Exploring the PARCC Math Performance Level Descriptors

What are Performance Level Descriptors?

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

All PLDs can be found on PARCC Online – Assessments/Assessment Policies

Claims Driving Design: Mathematics

3

Sub-claim A: Students solve problems involving the major content for their grade level

with connections to practices

Sub-Claim B: Students solve problems involving the

additional and supporting content for their grade level

with connections to practices

Sub-claim C: Students express mathematical

reasoning by constructing mathematical arguments and

critiques

Sub-Claim D: Students solve real world problems engaging particularly in the modeling

practice

Sub-Claim E: Student demonstrate fluency in areas set forth in the Standards for

Content in grades 3-6

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

Performance Level Descriptors

4

Gives the Sub-ClaimPerformance level

ranging from 2 - 5

Concept and Standards

5

Factors that determine the performance levels (Cognitive Complexity)

1. Mathematical Content

2. Mathematical Practices

3. Stimulus Material

4. Response Mode

5. Processing Demand

Evidence Tables

6

Performance Level Descriptors

7

Investigating the PLDs

8

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

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

3.Annotate the differences in the PLD level statements

PARCC Item Review Bootcamp Working Session:Mathematics

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

Mathematics Task Types

• Type I– Based on Sub Claims A, B, and E: The student solves problems involving the Major,

Additional, and Supporting Content for the grade/course with connections to the Standards for Mathematical Practice, and demonstrates fluency in areas set forth in the Standards for Content in grades 3-6.

• Type II– Based on Sub Claim C: The student expresses grade/course-level appropriate

mathematical reasoning by constructing viable arguments, critiquing the reasoning of others and/or attending to precision when making mathematical statements.

• Type III– Based on Sub Claim D: The student solves real-world problems with a degree of

difficulty appropriate to the grade/course by applying knowledge and skills articulated in the standards for the current grade/course

10

11

1. Does the task measure the intended evidence statement(s)? 2. Does the task measure the intended mathematical practice(s)? 3. Is the task mathematically correct and free from errors? 4. Is the wording of the task clear, concise, and grade-level appropriate? 5. Are the graphics/stimuli in the task clear, accurate, appropriate for the

task, and appropriate for the grade? 6. Do each prompt and all associated graphics/stimuli contribute to the

quality of the task? 7. Is the scoring guide/rubric clear, correct and aligned with the

expectations for performance that are expressed in the task?

Mathematics Review Considerations/Criteria

Each task should:• assess the designated evidence statement• conform to the content clarifications, limits, and emphasis associated with the

evidence statement

Reviewers should:• note alignment issues in the comments section• accept the task with edits if the task can easily be edited to make the task align to

the evidence statement• reject the task if the task can not easily be edited to make the task fit the evidence

statement

Alignment to Evidence Statements and the CCSS

12

Flaws

13

Each task should:• contain content (text, stimuli, terminology, notation, art, etc.) that is

mathematically correct, precise, and generally accepted by math educators• be free from flaws• not contain unintended mathematical errors, misconceptions,

contradictions, or ambiguities

Answer Keys and Scoring Rubrics

14

Type I one-point tasks should:• have the correct key

Scoring Rubrics should:• be clear enough so that the person scoring the response will

know how to assign points based on different parts of the response

• assign at least 50% of the total points to the reasoning/modeling provided in the response and less than 50% of the points to a computations provided in the response for Type II and Type III tasks

Reviewers as a group• discuss any major comments• determine how to proceed with the task (accept, accept with edits, reject)

– A task should be edited if it has a flaw that can be fixed or needs clarification. A task should only be rejected if it has a flaw that can not be addressed.

Advise to Accept or Reject

15

Questions?