Bibliography: Common Core State Standards (page 045 of 130)

This annotated bibliography is reformatted and customized by the Center for Positive Practices.  Some of the authors featured on this page include Robert Rothman, Guadalupe Valdes, Kyong Mi Choi, Julie Trammell Sheppard, Okhee Lee, Matt B. Roscoe, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Brian Hand, Elena Zaretsky, and Inc. Achieve.

Louisiana Department of Education (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Teacher Self Learning Series. Module 5: The Standards for Mathematical Practice–Connecting the Practices to Content Standards. This module assumes that the information presented in previous modules is well known to the learner. Module 5 is the second of three modules (4, 5, and 6) designed to provide an in-depth look at the Standards of Mathematical Practice which are part of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Module 5 focuses on how the practices connect to the content standards using tasks as examples. Additionally, there is a short section on the interrelatedness of the Math Practices which provides another lens through which to view the connections to the content standards. Links to descriptions to help differentiate the expected proficiencies by grade level are also included in this module. By the end of the module, the learner will be able to identify which practices are aligned to a task based on the grade level of a student.   [More]  Descriptors: Mathematics Education, Academic Standards, State Standards, Mathematics Skills

Louisiana Department of Education (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Teacher Self-Learning Series. Module 4: A First Look at the Standards for Mathematical Practice. This module assumes that the information presented in previous modules is well known to the learner. Module 4 is the first of three modules (4, 5, and 6) designed to provide an in-depth look at the Standards of Mathematical Practice which are part of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Module 4 focuses on developing an initial understanding of the Standards by Mathematical Practices by closely examining the wording of the descriptions for each practice and viewing instructional videos in which evidence of a practice can be found. Course Objectives: By the end of the module, the learner will be able to: (1) identify the roles that teachers and students play when Standards for Mathematical Practice are implemented; and (2) find examples of use of a practice when viewing an instructional video.   [More]  Descriptors: Mathematics Education, Academic Standards, State Standards, Teacher Role

Sheppard, Julie Trammell (2013). Examining Perceptions over the Effectiveness of Professional Development and Available Resources on the Common Core State Standards Implementation in Arkansas, ProQuest LLC. The purpose of this qualitative case study is to examine the perceptions of teachers and curriculum specialists over the effectiveness of professional development and available resources of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) implementation process in Arkansas. Arkansas divided the implementation process into three stages: Phase I implemented grades K-2 during the 2011-2012 school year, Phase II will implement grades 3-8 during the 2012-2013 school year, and Phase III will implement grades 9-12 during the 2013-2014 school year. The qualitative case study investigated the effectiveness of professional development and available resources of the implementation process of Phase I by conducting semi-structured interviews with teachers and surveys with Regional Service Education Cooperative curriculum specialists. Participants who partook in the semi-structured interviews reflected upon the professional development and resources that were extended to them before and throughout the implementation process, as well as their personal implementation experiences. The participants included five randomly chosen teachers who implemented Phase I during the 2011-2012 school year and taught for a minimum of three years. Surveys were collected on the same topics through curriculum coaches who were responsible for delivering much of the Common Core State Standards professional development. Of the 15 Arkansas Regional Service Education Cooperatives, seven agreed to participate; therefore, the participants will include the literacy and math curriculum specialist from each of those seven cooperatives. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Qualitative Research, Case Studies, Teacher Attitudes, Faculty Development

Achieve, Inc. (2013). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The Role of the Elementary School Leader. Revised February, 2013. As shown by MetLife's 2010 "Survey of the American Teacher," America's educators strongly believe that all students should graduate from high school ready for college and a career (85 percent). Additionally, according to MetLife's 2009 survey, 86 percent of teachers believe that setting high expectations for students will improve student achievement to that end. The new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are strongly aligned with those sentiments. The CCSS provide an opportunity to realize systemic change and ensure that American students are held to the same high expectations in mathematics and literacy as their global peers–regardless of state or zip code. For elementary principals this means supports for planning, capacity building, and implementation. Elementary and middle school principals need assistance to ensure that they understand the requirements and have the resources for providing professional development to teachers, have access to the needed curricula, and have a chance to provide input into assessment protocols and procedures. The understanding and leadership of principals is essential to the success of the CCSS. The success of such change requires the thoughtful attention of school leaders. As such, this Action Brief for elementary leaders is offered as a "starting point," designed to increase awareness of the standards, create a sense of urgency around their implementation, and provide these stakeholders–who are faced with dramatically increased expectations in the context of fewer resources–with a deeper understanding of the standards and their role in implementing the standards. This Action Brief will provide no-cost takeaways, talking points and action steps that school leaders and counselors can begin to put into practice in their schools today. The following are appended: (1) Talking Points for Leaders; and (2) Resources. [This paper is a joint action brief with College Summit.] [For "Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The Role of the Elementary School Leader" (2012), see ED540455.]   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Alignment (Education), Principals

Watt, Michael (2015). States' Implementation of the Common Core State Standards and the Australian Curriculum: A Comparison of the Change Process in Two Countries, Online Submission. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare key elements of the actions that states in the USA and Australia took to implement the Common Core State Standards or Phase One of the Australian Curriculum, and what processes and products they used to facilitate implementation of these innovations. A rubric adapted from a diagnostic tool, developed by Achieve and the U.S. Education Delivery Institute, was used to analyse the strength of the strategies employed by states to implement the Common Core State Standards or Phase One of the Australian Curriculum. The analysis of state-level implementation of these innovations focused on the preliminary phase, "organize to implement", and the first two implementation actions: "align instructional materials"; and "train educators". The results showed that the strength of states' capacities to implement the Common Core State Standards or the Australian Curriculum varied widely across the preliminary phase and the two implementation actions. The capacity of states in the USA and Australia were equal and strong for "aspiration" and "internal leadership team". Although states in both countries varied widely from weak to strong for "guiding coalition", the capacities of states in the USA and Australia were equal. On the other hand, the capacities of states in Australia were weaker than states in the USA for "timeline", "gap analysis", "budget" and "communications". A pattern of north-eastern and mid-western states using local-level procedures and south-eastern, southern and western states using state-level procedures to adopt instructional materials persists in the USA. A pattern of all states and territories using local-level procedures to adopt instructional materials prevails in Australia. The capacity of 19 states in the USA that use state-level procedures to provide delivery plans for selecting, procuring and distributing adopted materials to classrooms is stronger than states in the USA or Australia that use local-level procedures. The delivery plans that states use to train teachers are complex. Professional development is provided directly to teachers by state education agencies, regional structures, districts or vendors, or indirectly by electronic means, professional associations, intermediary organisations or train-the-trainer models. In the USA, state education agencies depend on the widespread use of train-the-trainer models to train large numbers of teachers. Some of the 18 states, which received Race to the Top grants and invested them extensively in training strategies, were more successful than other states in balancing and coordinating training activities, providing delivery chains consisting of strong relationships between participants, and setting metrics and targets for success. In contrast, state education agencies in Australia do not use train-the-trainer models extensively to provide training on the Australian Curriculum, but it is more difficult to understand the nature of the training provided to teachers, because this information is not easily accessible to the public.   [More]  Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Comparative Analysis, State Standards, Academic Standards

Gabig, Cheryl Smith; Zaretsky, Elena (2013). Promoting Morphological Awareness in Children with Language Needs: Do the Common Core State Standards Pave the Way?, Topics in Language Disorders. Recent research has acknowledged the importance of morphological awareness, beyond phonological awareness, to literacy achievement in both reading and writing for children, adolescents, and adults. Morphological awareness is the ability to recognize, reflect on, and manipulate the sublexical structure of words–the roots, prefixes, and suffixes. In this paper, we examine the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts (CCSS/ELA) to identify explicit grade-specific morphological awareness standards. We then discuss the standards-by-grade within the framework of learning morphology type and morphological aspects, for example, semantic, syntactic, and productive properties. Finally, we discuss the role of speech-language pathologists in collaboration with classroom teachers to support students with speech-language impairment and ELLs to achieve standards in the area of morphology.   [More]  Descriptors: Morphology (Languages), Language Skills, Children, State Standards

Louisiana Department of Education (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Teacher Self-Learning Series. Module 3: Rigor–The Third CCSSM Shift. This module examines Rigor, the third of the three shifts required for implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM). This module is based on the premise that the information from Modules 1 and 2 is well understood. Course Objectives: By the end of the module, the learner will be able to: (1) identify the components of rigor and give examples of each; (2) describe the relationship among the components; (3) determine if a standard is written to align with one of the three components of rigor; and (4) state fluencies required by the CCSSM and those suggested in high school by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC).   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Standards, State Standards, Mathematics, Mathematics Skills

Jaeger, Paige; Nesi, Olga M. (2014). Real-Life Research: Project Runway Makeover Model, Knowledge Quest. Real-life research is incredibly varied. We research cars. We research lawn problems. We research child behavior problems, health issues, possible vacation destinations, and prices to stretch our budgets. No two scenarios are ever alike, and no two health issues should be assumed to be the same. That is reality, and that is a picture of what the Common Core State Standards call "real world problems." So if real-world problems are never the same, why are so many research activities designed in a one-size-fits-all fashion? Why do students have to fact-fetch for fill-in-the-blanks, when they have been asked to "solve real-world problems" and "research to build and present knowledge"? These low-level no-thought "research" tasks have got to go, and school librarians could be hosting lunchtime professional development shows dubbed "Research Project Runway Models–Let us make over your unit." School librarians should be in the transformation business. They should be transforming old information units into student-centered, inquiry-based learning adventures that encourage students to build knowledge, rather than merely collect information. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) call for rigor and relevance, and fill-in-the blank research packets are neither rigorous nor relevant. A "packet" is a teacher's assignment and a teacher's creation. When teachers embark on student-centered inquiry-based research projects, assignments become learning adventures, rather than information packets that have to be completed for a grade. When research is performed with the goal of sharing knowledge, the purpose is more than a grade. Only through teachers' letting go will students be empowered to define direction and investigate. The authors provide five steps designed to help teachers make over their research packets.   [More]   [More]  Descriptors: Student Research, State Standards, Relevance (Education), Inquiry

Rothman, Robert (2014). The Common Core Takes Hold, Education Next. A survey administered in the spring of 2013 by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) inquired into the implementation of Common Core State Standards at that time. Based on self-reports by state officials, the survey found that curricula aligned to the common core were already being taught in at least some districts or grade levels. All states surveyed had developed and disseminated plans for implementation and nearly all had conducted analyses comparing the common core standards to previous state standards. While state-level efforts are under way, national organizations and firms are also engaged in developing materials and preparing educators to revamp instruction and supervision around the common core standards. The fact that the standards have been adopted by so many states makes possible cross state partnerships that could not have taken place when each state developed its own standards. Publishers are also moving to develop new materials based on the standards. One of the largest such efforts is being undertaken by Pearson, a major publisher based in London. With input from members of teams that wrote the standards, Pearson is creating a series of K-12 curriculum materials that will be delivered completely online, through tablets like the iPad. They will include projects for students to complete, texts and digital materials to support students in conducting their projects, and assessments to check student understanding. The true test of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, and of public support for it, will come over the next few years, as states carry through with their implementation plans. Despite the challenges, states and districts are attempting to make it happen in tens of thousands of schools across the country.   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, State Surveys, Program Implementation

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011). P21 Common Core Toolkit: A Guide to Aligning the Common Core State Standards with the Framework for 21st Century Skills. Standards drive critical elements of the American educational system–the curricula that schools follow, the textbooks students read, and the tests they take. Similarly, standards establish the levels of performance that students, teachers and schools are expected to meet. To succeed in the 21st century, all students will need to perform to high standards and acquire mastery of rigorous core subject material. All students also will need to gain the cognitive and social skills that enable them to deal with the complex challenges of our age. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) Framework for 21st Century Readiness emphasizes life and career skills, learning and innovation skills, information, media and technology skills as well as core subjects and 21st century themes. The release of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010 has been an important turning point in the standards movement. For the first time, a majority of states have agreed to a common baseline for academic knowledge and college readiness skills. Currently, over 40 states have begun the challenging work of alignment, integration and implementation of CCSS for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. Districts have also begun intensive curricular redesign work in response to the Common Core State Standards. As education leaders incorporate the CCSS into school systems, P21 urges them to do so in a way that honors the fusion of the 3Rs (core academic content mastery) and 4Cs (critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, communication and creativity and innovation). This toolkit is designed for state and district leaders who are interested in implementing the Common Core standards in ways that strengthen the 4Cs. This toolkit contains: (1) Alignment Overview: A high-level summary of how the P21 framework and the Common Core State Standards support each other; (2) Common Core/P21 Examples: Lesson starters that illustrate "what it looks like" to align instructional practices with both the common core and P21 skills; (3) Common Core Resources: Compilation of useful links for states and districts working to implement the Common Core State Standards; and (4) Assessment Resources: Compilation of background reading on the issue of assessment and the 4Cs. Appendix includes: P21 Framework Definitions.   [More]  Descriptors: Educational Practices, Academic Standards, State Standards, Alignment (Education)

Beach, Richard W. (2011). Issues in Analyzing Alignment of Language Arts Common Core Standards with State Standards, Educational Researcher. This commentary on Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and Yang's "Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum," which finds a lack of alignment between the Common Core State Standards and state standards and assessments, suggests possible reasons for the lack of alignment. It also offers possible reasons for Porter et al.'s finding of a lack of focus in the standards. It raises questions about the use of a cognitive-processing framework for conducting content analysis of the standards.   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Content Analysis, Alignment (Education), Academic Standards

Lee, Okhee; Quinn, Helen; Valdes, Guadalupe (2013). Science and Language for English Language Learners in Relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with Implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, Educational Researcher. The National Research Council (2011) released "A Framework for K-12 Science Education" that is guiding the development of the Next Generation Science Standards, which are expected to be finalized in early 2013. This article addresses language demands and opportunities that are embedded in the science and engineering practices delineated in the Framework. By examining intersections between learning of science and learning of language, the article identifies key features of the "language of the science classroom" as students engage in these language-intensive science and engineering practices. We propose that when students, especially English language learners, are adequately supported to "do" specific things with language, both science learning and language learning are promoted. We highlight implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics.   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Engineering, English (Second Language), Second Language Learning

Winn, Kathleen M.; Mi Choi, Kyong; Hand, Brian (2016). Cognitive Language and Content Standards: Language Inventory of the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics and the Next Generation Science Standards, International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. STEM education is a current focus of many educators and policymakers and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) are foundational documents driving curricular and instructional decision making for teachers and students in K-8 classrooms across the United States. Thus, practitioners and researchers need to possess a deep and working understanding of these standards. This study aims to examine how terms within the CCSSM and the NGSS are used and aligned by addressing the following research questions: (1) What common terminology is found across CCSSM and NGSS? (2) How does the terminology between the CCSSM and the NGSS compare to one another? (3) How do the cognitive terms found in CCSSM and NGSS change across grade bands? The findings indicate that there are numerous places where common terminology is aligned and used similarly both across grade bands and between the sets of standards. Conversely, many other terms are used with varying degrees of emphasis. Because STEM is presented as a holistic subject, these variable meanings and/or expectations reveal the potential for misguided expectations within the classroom as students, teachers, and principals use the same terminology in multiple, but distinct contexts.   [More]  Descriptors: STEM Education, Common Core State Standards, Science Instruction, Teaching Methods

Roscoe, Matt B.; Zephyrs, Joe (2016). Quilt Block Symmetries, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. Geometric transformations have long been topics of middle school mathematics. Generations of middle school students have learned to reflect, rotate, and translate geometric objects. Historically, though, the mathematics of "movement" might have been considered a departure from other more central middle-grades geometric content areas, such as measurement, congruence, and similarity. In the era of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSI 2010), the study of reflection, rotation, and translation have been given special importance. Consider the introduction to the high school geometry domain in the Common Core State Standards for School Mathematics (CCSSM): The concepts of congruence, similarity, and symmetry can be understood from the perspective of geometric transformation. Fundamental are the rigid motions: translations, rotations, reflections, and combinations of these, all of which are here assumed to preserve distance and angles (and therefore shapes generally). Reflections and rotations each explain a particular type of symmetry, and the symmetries of an object offer insight into its attributes. (CCSSI 2010, p. 74) The document makes it even more explicit in the next paragraph, describing the approach to congruence, in which "two geometric figures are defined to be congruent if there is a sequence of rigid motions that carries one onto the other" (p. 74). Like congruence, the study of similarity in high school also rests on students understanding transformation by defining similarity as a sequence of rigid motions followed by a dilation, which "lead[s] to the criterion for [angle-angle] triangle similarity" (p. 74). These passages make it clear that one crucial element of students' success in high school geometry is a firm understanding of transformation, which must be acquired in the middle grades. One difficulty associated with teaching transformations in the middle grades is the facilitation of inquiry-based learning environments in which students explore and investigate properties of transformations in objects of their own creation. The study of transformation is a fertile setting in which students can make sense of problems, reason abstractly, construct viable arguments, and look for structure, all practices that are encouraged in the Common Core's Standards for Mathematical Practice (2010). In addition, the study of transformations has long been associated with tools of inquiry (witness the use of patty paper, the MiraâÑ¢, and interactive geometry software). But few are the opportunities where student-generated examples are the focus of mathematical investigation. To this end, the authors created a series of mathematical tasks that provided students with the opportunity to construct understandings of transformation through an investigation of quilt block symmetries. This article provides a description of these tasks and a demonstration of their use in an eighth-grade classroom.   [More]  Descriptors: Common Core State Standards, Mathematics Education, Mathematics Instruction, Geometric Concepts

Louisiana Department of Education (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Teacher Self-Learning Series. Module 2: Focus and Coherence–The First Two CCSSM Shifts. This module examines Focus and Coherence, two of the three shifts required for implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM). Focus and Coherence are the two major design principles of the math standards. The module assumes prior knowledge of the information presented in Module 1. Course Objectives: By the end of the module, learner will be able to: (1) state the two levels of focus and find examples of each; (2) state the two levels of coherence and find examples of each; (3) use resources to determine major work for a specific grade or course in mathematics; and (3) define "CCSSM stream" and give an example which applies to a grade level or course which is of interest to the learner.   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Standards, State Standards, Mathematics Education, Program Implementation

Leave a Reply