This annotated bibliography is reformatted and customized by the Center for Positive Practices. Some of the authors featured on this page include Charis McGaughy, Alicia de Gonzalez, Morgan Anderson, Glory Tobiason, David Thissen, Leslie M. Foley, Magda Y. Chia, Northwest Evaluation Association, Sandy Chang, and Gina A. Forchelli.
(2015). Cases on Technology Integration in Mathematics Education, IGI Global. Common Core education standards establish a clear set of specific ideas and skills that all students should be able to comprehend at each grade level. In an effort to meet these standards, educators are turning to technology for improved learning outcomes. "Cases on Technology Integration in Mathematics Education" provides a compilation of cases and vignettes about the application of technology in the classroom in order to enhance student understanding of math concepts. This book is a timely reference source for mathematics educators, educational technologists, and school district leaders employed in the mathematics education or educational technology fields. Following a foreword by Chandra Hawley Orrill and preface by Drew Polly, this book is organized into the following sections and chapters: Section 1: Leveraging Technology to Teach Specific Content: (1) Leveraging Dynamic and Dependable Spreadsheets Focusing on Algebraic Thinking and Reasoning; (Margaret L. Niess); (2) A Case Study of Primary School Students' Use of a Dynamic Statistics Software Package for Analyzing and Interpreting Data (Irene Kleanthous and Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris); (3) Local Lotto: Mathematics and Mobile Technology to Study the Lottery (Vivian Lim, Erica Deahl, Laurie Rubel, and Sarah Williams); (4) Bringing Dynamic Geometry to Three Dimensions: The Use of SketchUp in Mathematics Education (Nicholas H. Wasserman); (5) Playing with Perpendicular Lines: The Case of Laura (Douglas A. Lapp and Dennis St. John); and (6) Students' Experiences Composing and Decomposing Two-Dimensional Shapes in First and Second Grade Mathematics Classrooms (Drew Polly, Trisha Hill, and Tabitha Vuljanic). Section 2: Leveraging Technology to Support Mathematical Practices: (7) Using New Technologies to Engage and Support English Language Learners in Mathematics Classrooms (Robert Pritchard, Susan O'Hara, and Jeff Zwiers); (8) The Port Lesson: Grade 5 Mathematics Modeling for a Local Context (Charles B. Hodges, Edie R. Hipchen, and Traci Newton); (9) What Does Technology Bring to the Common Core Mathematical Practices? (Marshall Lassak); (10) Utilizing Technology to Engage in Statistical Inquiry in Light of the Standards for Mathematical Practice (Christine Browning and Dustin Owen Smith); and (11) Using Dynamic Geometry Software to Engage Students in the Standards for Mathematical Practice: The Case of Ms. Lowe (Milan Sherman, Carolyn McCaffrey James, Amy Hillen, and Charity Cayton). Section 3: Examples of Technological Tools to Support Teaching and Learning: (12) Integrating Multimedia Animations to Support Common Core State Standards in Mathematics Classrooms (Jesus Trespalacios, Karen Trujillo, and Lida J. Uribe-Flórez); (13) Teaching Fundamental Math Concepts: There's an App for That … Or is There? (Jennifer Wall and Michael P. Rogers); (14) Interactive Whiteboards: Preparing Secondary Mathematics Teachers to Avoid Catch-22 (Tracy Goodson-Espy and Lisa Poling); (15) Young Children, Mathematics, and Coding: A Low Floor, High Ceiling, Wide Walls Environment (George Gadanidis); (16) Leveraging Interactive Clickers as a Tool for Formative Assessment (Drew Polly, Elizabeth Rodgers, and Melissa Little); (17) Mathematics Gaming in Early Childhood: Describing Teacher Moves for Effective and Appropriate Implementation (Alejandra Salinas and Chu Ly); and (18) Using the AMC Anywhere Web-Based Assessment System to Examine Primary Students' Understanding of Number Sense (Christie Sullivan Martin and Drew Polly). Section 4: Leveraging Technology to Support Mathematics Education Courses and Programs: (19) Teaching and Learning the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics with Web 2.0 Tools (Jeffrey Hall, Lucy Bush, and William Lacefield); (20) Contextualizing Algebraic Word Problems through Story Using Technology (Terri L. Kurz, Barbara Bartholomew, Amanda Sibley, and Scott Fraser); (21) The Synergism of Mathematical Thinking and Computational Thinking (Gerard Rambally); and (22) Application of Information and Communication Technology to Create E-Learning Environments for Mathematics Knowledge Learning to Prepare for Engineering Education (Tianxing Cai). A compilation of references, an about the contributors section, and an index are also included. [More] Descriptors: Technology Integration, Mathematics Instruction, Educational Technology, Spreadsheets
(2015). Creating Math Talk Communities, Teaching Children Mathematics. Twenty-one fourth graders are actively listening and constructively critiquing mathematical statements. Each student is eagerly participating in mathematical discussions that involve multiple strategies to discover solutions. What a dramatic change since the first months of school when the same students sat as quiet as stone statues, hoping their teacher would just tell them how to solve the problem. This mathematics classroom has transformed from students blurting out solutions and arguing over correct answers to a group that collaboratively perseveres through problem solving. Student cooperation is evident through the desire not only to justify strategies but also to learn different strategies from peers. With many states adopting the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) (CCSSI 2010), teachers are seeing a shift in the way they are expected to have their students engage in mathematics instruction. Teachers are charged with pressing students to provide meaningful explanations to help support higher level mathematical thinking and reasoning. The Common Core's Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMP) state that students should engage in discussion that constructs viable arguments and critiques each other's reasoning (SMP 3). During mathematical discussions, students should be able to "justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others" (CCSSI 2010, pp. 6-7). This article will detail the value of math talk and five strategies for building such a community in the classroom: (1) Discuss why math talk is important; (2) Teach students how to listen and respond; (3) Introduce sentence stems; (4) Contrast explanation versus justification; and (5) Give an example. [More] Descriptors: Communities of Practice, Mathematics Instruction, Teaching Methods, Discussion (Teaching Technique)
(2015). (Un)Intended Outcomes of the Common Core English Language Arts Standards: A Narrative Inquiry into the Learning Experiences of English Learners' Teachers, ProQuest LLC. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a key piece of current reform efforts to reshape the U.S. educational system. Critics contend that the related Revised Publishers' Criteria (RPC), coupled with the authoritative power of the CCSS, will de-professionalize teachers, directing their practice from a distance. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe how teachers of elementary English Learners were experiencing and responding to CCSS implementation. Few studies consider teachers to be adult learners or explore their informal workplace learning. Therefore, this study also examined the participants' informal learning in relation to the intended teacher learning outcomes of the RPC. Combining narrative inquiry and critical discourse analysis, the study analyzed the RPC and three teachers' narratives collected during multiple interviews. The findings revealed that prior to CCSS implementation, the participants characterized themselves as creative, effective teachers who cared about students' personal lives. After interacting with many of the RPC's 88 teacher learning outcomes present in their reading curriculum, the teachers described their focus as drilling skills required for standardized testing. The teachers also learned unintended outcomes such as doubting their professional effectiveness and seeing students as test scores. They learned to rely on their professional knowledge to resist when the intended outcomes conflicted with their deeply-held beliefs about helping students. The study provides evidence that Illeris's comprehensive model of learning is beneficial for understanding teacher learning that occurs outside of formal professional development offerings. The findings also illustrate how authoritative policies are, and are not, able to influence practice. [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: Outcomes of Education, Common Core State Standards, English Instruction, Language Arts
(2013). A Quest for Awareness: Gender-Differentiated English Language Arts Resources and Instructional Techniques to Acknowledge the Needs and Passions of Fourth and Fifth Grade Boys, ProQuest LLC. A major educational crisis has been transpiring among fourth and fifth grade boys over the last twenty years (Eliot, 2009; Whitmire, 2010). On average, fourth and fifth grade boys, regardless of racial background or socioeconomic class, are performing below girls, both academically in reading and writing. The Center on Educational Policy reports that boys are approximately ten percent behind girls in reading aptitude and standardized reading tests in all fifty states (Claiborne & Siegel, 2010; Carty, 2010; www.cep-dc.org), with boys continuing to lag behind girls in reading achievement in most countries (Newkirk, 2002; Zambo & Brozo, 2009). This dissertation seeks to examine the degree to which the presence or absence of gender-differentiated English Language Arts resources, curriculum and instructional techniques used with fourth and fifth grade boys can help explain the crisis. The focus is not to create gender-neutral classrooms, but rather to acknowledge the academic, psychological and physical needs of boys, therefore producing gender differentiation with coeducational classrooms. This dissertation focuses on fourth and fifth grade boys because they are at the academic stage at which tasks within English Language Arts instruction, such as reading to learn non-fictional information, become more challenging (Zambo & Brozo, 2009; Gurian, Stevens & Daniels, 2009). The methodology employed examines how fourth and fifth grade boys are unintentionally discriminated against within the elementary school classroom based on the use of several Newbery and Caldecott medal-winning books, Treasures text selections, New York State Standardized English Language Arts test reading and listening passages, as well as the common core state standards within reading, writing, speaking and listening. Each of these English Language Arts artifacts was reviewed for gender appeal using a contextual evaluation tool. The findings indicate that even though the literacy resources used within elementary schools largely meet the criteria to appeal to the boyhood culture, awareness by teachers and administrators must be a priority during the selection. The common core state standards were found to be lacking in gender differentiation; therefore I developed boyhood enhancements that would simultaneously support girls. Still, additional factors contributing to this gender achievement gap in literacy of boys must be further researched. [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: Males, Elementary School Students, Grade 4, Grade 5
(2014). Content Assessment Aligned to the Common Core State Standards: Improving Validity and Fairness for English Language Learners, Applied Measurement in Education. The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced) serves over 19 million primary, middle, and high school students from across 26 states and affiliates (Smarter Balanced, n.d). As one of the two Race to the Top (RTT)-funded assessment consortia, Smarter Balanced is responsible for developing formative, interim, and summative assessments for students in grades 3-8 and 11. The assessments are intended to measure English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. In addition to being computer-administered, the summative assessments will be computer-adaptive and will incorporate technology enhancements in the test format. Smarter Balanced is addressing the needs of English language learners (ELLs) throughout the test development process. Central to the test development process are the principles of universal design, research-based decision-making processes, and implementing innovative practices. New research can assist states and consortia as they work toward the creation of next generation assessment systems. Smarter Balanced pilot test development procedures provide an opportunity to examine the feasibility and challenges associated with suggestions included in this special issue. Two important questions are addressed: How can current research be incorporated into current test development practices? and What additional research is necessary to improve current test development practices? In this article Magda Chia explores how each of this issue's five articles address these important aspects of testing ELLs. She concludes that as consortia develop assessments, they have an opportunity to use the latest available research and share results to move the field forward in the most critical directions. As a result, consortia can disseminate information to vendors, state assessment experts, psychometricians, language acquisition experts, and policymakers. Smarter Balanced disseminated materials to state assessment departments, policymakers, and educators. In addition, members of the test development and test administration fields are incorporating information provided by experts as part of their work moving forward. Finally, to ensure a substantial improvement in testing practices for ELLs, current research and lessons learned from its application in test development efforts should be extensively disseminated to stakeholder groups. [More] Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Educational Assessment, English Language Learners
(2009). Update on the Common Core State Standards Initiative, National Governors Association. In this update the National Governors Association presents the testimony of Honorable Bill Ritter, Jr., as submitted to the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee. Ritter speaks about the Common Core State Standards Initiative, a joint project by the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to develop common core standards in English language arts and mathematics by February 2010. He believes that this initiative has a high probability for success. He further notes how governors recognize that the adoption of a strong set of academic standards is just an initial step toward upgrading state education systems. States have both the authority and the responsibility to provide students with a high-quality education, and many states are already deeply engaged in efforts to raise standards, advance teaching quality, and improve low-performing schools. State adoption standards, state leadership for education improvement, and federal government support are also discussed. Ritter concludes on the topic of federal government support, that moving forward, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will be a critical opportunity to rethink and evolve the new federal-state partnership and capitalize on the power of state-led innovations to improve education. Much work remains, and governors stand ready to work with the committee on this important reauthorization. [More] Descriptors: State Government, State Standards, Academic Standards, Educational Quality
(2015). Supporting Students in Close Reading. From the College and Career Ready Standards to Teaching and Learning in the Classroom: A Series of Resources for Teachers. Updated February 2015, Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation. This resource is part of a series produced by the Center for Standards and Assessment Implementation (CSAI) to assist teachers and those who support teachers to plan teaching and learning from College and Career Ready Standards (CCRS) for all students, including students with disabilities, English learners, academically at-risk students, students living in extreme poverty, and gifted/talented students. The series of resources addresses key shifts in learning and teaching represented in the CCRS. This resource uses the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) as an example of CCRS. The processes described in this resource are applicable to all States' CCRS, including the CCSS. The content of this resource is drawn from leading theory and research about learning and formative assessment and from an examination of the CCSS. This resource guides teachers in the process of instructional planning for close reading with students, and is organized as a series of steps that teachers can follow as they prepare for close reading. These steps include: (1) gaining an understanding of close reading; (2) selecting appropriate texts to use with students; (3) priming text: reading the selected text multiple times to (a) annotate text to gain increased understanding of the text, and (b) extract and record relevant information from the text; (4) developing text-dependent questions to stimulate student thinking and discussion of the text; and (5) using evidence gathered from the close reading process to inform instructional next steps (formative assessment). A section on background reading is included. [More] Descriptors: Educational Resources, Career Readiness, College Readiness, Gifted Disadvantaged
(2013). What Might Changes in Psychometric Approaches to Statewide Testing Mean for NAEP?, American Institutes for Research. Development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and the creation of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), changes the pattern of accountability testing. These changes raise the question: "How should NAEP's validity and utility be maintained?" The assessments planned by the consortia may be different enough from current state assessments to raise questions as to whether NAEP can continue to play its historic role as an independent monitor or "check" on the validity of state assessments. It is also clear is that computer-based assessment is coming to K-12 education, and both consortia plan to include more varied item types than have been commonly used in the past. Computerization of NAEP is inevitable and already planned by the National Assessment Governing Board. Computerized NAEP assessments may appear more similar to future statewide assessments. Comparability of results can usually be maintained as a test makes the transition from paper-and-pencil to computerized administration, but computerization may have an effect on results for some subgroups of the population. Computerization of NAEP is best approached in the same way as other changes to NAEP assessments have been approached: A bridge study should insure the comparability of results across the transition unless an a priori decision is made to "break trend" regardless. Assessments developed by Smarter Balanced and PARCC may reduce the number of statewide tests to the low single digits, thus making linkage feasible. Associations between the results of disparate educational assessments tend to change over time, so any linkage between the NAEP scale and the consortia statewide tests will need to be maintained regularly. A singular opportunity exists in a short window of time–essentially right now–to design the data collection for linkage between the NAEP scale and the consortia assessments while the latter are under development. Two appendices present: (1) Membership in the PARCC and Smarter Balanced Consortia; and (2) Computer-Based Assessment: A Review of the Last 15 Years of Comparability Research. [For the main report, "Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress," see ED545237.] [More] Descriptors: National Competency Tests, Psychometrics, State Standards, Academic Standards
(2015). The Case against "Critical Thinking Skills": In Pursuit of a Humanizing Pedagogy, Philosophical Studies in Education. Current educational discourse is rife with the phrase "critical thinking skills." The term is wielded with such indiscretion among educators, reformers, and education policy makers that is has become commonsensical to believe that imparting critical thinking skills is an indispensable aspect of education. For example, according to the Common Core State Standards Initiative website, one of the primary goals of the core standards is "developing critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills students will need to be successful." In this article, the author asks have current conceptions of "critical thinking skills" coupled with repeated attempts to reduce learning to a set of transferable skills impacted the teaching and learning process? More specifically, how might the rise of the era of Common Core Learning Standards and its conception of "critical thinking skills," or lack thereof, contribute to creating learning environments that are antithetical to critical thinking? Interestingly, despite an increasing focus on the fostering of critical thinking skills, a close reading of the Common Core State Standards for "English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects," Grades K-12, reveals that nowhere in the sixty-six page document do the literacy standards define or address what "critical thinking" is, or what a "skill" is. Perhaps this should not be surprising, as those such as Deron Boyles have illustrated that the term "skill," through its unrelenting use as a qualifier for nearly every human activity (e.g. "reading skills," "writing skills," "interpersonal communication skills," and lately, "critical thinking skills"), has become completely devoid of meaning. The author argues that this trend–a myopic focus on allegedly measurable skill sets–is symptomatic of the larger educational climate that Dewey would critique as a misguided "quest for certainty." Rather than engaging with and embracing the messiness and uncertainty that is characteristic of human growth and inquiry, current proponents of reforms such as the Common Core would have us believe that it is possible–and desirable–to reduce complex human activities to a tidy set of definable and measurable skills. As Dewey observed, "in the absence of actual certainty in the midst of a precarious and hazardous world, men cultivated all sorts of things that would give them the feeling of certainty." The worry is that the Common Core's treatment of "critical thinking" as reducible to a set of transferable skills is merely providing us a "feeling" of certainty–in Dewey's sense–and in fact precluding serious engagement with the process of cultivating critical students and citizens. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is twofold. First, through a close reading of the standards, the author seeks to critique the Common Core on its own terms by arguing that the failure to define terms such as "critical thinking" and "skills" reveals a deeper conceptual problem with the standards themselves. Namely, it underscores the inevitability of arriving at superficial, vague outcomes when we attempt to reduce complex endeavors to discrete, measurable outcomes. The author will then argue instead for a reconsideration of our understanding of "critical thinking" that promotes a humanizing pedagogy and embraces the decidedly untidy nature of teaching and learning, instead of one that assumes that students are receptacles for teachers to equip with mere "skills." [More] Descriptors: Critical Thinking, Teaching Methods, Criticism, Standards
(2015). Assessing Impacts of "Math in Focus," a "Singapore Math" Program for American Schools, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been developed in response to the criticism that students in the U.S. are graduating from high school without being college and career ready and that they are falling behind their counterparts in other countries in key subject areas. In this work, the authors report the results of an efficacy study that investigated the impact of Math in Focus: Singapore Math ("MIF")–developed by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) that, according to the program developer, provides comprehensive support for CCSS. The research questions are as follows: (1) Is there a positive impact of MIF on student skills in mathematics problem solving?; (2) Is there a positive impact of "MIF" on student math procedural skills?; and (3) Is "MIF" differentially effective in its impact on student achievement depending on (1) the ethnicity of the student? (2) the incoming achievement level of the student? The research took place during the 2011-2012 school year across twelve elementary schools in one urban school district in Nevada. Ninety-three teachers of grades 3, 4 and 5 were recruited to participate in the study, with 41 teachers randomized to the "MIF" group and 52 teachers randomized to the control group. Rosters were provided for 2235 students in participating teachers' classrooms. The design was a group randomized trial lasting one year. A two-level hierarchical linear regression model to estimate the impacts of "MIF" on student achievement. The study gives preliminary evidence concerning the impact of one CCSS-aligned math intervention on student performance on two mathematics strands. Tables are appended. [More] Descriptors: Common Core State Standards, Mathematics Achievement, Program Effectiveness, Mathematics Instruction
(2013). RIT Stability through the Transition to Common Core-Aligned MAP® Tests. How Using MAP to Measure Student Learning Growth is Reliable Now and in 2014. While many educators expect the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to be more rigorous than previous state standards, some wonder if the transition to CCSS and to a Common Core aligned MAP test will have an impact on their students' RIT scores or the NWEA norms. MAP assessments use a proprietary scale known as the RIT (Rasch unit) scale to measure student achievement and growth. The RIT scale, based on item response theory (IRT), has been used since the late 1970s by NWEA and is a proven, stable scale for educational assessment. The principle behind the RIT scale is simple: Test questions vary in difficulty and can be given a score on the RIT scale. A student's achievement level can then be measured on the same scale by referencing the questions they were able to answer correctly. Every item in MAP tests is calibrated against one of the stable RIT scales: Reading, Language, Math or Science. Student responses on these items are used to generate a final RIT score for each student. An individual item with its associated RIT value may appear in tests aligned to various learning standards, such as state standards and the Common Core State Standards. Regardless of the standards alignment of a particular test, a given item has a single RIT value associated with it. This RIT value is obtained using a rigorous calibration process in which each item is field tested with thousands of students across the nation. The purpose of MAP tests is to measure growth by examining RIT scores over time. If two different MAP tests are on the same scale (e.g. Math) and measure similar constructs, then scores for these two tests can be compared directly. MAP tests aligned to CCSS, as well as other state standards (state-aligned) on a given scale, measure similar constructs due to the high degree of content overlap among learning standards. This underlying design of MAP tests is critical to ensuring that RIT scores carry the same meaning, in terms of student ability, regardless of which test was used to obtain them. Because the RIT scales are independent of standards alignment, transitioning between two tests is not anticipated to have a significant impact, however, States that are transitioning (or who have already transitioned) to teaching the CCSS, and are working to understand the gap between their state standards and what's required by the CCSS, are seeing some key shifts. Those shifts are detailed in this report, and questions and answers are provided. [More] Descriptors: Achievement Tests, Computer Assisted Testing, Adaptive Testing, Item Response Theory
(2012). Willing but Not Yet Ready: A Glimpse of California Teachers' Preparedness for the Common Core State Standards. CenterView. California is on the precipice of implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which were developed through an initiative of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to reflect the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and careers. In California, one of 45 adopting states, the standards represent a significant shift in expectations for both teaching and learning, not just in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, but also in literacy related to science and history/social science. The newly adopted standards call for a deep conceptual understanding of the content in ELA and mathematics and, also, for the ability to apply this content to other disciplines. It all sounds good. But are teachers ready to teach to the new standards? This was the primary concern driving a series of focus groups commissioned by WestEd's Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning in October 2011. Six groups were convened by Belden Russonello Strategists, LLC, to explore the following questions with teachers in Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Diego: (1) How familiar are teachers with the CCSS?; (2) What are their beliefs about their own expertise and ability to teach their subject matter under the CCSS?; and (3) What changes in practice do they think will be necessary to satisfy the new standards? The focus groups were designed to represent six specific subgroups of teachers: elementary (one group consisted of teachers with more than 10 years of experience, and another consisted of teachers with less than 10 years of experience); middle and high school mathematics; middle and high school science; middle and high school history/social studies; and middle and high school English language arts. The majority of focus group participants had little familiarity with the details of the CCSS; but, when presented with a brief description, most participants appreciated the standards' focus on critical thinking and real-world relevance, as well as the fact that the standards are consistent (i.e., aligned) from one grade to the next. For the most part, they welcome the new standards. However, a few of the participants with more teaching experience–those who have seen reforms come and go–are skeptical that the new standards will take root. There was also some concern that teachers had not been adequately involved in the standards' development. With implementation of the Common Core State Standards imminent, the fact that so many focus-group teachers knew very little about the standards and what they will mean for their teaching practice is of concern. This paper provides recommendations for districts and schools, institutions of higher education, and state leaders. [More] Descriptors: Core Curriculum, State Standards, Academic Standards, Alignment (Education)
(2015). Note-Taking Interventions to Assist Students with Disabilities in Content Area Classes, Preventing School Failure. As high-stakes testing, Common Core, and state standards become the new norms in schools, teachers are tasked with helping all students meet specific benchmarks. In conjunction with the influx of more students with disabilities being included in inclusive and general education classrooms where lectures with note-taking comprise a majority of instruction, teachers must find ways to assist all students in their classes, especially students with disabilities. For these students to learn efficiently, note-taking becomes a critical skill for their success. This article addresses the demands placed on students during class lectures, difficulties they experience with note-taking, specific accommodations for students with disabilities, and practical ways in which teachers can help students successfully record notes in content area classes. [More] Descriptors: Intervention, Notetaking, State Standards, Academic Accommodations (Disabilities)
(2013). Digital Storytelling in Primary-Grade Classrooms, ProQuest LLC. As digital media practices become readily available in today's classrooms, literacy and literacy instruction are changing in profound ways (Alvermann, 2010). Professional organizations emphasize the importance of integrating new literacies (New London Group, 1996) practices into language-arts instruction (IRA, 2009; NCTE, 2005). As a result, teachers search for effective ways to incorporate the new literacies in an effort to engage students. Therefore, this study was designed to investigate the potential of digital storytelling as participatory media for writing instruction. This case study was conducted during the fall semester of 2012 in one first-grade classroom and one second-grade classroom in the Southwestern United States. The study addressed ten interrelated research questions relating to how primary-grade students performed in relation to the Common Core writing standards, how they were motivated, how they formed a meta- language to talk about their writing, how they developed identities as writers, and how they were influenced by their teachers' philosophies and instructional approaches. Twenty-two first-grade students and 24 second-grade students used the MovieMaker software to create digital stories of personal narratives. Data included field notes, interviews with teachers and students, teacher journals, my own journal, artifacts of teachers' lesson plans, photographs, students' writing samples, and their digital stories. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis (Patton, 1990) and discourse analysis (Gee, 2011). Writing samples were scored by rubrics based on the Common Core State Standards. The study demonstrated how digital storytelling can be used to; (a) guide teachers in implementing new literacies in primary grades; (b) illustrate digital storytelling as writing; (c) develop students' meta-language to talk about writing; (d) impact students' perceptions as writers; (e) meet Common Core State Standards for writing; (f) improve students' skills as writers; (g) build students' identities as writers; (h) impact academic writing; (i) engage students in the writing process; and (j) illustrate the differences in writing competencies between first- and second-grade students. The study provides suggestions for teachers interested in incorporating digital storytelling in primary-grade classrooms. [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: Story Telling, Grade 1, Grade 2, Elementary School Students
(2012). California Diploma Project Technical Report II: Alignment Study–Alignment Study of the Health Sciences and Medical Technology Draft Standards and California's Exit Level Common Core State Standards, Educational Policy Improvement Center (NJ1). The California Department of Education is in the process of revising the Career and Technical Education (CTE) Model Curriculum Standards. The Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) conducted an investigation of the draft version of the Health Sciences and Medical Technology Standards (Health Science). The purpose of the study is to understand how the Health Science Standards relate to college and career readiness and foundational English language arts (ELA) and mathematics content, as represented by California's exit level augmented Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This study utilized an alignment methodology analyzing the relationship between the Health Sciences Standards and (a) California's grade 11-12 CCSS in English Language Arts and Literacy and (b) California's High School CCSS in Mathematics and the Standards for Mathematical Practice. The augmented Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were adopted by the California State Board of Education (SBE) on August 2, 2010. The augmented CCSS represent a set of expectations for student knowledge and skills that high school graduates need to master to succeed in college and careers. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills necessary for success in college and careers. The goal of the updated CTE Model Curriculum Standards is to provide a clear and coherent message about what students need to know and be able to do in order to be successful in postsecondary education or job training programs within 15 industry sectors. These standards aim to provide a framework of what to teach without stipulating how to teach it. In this pilot study, however, only the standards within the Health Sciences and Medical Technology Sector were examined. This alignment study examines two dimensions of alignment, looking at both content and cognitive complexity. Using a modified version of the methodology developed by the Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, this study addresses the following research questions: (1) To what extent are the knowledge and skills found in the CA CTE Health Science Standards the same or different (aligned) to the augmented CCSS?; and (2) How does the cognitive complexity of the CA CTE Health Science Standards compare to the augmented CCSS? Appended are: (1) Standards Used in Study; and (2) Revised Standards. (Contains 35 figures, 15 tables, and 8 footnotes.) [This paper was prepared for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE).] [More] Descriptors: Academic Standards, State Standards, Alignment (Education), Vocational Education