students’ attention;
  • elicit a variety of thinking;
  • provide time for reflection;
  • are relevant to students’ lives;
  • provide opportunities for student-to-student interaction in online or offline settings;
  • induce student curiosity and suspense;
  • provide students with choices;
  • incorporate multimedia and technology that is available for use at home;
  • incorporate resources beyond the school curriculum texts (e.g., teacher-made materials, projects, manipulatives, links, videos, algorithms).

Crosswalk explanation

How might activites and materials differ?

The biggest difference between activities and materials is that our activities and materials can include offline and online activities or materials. The biggest advantage with online materials is that it allows students to continue their learning at home. Student-to-student interaction can also take place in online and offline settings; ideally, both should be encouraged.

Questioning

Original

Teacher questions are varied and high quality, providing a balanced mix of questions types:

  • knowledge and comprehension;
  • application and analysis; and
  • creation and evaluation.
  • Questions are consistently purposeful and coherent.
  • A high frequency of questions is asked.
  • Questions are consistently sequenced with attention to the instructional goals.
  • Questions regularly require active responses (e.g., whole class signaling, choral responses, written and shared responses, or group and individual answers).
  • Wait time (3-5 seconds) is consistently provided.
  • The teacher calls on volunteers and non-volunteers, and balance of students based on ability and sex.
  • Students generate questions that lead to further inquiry and self-directed learning.

Teacher questions are varied and high quality, providing for some, but not all, question types:

  • knowledge and comprehension;
  • application and analysis; and
  • creation and evaluation.
  • Questions are consistently purposeful and coherent.
  • Questions are sometimes sequenced with attention to the instructional goals.
  • A moderate frequency of is questions asked
  • Wait time is sometimes provided.
  • The teacher calls on volunteers and non-volunteers, and balance of students based on ability and sex.
  • Questions sometimes require active responses (e.g., whole class signaling, choral responses, written and shared responses, or group and individual answers).

Teacher questions are inconsistent in quality and include few questions types:

  • knowledge and comprehension;
  • application and analysis; and
  • creation and evaluation.
  • Questions are random and lack coherence.
  • A low frequency of questions is asked.
  • Questions are rarely sequenced with attention to the instructional goals.
  • Questions rarely require active responses (e.g., whole class signaling, choral responses, or group and individual answers).
  • Wait time is inconsistently provided.
  • The teacher mostly calls on volunteers and high ability students.

Questioning Crosswalk

Teacher questions are varied and high quality, providing a balanced mix of questions types:

  • knowledge and comprehension;
  • application and analysis; and
  • creation and evaluation.
  • Questions are consistently purposeful and coherent.
  • A high frequency of questions is asked.
  • Questions are consistently sequenced with attention to the instructional goals.
  • Questions regularly require active responses (e.g., whole class signaling, choral responses, written and shared responses, or group and individual answers).
  • Appropriate wait time is consistently provided.
  • The teacher calls on volunteers and non-volunteers, and balance of students based on ability and sex.
  • Students generate questions that lead to further inquiry and self-directed learning.
  • These questions can be self-reflective, asked of other students, or asked to the teacher

Teacher questions are varied and high quality, providing for some, but not all, question types:

  • knowledge and comprehension;
  • application and analysis; and
  • creation and evaluation.
  • Questions are consistently purposeful and coherent.
  • Questions are sometimes sequenced with attention to the instructional goals.
  • A moderate frequency of is questions asked
  • Appropriate wait time is sometimes provided.
  • The teacher calls on volunteers and non-volunteers, and balance of students based on ability and sex.

3.   Other

  • Questions sometimes require active responses (e.g., whole class signaling, choral responses, written and shared responses, or group and individual answers).

Teacher questions are inconsistent in quality and include few questions types:

  • knowledge and comprehension;
  • application and analysis; and
  • creation and evaluation.
  • Questions are random and lack coherence.
  • A low frequency of questions is asked.
  • Questions are rarely sequenced with attention to the instructional goals.
  • Questions rarely require active responses (e.g., whole class signaling, choral responses, or group and individual answers).
  • Appropriate wait time is inconsistently provided.
  • The teacher mostly calls on volunteers and high ability students.

Crosswalk explanation

How might questions differ?

The biggest difference between a one-to-one technology setting and classes with limited technology is that questions might be offloaded into designed projects. For instance, these Scratch projects not only have questions in their instructions, but each project has questions embedded within the code itself to encourage higher order thinking and creativity; click “see inside” to actually look inside each project to view the questions. Standards and objectives might also take the form of questions rather than statements. When engaging with students one-on-one, questions should be guiding or open so as to encourage debugging practices.

Academic Feedback

Original

  1. Oral and written feedback is consistently academically focused, frequent, and high quality.
  2. Feedback is frequently given during guided practice and homework review.
  3. The teacher circulates to prompt student thinking, assess each student’s progress, and provide individual feedback.
  4. Feedback from students is regularly used to monitor and adjust instruction.
  5. Teacher engages students in giving specific and high-quality feedback to one another.
  1. Oral and written feedback is mostly academically focused, frequent, and mostly high quality.
  2. Feedback is sometimes given during guided practice and homework review.  
  3. The teacher circulates during instructional activities to support engagement and monitor student work.
  4. Feedback from students is sometimes used to monitor and adjust instruction.
  1. The quality and timeliness of feedback is inconsistent.
  2. Feedback is rarely given during guided practice and homework review.
  3. The teacher circulates during instructional activities, but monitors mostly behavior.
  4. Feedback from students is rarely used to monitor or adjust instruction.

Academic Feedback Crosswalk

  1. Oral and written feedback is consistently academically focused, frequent, and high quality.
  2. Feedback is frequently given during guided practice and review.
  3. The teacher circulates to prompt student thinking, assess each student’s progress, and provide individual feedback.
  4. Feedback from students is regularly used to monitor and adjust classroom and project design.
  5. Teacher encourages students in giving specific and high-quality feedback to one another in offline or online formats.
  1. Oral and written feedback is mostly academically focused, frequent, and mostly high quality.
  2. Feedback is sometimes given during guided practice and review.  
  3. The teacher circulates during class to support engagement and monitor student work.
  4. Feedback from students is sometimes used to monitor and adjust classroom and project design.
  1. The quality and timeliness of feedback is inconsistent.
  2. Feedback is rarely given during guided practice and review.
  3. The teacher circulates during class, but monitors mostly behavior.
  4. Feedback from students is rarely used to monitor or adjust instruction.

Crosswalk explanation

 How might academic feedback differ?

Academic feedback is largely instantaneous in our coding classes because of the platforms we use. For instance, Code.org, Scratch, and Khan all allow you to check algorithms at any given moment to see if they are working as intended. Because coding teachers know this, our role is generally to encourage more student-to-student feedback than teacher directed feedback. Additionally, both teacher to student and student to student academic feedback can take place online and offline. For instance, students can provide online feedback to each other by asking questions about puzzles/projects or providing suggestions through commenting sections in Scratch. This allows students to provide asynchronous academic feedback across grade levels and across schools; however, face-to-face feedback should also be encouraged. While circulating the room and informally assessing for learning (by asking questions and looking at algorithms), teachers should make decisions about when to provide feedback, when to encourage a student to continue debugging on their own, and when to pair students up to engage in academic feedback in order to solve a particular bug or challenge. Observers should not sit in one location, but should instead follow the teacher during a class to see how one-to-one instruction and feedback occurs. Whether a student is doing well, struggling, or meeting expectations, teachers should briefly explain to observers the choices they are making with instruction and feedback (or intentional lack thereof) as each choice relates to where a student is at in relation to their prior learning and the class/project objectives.

Grouping Students

Original

  1. The instructional grouping arrangements (either whole class, small groups, pairs, or individual; heterogeneous or homogeneous ability) consistently maximize student learning and learning efficiency.
  2. All students in groups know their roles, responsibilities, and group work expectations.
  3. All students participating in groups are held accountable for group work and individual work.
  4. Instructional group composition is varied (e.g., race, gender, ability, and age) to best accomplish the goals of the lesson.
  5. 5.  Instructional groups facilitate opportunities for students to set goals, reflect on, and evaluate their learning.
  1. The instructional grouping arrangements (either whole class, small groups, pairs, or individual; heterogeneous or homogeneous ability) adequately enhance student learning and learning efficiency.

Structuring Learning Groups

  1. Most students in groups know their roles, responsibilities, and group work expectations.
  2. Most students participating in groups are held accountable for group work and individual work.
  3. Instructional group composition is varied (e.g., race, gender, ability, and age) to, most of the time, accomplish the goals of the lesson.
  1. The instructional grouping arrangements (either whole class, small groups, pairs, or individual; heterogeneous or homogeneous ability) inhibit student learning and learning efficiency.
  2. Few students in groups know their roles, responsibilities, and group work expectations.
  3. Few students participating in groups are held accountable for group work and individual work.
  4. Instructional group composition remains unchanged, irrespective of the learning and instructional goals of the lesson.

Grouping Students Crosswalk

  1. The instructional grouping arrangements (either whole class, small groups, pairs, or individual; heterogeneous or homogeneous learning) consistently maximize student learning and learning efficiency.
  2. All students in groups know their roles, responsibilities, and group work expectations.
  3. All students participating in groups are held accountable for group work and individual work.
  4. Instructional group composition is varied (e.g., race, gender, ability, and age) to best accomplish the goals of the lesson.
  5.  Instructional groups facilitate opportunities for students to set goals, reflect on, and evaluate their learning.
  1. The instructional grouping arrangements (either whole class, small groups, pairs, or individual; heterogeneous or homogeneous learning) adequately enhance student learning and learning efficiency.

Structuring Learning Groups

  1. Most students in groups know their roles, responsibilities, and group work expectations.
  2. Most students participating in groups are held accountable for group work and individual work.
  3. Instructional group composition is varied (e.g., race, gender, ability, and age) to, most of the time, accomplish the goals of the lesson.
  1. The instructional grouping arrangements (either whole class, small groups, pairs, or individual; heterogeneous or homogeneous learning) inhibit student learning and learning efficiency.
  2. Few students in groups know their roles, responsibilities, and group work expectations.
  3. Few students participating in groups are held accountable for group work and individual work.
  4. Instructional group composition remains unchanged, irrespective of the learning and instructional goals of the lesson.

Crosswalk explanation

How grouping might differ?

When utilizing one-to-one technology that provides instantaneous feedback and opportunities for self-pacing, grouping is much likely less valuable than in classes without such affordances (e.g., when I, Jared, was a former band director). Students who are working on similar puzzles-projects can be encouraged to work together while also working at their own pace; however, grouping does not require everyone to work together at the same time on the same thing. As such, grouping is often temporary or situational. Teachers are to encourage grouping of students who are working on similar projects, who have similar bugs to debug, or pairing together those who know how to assist with a bug to those who are trying to debug. When grouping, students are to work together rather than do the work for someone else. We often use the metaphor of a driver controlling the mouse and a navigator engaging in a dialog about where they should go. In any given class, there could be a lot of grouping or none.  

Teacher Content Knowledge

Original

  1. Teacher displays extensive content knowledge of all the subjects she or he teaches.
  2. Teacher regularly implements a variety of subject-specific instructional strategies to enhance student content knowledge.
  3. The teacher regularly highlights key concepts and ideas and uses them as bases to connect other powerful ideas.
  4. Limited content is taught in sufficient depth to allow for the development of learning.
  1. Teacher displays accurate content knowledge of all the subjects she or he teaches.
  2. Teacher sometimes implements subject-specific instructional strategies to enhance student content knowledge.
  3. The teacher sometimes highlights key concepts and ideas and uses them as bases to connect other powerful ideas.

  1. Teacher displays under-developed content knowledge in several subject areas.
  2. Teacher rarely implements subject-specific instructional strategies to enhance student content knowledge.
  3. Teacher does not understand key concepts and ideas in the discipline and therefore presents content in an unconnected way.

Teacher Content Knowledge Crosswalk

  1. Teacher displays extensive content knowledge of all the subjects she or he teaches.
  2. Teacher regularly implements a variety of subject-specific instructional strategies to enhance student content knowledge.
  3. The teacher regularly highlights key concepts and ideas and uses them as bases to connect other powerful ideas.
  4. Limited content is taught in sufficient depth to allow for the development of learning.
  1. Teacher displays accurate content knowledge of all the subjects she or he teaches.
  2. Teacher sometimes implements subject-specific instructional strategies to enhance student content knowledge.
  3. The teacher sometimes highlights key concepts and ideas and uses them as bases to connect other powerful ideas.

  1. Teacher displays under-developed content knowledge in several subject areas.
  2. Teacher rarely implements subject-specific instructional strategies to enhance student content knowledge.
  3. Teacher does not understand key concepts and ideas in the discipline and therefore presents content in an unconnected way.

Crosswalk explanation

This does not differ from any other content area; however, many coding teachers do not have a background in coding and are coming into the position as a learner.Technology instruction continues to be an ongoing, evolving animal. Without consistent research, staying on top of changes, formulas, and procedures would be next to impossible. As a group of professionals, we hold each other accountable to this  as  we work on development of content knowledge in almost every cluster meeting.

Teacher Knowledge of Students

Original

  1. Teacher practices display learning of each student’s anticipated learning difficulties.
  2. Teacher practices regularly incorporate student interests and cultural heritage.
  3. Teacher regularly provides differentiated instructional methods and content to ensure children have the opportunity to master what is being taught.
  1. Teacher practices display learning of some students’ anticipated learning difficulties.  
  2. Teacher practices sometimes incorporate student interests and cultural heritage.
  3. Teacher sometimes provides differentiated instructional methods and content to ensure children have the opportunity to master what is being taught.  
  1. Teacher practices demonstrate minimal knowledge of students’ anticipated learning difficulties.
  2. Teacher practices rarely incorporate student interests or cultural heritage.
  3. Teacher practices demonstrate little differentiation of instructional methods or content.

Teacher Knowledge of Students Crosswalk

  1. Teacher practices design display learning of each student’s anticipated learning difficulties.
  2. Teacher practices design regularly incorporate student interests and cultural heritage.
  3. Teacher practices design and teacher interaction regularly provides differentiated instructional methods and content to ensure children have the opportunity to master what is being taught.
  1. Teacher practices design display learning of some students’ anticipated learning difficulties.  
  2. Teacher practices design sometimes incorporate student interests and cultural heritage.
  3. Teacher practices design and teacher interaction sometimes provides differentiated instructional methods and content to ensure children have the opportunity to master what is being taught.  
  1. Teacher practices design demonstrate minimal knowledge of students’ anticipated learning difficulties.
  2. Teacher practices design rarely incorporate student interests or cultural heritage.
  3. Teacher practices design and teacher interaction demonstrate little differentiation of instructional methods or content.

Crosswalk explanation

How does teacher knowledge of students differ?

With any special area where a teacher is working with hundreds of kids at one or more schools, teacher knowledge of students is very difficult to achieve at the same level as a single-classroom teacher. Much of this has to do with how little time we get to spend with each class we work with. However, we can anticipate learning difficulties and incorporate interests and culture in our puzzle/project design. Problems with key computational thinking concepts can be anticipated in advance of most puzzles/projects. Teachers can design resources, puzzles, or projects to compensate for anticipated learning difficulties. Projects can regularly incorporate interests and cultural heritage as students are able to create within given parameters. Over time, knowledge of each student’s or class’s learning can lead to differentiation of instruction or projects designed for particular interests. For instance, using variegated questioning techniques for each person to meet them where they are at with their learning (i.e., open, guiding, or closed questions).

Thinking

Original

Over the course of multiple observations, the teacher consistently and thoroughly teaches all four types of thinking:

  1. analytical thinking, where students analyze, compare and contrast, and evaluate and explain information;
  2. practical thinking, where students use, apply, and implement what they learn in real-life scenarios;
  3. creative thinking, where students create, design, imagine, and suppose and;
  4. research-based thinking, where students explore and review a variety of ideas, models, and solutions to problems.

The teacher regularly provides opportunities where students:

  1.  generate a variety of ideas and alternatives;
  2. analyze problems from multiple perspectives and viewpoints and;
  3. monitor their thinking to ensure that they understand what they are learning, are attending to critical information, and are aware of the learning strategies that they are using and why.

Over the course of multiple observations, the teacher consistently and thoroughly teaches two types of thinking:

  1. analytical thinking, where students analyze, compare and contrast, and evaluate and explain information;
  2. practical thinking, where students use, apply, and implement what they learn in real-life scenarios;
  3. creative thinking, where students create, design, imagine, and suppose and;
  4. research-based thinking, where students explore and review a variety of ideas, models, and solutions to problems.

The teacher sometimes provides opportunities where students:

  1.  generate a variety of ideas and alternatives and;
  2. analyze problems from multiple perspectives

The teacher implements few learning experiences that thoroughly teach any type of thinking.

The teacher provides few opportunities where students:

  1. generate a variety of ideas and alternatives and;
  2. analyze problems from multiple perspectives and viewpoints.

NOTE: If the teacher regularly and thoroughly teaches one type of thinking, he or she shall receive a score of 2.

Thinking Crosswalk

Over the course of multiple observations, the students engage in all four types of thinking:

  1. analytical thinking, where students analyze, compare and contrast, and evaluate and explain algorithms (block or text);
  2. practical thinking, where students use, apply, and implement what they learn in their algorithms (block or text);
  3. creative thinking, where students create, design, imagine, and suppose through computational thinking and;
  4. research-based thinking, where students explore and review a variety of ideas, models, and solutions to bugs or problems.

The teacher regularly provides opportunities where students:

  1.  generate a variety of ideas and alternatives;
  2. analyze problems from multiple perspectives and viewpoints and;
  3. monitor their thinking to ensure that they understand what they are learning, are attending to critical information, and are aware of the learning strategies that they are using and why.

Over the course of multiple observations, students engage in two types of thinking:

  1. analytical thinking, where students analyze, compare and contrast, and evaluate and explain algorithms (block or text);
  2. practical thinking, where students use, apply, and implement what they learn in their algorithms (block or text);
  3. creative thinking, where students create, design, imagine, and suppose through computational thinking and;
  4. research-based thinking, where students explore and review a variety of ideas, models, and solutions to bugs or problems.

The teacher sometimes provides opportunities where students:

  1.  generate a variety of ideas and alternatives and;
  2. analyze problems from multiple solutions

The students engage in few learning experiences that include any type of thinking.

The teacher provides few opportunities where students:

  1. generate a variety of ideas and alternatives and;
  2. analyze problems from multiple perspectives and viewpoints.

NOTE: If the teacher regularly and thoroughly teaches one type of thinking, he or she shall receive a score of 2.

Crosswalk explanation

How might thinking differ?

Like presenting instructional content, not all forms of thinking are directly taught by the teacher in a group setting (due to resources built into the platforms we use and the projects we design). Instead, forms of thinking are taught as needed by the teacher or through a platform via questions, modeling, or project design. Instead of focusing on what is overtly taught in a class by the teacher, observers should focus on the kinds of thinking students engage in within the designed experiences (i.e., puzzles/projects). It’s not about what teachers are saying, but what students are doing with the designed experiences we are creating and providing for the students.

Problem Solving

Original

Over the course of multiple observations the teacher implements activities that teach and reinforce 6 or more of the following problem-solving types.

  1. Abstraction
  2. Categorization
  3. Drawing Conclusions/Justifying Solutions
  4. Predicting Outcomes
  5. Observing and Experimenting
  6. Improving Solutions
  7. Identifying Relevant/Irrelevant Information
  8. Generating Ideas
  9. Creating and Designing

Over the course of multiple observations the teacher implements activities that teach and reinforce 4 or more of the following problem-solving types.

  1. Abstraction
  2. Categorization
  3. Drawing Conclusions/Justifying Solutions
  4. Predicting Outcomes
  5. Observing and Experimenting
  6. Improving Solutions
  7. Identifying Relevant/Irrelevant Info
  8. Generating Ideas
  9. Creating and Designing

Over the course of multiple observations the teacher implements less than 2 activities that teach the following problem-solving types.

  1. Abstraction
  2. Categorization
  3. Drawing Conclusions/Justifying Solutions
  4. Predicting Outcomes
  5. Observing and Experimenting
  6. Improving Solutions
  7. Identifying Relevant/Irrelevant Information
  8. Generating Ideas
  9. Creating and Designing

Problem Solving Crosswalk

Over the course of multiple observations the teacher implements activities that teach and reinforce 6 or more of the following problem-solving types.

  1. Abstraction
  2. Categorization
  3. Drawing Conclusions/Justifying Solutions
  4. Predicting Outcomes
  5. Observing and Experimenting
  6. Improving Solutions
  7. Identifying Relevant/Irrelevant Information
  8. Generating Ideas
  9. Creating and Designing

Over the course of multiple observations the teacher implements activities that teach and reinforce 4 or more of the following problem-solving types.

  1. Abstraction
  2. Categorization
  3. Drawing Conclusions/Justifying Solutions
  4. Predicting Outcomes
  5. Observing and Experimenting
  6. Improving Solutions
  7. Identifying Relevant/Irrelevant Info
  8. Generating Ideas
  9. Creating and Designing

Over the course of multiple observations the teacher implements less than 2 activities that teach the following problem-solving types.

  1. Abstraction
  2. Categorization
  3. Drawing Conclusions/Justifying Solutions
  4. Predicting Outcomes
  5. Observing and Experimenting
  6. Improving Solutions
  7. Identifying Relevant/Irrelevant Information
  8. Generating Ideas
  9. Creating and Designing

Crosswalk explanation

How might problem solving differ?

Computational thinking is all about problem solving. A single algorithm of code blocks or text is an (1) abstraction that requires (2) predicting outcomes and (3) identifying relevant and irrelevant code in order to (4) improve solutions that we can (5) observe and (6) draw a conclusion with so as to (7) generate ideas or (8) create/design to solve a particular problem or task. If students are engaging in computational thinking, they are problem solving.