This annotated bibliography is reformatted and customized by the Center for Positive Practices. Some of the authors featured on this page include Phil Daro, Gerunda B. Hughes, Allen M. Dimacali, Patricia Roy, D'Ette Cowan, Council of Chief State School Officers, Dana Rickman, Deborah Holtzman, Laura Driscoll, and Katrina Woodworth.
(2016). Impact Evaluation of the National Writing Project's College-Ready Writing Project in High Poverty Rural Districts, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Writing is an essential skill for participating in modern American society. Although it is crucial to careers and civic engagement, student writing falls far short of national expectations (College Board, 2004; NCES, 2012; Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) seek to increase the rigor of writing instruction students receive and also to increase the proportion of instruction focused on students' abilities to write argument and informational text because of their importance for success in college and careers (Calkins, Ehrenworth, & Lehman, 2012; Rothman, 2011; Cutler & Graham, 2008). With these new and loftier goals for student writing outcomes, practitioners and program developers are seeking guidance on how to help teachers work with students to obtain them. Teacher professional development is a logical approach. Well developed theory about instructional capacity (e.g., Cohen and Ball, 1999) suggests that student learning is produced by the interactions between teachers, students, and educational material. As a result, programs that combine professional development and aligned curriculum may be more likely to change teacher practice enough to improve student outcomes. In this context, the National Writing Project (NWP) won an Investing in Innovation (i3) grant to provide professional development to secondary teachers in rural districts with the goal of improving teachers' ability to teach to Common Core writing standards and ultimately students' writing proficiency. This paper presents a district-randomized controlled trial that found positive impacts of the NWP's College-Ready Writers Program (CRWP) using a validated measure of students' text-based argument writing as the outcome measure. This study adds rigorous experimental evidence to a body of literature that indicates that professional development that focuses on more than one aspect of instructional capacity–in this case, CRWP attended to both teachers and instructional materials–is more likely to lead to meaningful student learning. As such, the findings presented here have important implications for practitioners, policymakers, and program developers. Tables and figures are appended. [SREE documents are structured abstracts of SREE conference symposium, panel, and paper or poster submissions.] [More] Descriptors: Program Evaluation, Program Effectiveness, Writing Instruction, National Programs
(2016). Lessons from State Performance on NAEP: Why Some High-Poverty Students Score Better than Others, Center for American Progress. Students from low-income backgrounds face a variety of social and economic challenges that make it more difficult for them to achieve their potential. 2 To make matters worse, low-income students often attend public schools that receive less funding than schools serving more affluent students. It is also clear that some states do a far better job of educating low-income students than others. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, there is a massive gap between the states with the highest-performing low-income students and the states with the lowest. The Center for American Progress wanted to better understand the role of standards-based reform in promoting student outcomes. They studied the most recent NAEP data. Given previous research, they believed that they might find a strong connection between standards-based reform and student outcomes. Because it can be hard to make clear connections between policy and outcomes, some of the analysis is anecdotal in nature. The authors used more-empirical tools for the study, relying on a statistical approach known as a regression analysis to unpack the relationship between standards-based reform and student outcomes. For that part of the analysis, they looked specifically at the performance of low-income students on NAEP over time in relation to a state's standards-based reform efforts, as measured by the Education Counts database maintained by "Education Week." Based on the analysis, it was found that: (1) Over the past decade, many states that have not fully embraced standards-based reform have fallen behind, while states that have thoughtfully pushed standards have shown clear gains; (2) Implementing standards-based reform significantly improved learning outcomes for low-income students in fourth-grade math and eighth-grade reading; and (3) States posting poor results are among those looking to leave the Common Core State Standards, or Common Core–a set of higher academic K-12 standards in reading and math–which were developed and adopted by governors and chief state school officers in 2010. Methodology is appended. [More] Descriptors: Low Income Groups, Barriers, National Competency Tests, Achievement Gap
(2012). Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards Corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Many states have begun the process of developing or adapting English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards to align with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the forthcoming Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). This need stems not only from a desire to ensure that "all" students receive the rigorous and systematic education they need to graduate from high school as college and career ready, but also because states must have ELP standards aligned to college and career readiness standards as a requirement to receive an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has coordinated the development of a framework to assist states with this work. The goal of the English Language Proficiency Development (ELPD) Framework, hereafter referred to as the "Framework," is to provide guidance to states on how to use the expectations of the CCSS and NGSS as tools for the creation and evaluation of ELP standards. The CCSS as well as the NGSS spell out the sophisticated language competencies that students will need to perform across their respective academic subject areas. These include close reading and constructing effective arguments to support their conclusions, identifying a speaker's key points and elaborating on these ideas in group settings, and tasks such as constructing and testing models and predictions as well as strategically choosing and efficiently implementing procedures to solve problems. But they also implicitly demand students acquire ever-increasing command of language in order to acquire and perform the knowledge and skills articulated in the standards. English language learners (ELLs) thus face a double challenge: they must simultaneously learn how to acquire enough of a second language to participate in an academic setting while gaining an understanding of the knowledge and skills in multiple disciplines through that second language. As a result, state ELP standards corresponding to the CCSS and NGSS must be examined closely to determine what supports need to be put in place to provide ELLs with the help they need to access grade-level content while building their language proficiency. To that end, the Framework outlines the underlying English language practices found in the CCSS and the NGSS, communicates to ELL stakeholders the language that all ELLs must acquire in order to successfully engage the CCSS and NGSS, and specifies a procedure by which to evaluate the degree of alignment present between the Framework and ELP standards under consideration or adopted by states. A glossary is included. Individual sections contain figures, tables and references. (Contains 46 footnotes.) [This paper was developed with the English Language Proficiency Development Framework Committee in collaboration with the Understanding Language Initiative at Stanford University and World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment.] [More] Descriptors: State Standards, Stakeholders, Instructional Design, English (Second Language)
(2016). Assessing Academic Language in an Elementary Mathematics Teacher Licensure Exam, Teacher Education Quarterly. With the adoption by most states of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts and literacy and for mathematics (CCSS Initiative, 2010a, 2010b) comes major changes in public education that will affect instructional practice, curriculum, and assessment across the nation. Heritage, Walqui, and Linquanti (2015) argued that the success of these policy changes will depend, in part, on several important shifts in educators' perspective on language use and language learning, such as from an individual to a socially engaged activity, from a linear process aimed at correctness and fluency to a developmental process on comprehension and communication, and from a separate area of instruction to an embedded component of subject-area activities. This relationship between language and any discipline is generally referred to as "academic language" (AL). The Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) is the first assessment of teaching to include mastery of AL knowledge by teachers not specializing in teaching English Language Learners (ELLs). The PACT has not only moved from pilot to full implementation in California but has also inspired the birth of a nationwide teaching licensure exam called "edTPA" (edTPA, 2014; Sato, 2014; Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity [SCALE], 2015). In this study, the authors investigated the validity of the internal structure of the PACT with operational data for Elementary Mathematics using multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models. In particular, they aimed to determine which and how many distinct constructs the Elementary Mathematics PACT instrument assesses, with a particular interest in how the evolving AL domain behaves in relation to the other domains. The authors addressed this aim by determining the extent that various MIRT models fit and provide meaningful feedback about teacher candidate performance. The goal of the study is learn more about the meaning of the AL construct, and thus they focus on a single but important aspect of validity evidence, namely, the internal structure of the Elementary Mathematics PACT, which allows them to answer critical questions about the assessment of AL for elementary mathematics teacher candidates: What does it mean to be AL proficient on the PACT? Which AL tasks are more difficult than others? How, if at all, are AL tasks on the PACT related to those in other content domains? [More] Descriptors: Elementary School Mathematics, Mathematics Teachers, Teacher Certification, Language Usage
(2011). Guiding District Implementation of Common Core State Standards: Innovation Configuration Maps, Learning Forward (NJ). Leadership Networks are regional and content-specific networks focused on the preparation of college- and career-ready students. Each network includes teacher leaders, school administrators, central office staff, regional cooperatives, and institutes of higher education. Network members work collaboratively to focus their efforts on regional needs within four areas. These pillars of support for successful implementation of the education reforms are designed to ensure that all of Kentucky's students are college- and career-ready and prepared for their future, as called for in "Unbridled Learning". The four pillars are: (1) Kentucky's Core Academic Standards; (2) Assessment Literacy; (3) Leadership; and (4) Characteristics of Highly Effective Teaching and Learning. Kentucky recommends that each district create and implement strategies to support effective instruction and student learning in each pillar. The District Implementation Innovation Configuration Maps are designed to specify what each central office staff does related to each pillar to support educators in preparing students to be college- and career-ready. The tool provided here is designed to support school districts in Kentucky to understand what their responsibilities are in each of the four pillar areas, to guide them in strengthening and focusing their support to schools and teachers, and to help them assess their efforts. [More] Descriptors: Academic Standards, Teacher Effectiveness, State Standards, Innovation
(2016). A Qualitative Study into the Inner Leadership of Transformative California School Principals, ProQuest LLC. The 1983 publication of "A Nation at Risk" gave birth to an effort to reform K-12 schools and increase student achievement all over the United States. More than 30 years later, the school reform efforts have grown into immense industries with marginal effect. Major legislation and programs have been launched throughout 3 decades, with "No Child Left Behind" legislation and "Common Core States Standards Initiative" being the latest and biggest endeavors, still with minimal outcomes. These efforts follow and run along with many years of structural changes such as Voucher, Small, Pilot, and Charter Schools. The problem of effectively transforming K-12 schools into places of high student achievement remains intractable. The principal's role by its unique position in the educational delivery structure and its very nature is key, and may be the single most determining factor in the failure or success of a school. There are very few studies that focus on principal leadership and its effect on student achievement outcomes. All studies and most literature on principal leadership and effectiveness put most attention on traits and observable behaviors. However, it is important to look at the inner world of principals, for this influences, if not determines, the traits and behaviors they exhibit in their leadership. There are no known studies that have focused in on the inner states and experiences of effective school principals. This phenomenological study represents a seminal effort to study the inner experiences of principals. The participant selection was done through criterion type purposive sampling to link this study to leadership effectiveness. Only principals who were able to transform their schools from failing into successful according to the objective California State Standards of Adequate Yearly Progress were included. This sampling method also enabled the study to look deeply into the inner phenomenological experience of these transformative principals. The study findings yielded data compelling enough to propose a conclusion of effective school transformation and proposed a model to illustrate how the inner experiences of principals fit into effective school transformation. The study also presented its implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research. [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, Phenomenology, Transformational Leadership, Principals
(2016). Middle School Math Intervention in the Local Unified School District: Using Constructivist Strategies to Support Struggling Learners, ProQuest LLC. This study explored the effectiveness of a unique math intervention program in a local school district in Orange County, California in terms of academic achievement and student perceptions about their math abilities as a result of their experiences in the program. As the predominate instructional approach, the program provided students with constructivist learning strategies to align with the Common Core State Standards and to strengthen their conceptual understanding of mathematics content. Two summative, end of course exams were given to this group and to a comparable group at another middle school that received a more traditional instructional approach as their primary instructional focus. The second group received instruction with emphasis on algorithmic problem solving steps and memorization of rules and mathematical procedures. Exams were administered mid way through the year and at the end of the year. Results were compared between the groups at each admission and on their overall growth from one administration to the next. Results between the groups were non-significant, perhaps due to the small sample size and uneven comparison groups. Although somewhat close, non-parametric measurements did not reveal significant findings. In a second, qualitative phase of the study, six students, three from each program, completed a rich interview protocol. The purpose was to gather student perceptual changes regarding their math ability as a result of the two different intervention programs. Themed responses in the areas of math anxiety, math self-concept, and math self- efficacy revealed improvements in overall student perceptions about their math ability in both intervention programs. A study with a larger, more even sample size might lead to significant findings. Practitioners, researchers, and policy makers might use the findings of this study to explore and implement additional intervention strategies for struggling math students. [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: Mathematics Instruction, Intervention, Mathematics Achievement, Student Attitudes
(2013). A Study of the Alignment between the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M), American Institutes for Research. Introduction: For decades, prior to the inception of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was the only vehicle through which states could assess the progress of their students using a common metric. Now, 45 states, 4 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia have adopted the CCSS to provide a clear and consistent curriculum framework to prepare students for college and the workplace. But because NAEP is a critical monitor for comparing results of student achievement across states, it is imperative that the newer CCSS standards and the NAEP frameworks be examined to determine the degree of alignment. The results will allow policymakers to make decisions about what changes, if any, should be made to the NAEP frameworks. Methodology: This alignment study focuses primarily on the conceptual match between the subtopics and objectives in the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the content standards in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M) in Grades K-8. While an item-to-framework study is also critical when inquiring about alignment, items from the CCSS assessment consortia were not available at the time of this study. Two criteria were used to describe the degree of alignment between the CCSS-M and the NAEP Mathematics Framework: the extent of content coverage and the grade at which the content was covered. To obtain the necessary data, two mappings were conducted: (a) CCSS-M to NAEP Mathematics Framework; and (b) NAEP Mathematics Framework to CCSS-M. Findings: The study's findings relied on the judgment of four panels of experts who identified the specific CCSS-M content that was not covered well in the NAEP mathematics subtopics and objectives for Grade 4 and Grade 8 and the specific NAEP mathematics content that was not covered well in the CCSS-M at or before the grade level of the NAEP assessment. The study did not find wide areas of content in the NAEP Mathematics Framework that were not covered in the CCSS-M. Similarly, the study did not find wide areas of content in the CCSS-M that were not covered by the NAEP Mathematics Framework. Nevertheless, there were differences in specificity and conceptual understandings between the CCSS-M and the NAEP Mathematics Framework that are important to note: (1) the CCSS-M have more rigorous content in eighth-grade algebra and geometry; (2) the CCSS-M infuse and distribute the development of mathematical expertise, such as the ability to estimate accurately, throughout the standards for mathematical content, whereas the NAEP Mathematics Framework assesses estimation as a skill in isolation from the vast majority of the content; (3) the CCSS-M attend to developing conceptual understandings of a greater number of mathematical topics (such as unit fractions, patterns, and functions) than does the NAEP Mathematics Framework; and (4) the CCSS-M introduce some mathematics content, such as probability, at higher grades than does the NAEP Mathematics Framework. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Next Steps: Certainly, there are differences between the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the CCSS-M. For example, the NAEP Mathematics Framework is an assessment framework that prescribes what should be tested on NAEP. The CCSS-M, on the other hand, provide a curriculum framework that prescribes what should be taught in classrooms. In those few areas where content is covered by the NAEP Mathematics Framework, but not included in the CCSS-M, and vice versa, studies should be conducted to determine how estimates of students' achievement status and growth are affected by the degree of alignment between what is taught and what is tested. Historically, the NAEP frameworks have aspired to represent the union of all the various state curricula while reaching beyond these curricula to lead as well as reflect. As a result, NAEP often has pushed on the leading edge of what the nation's children know and should able to do. The introduction of the CCSS-M provides both new opportunities and challenges for NAEP. As the nation moves toward widespread implementation of instruction and assessment based on the CCSS-M, NAEP must balance the goals of comparability over time (i.e., maintaining trend) with current relevance. The following are appended: (1) Features of the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the CCSS-M; (2) Coverage of Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Objectives in the CCSS-M; (3) Coverage of Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Objectives in the CCSS-M; and (4) NAEP and CCSS-M Alignment Study Panel Assignments–July 2012. [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, Mathematics Tests, Mathematics Achievement, State Standards
(2016). Testing College Readiness, Education Next. The state of Massachusetts introduced a system of standardized testing in its public schools three years before the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandated such practices for all 50 states. Although the tests have evolved over time, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) has been in place ever since. After Massachusetts adopted the Common Core State Standards in 2010, its education leaders faced a decision: whether to stick with MCAS, which it had already revised to align with the Common Core, or switch to a "next-generation" test that was specifically designed for the Common Core–and to assess students' readiness for college. As a member of the multistate Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium, Massachusetts had a ready alternative in the new PARCC assessments. The stated goal of the PARCC exam is to measure whether students are on track to succeed in college, while the MCAS test aims to measure students' proficiency relative to statewide curriculum standards. Whether the PARCC test actually does a better job of measuring college preparedness was an open question prior to the fall of 2015. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Education commissioned this study in hopes of uncovering timely, rigorous evidence on how accurately the two tests assess college readiness. At the end of the 2014-15 academic year, Massachusetts arranged to have a sample of 866 college freshmen take the 10th-grade MCAS and PARCC assessments. The students were enrolled at 11 public higher-education campuses in Massachusetts. Each student was randomly assigned to complete one component of either the MCAS or the PARCC exam. Researchers collected college transcript data for all students in the sample, and examined the relationship between exam scores and several different outcomes, including grade point average (GPA) and enrollment in remedial courses. Researchers found one important difference between the two exams: PARCC's cutoff scores for college- and career-readiness in math are set at a higher level than the MCAS proficiency cutoff and are better aligned with what it takes to earn "B" grades in college math. By examining rigorous evidence about the validity of both of these tests, Massachusetts provides a model for other states facing difficult choices about whether and how to upgrade their assessment systems. The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education chose to adopt neither MCAS nor PARCC, but rather to develop a hybrid assessment that will aim to draw on the best of both tests. [More] Descriptors: Standardized Tests, Common Core State Standards, College Readiness, Cutting Scores
(2016). Georgia's Balancing Act: Using, Protecting, and Legislating Student Data, State Education Standard. By combining an overall vision for the use of data, a commitment to protecting student privacy and data integrity, and supportive legislation, Georgia emerged as a leader in the effective use of student data. But it easily could have gone another way. None of the three elements could be taken for granted when Georgia set out to develop its state longitudinal data systems over a decade ago. A key challenge in Georgia was the entanglement of questions concerning what data should be collected and why with a contentious debate over the Common Core State Standards. The multiyear dispute surrounding Common Core, which included discussions of the proper role of the federal government in education policy, nearly derailed the statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS). In 2010 Georgia was awarded a Race to the Top grant (RT3), providing $400 million over four years to implement its detailed plan for public school improvement. Georgia developed and implemented two related state data systems. Georgia's Academic and Workforce Analysis and Research Data System (GAâÄ¢AWARDS) provides researchers and policymakers information about programs and overall effectiveness. Its SLDS, called Path to Personalized Learning, provides students and educators with seamless access to data that can inform instruction. During the 2014 legislative session, Senate Bill 167 sponsored by Senator William Ligon came close to passing but was ultimately defeated in the House. Not only would SB 167 have severed Georgia from the standards, it would have banned student assessments that reflected any national or multistate standards and imposed limits on data collection, usage, and technology that would have rendered the data system useless and made online learning challenging. During the 2015 legislative session, two competing data bills were introduced. Senator Ligon introduced SB 157, a slightly modified version of the data portion of SB 167 from the previous year. At the same time, others in Georgia wanted to focus on the security, appropriateness, and ethical use of the data managed in Georgia's two data systems. Therefore, a bill ultimately called SB 89, first introduced in the House by Representative Buzz Brockway, focused on these issues. This article describes how Georgia was able to stave off the more limiting bill that could have undermined education data's ability to inform instruction and policy with the passage of the new Student Data Privacy, Accessibility, and Transparency Act, signed by Governor Nathan Deal in May 2015 which helps to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of students' personally identifiable information, mitigates risks related to the intentional and unintentional use of data, and establishes clarity of roles and responsibilities around data use. [More] Descriptors: Student Records, Information Security, Privacy, Educational Legislation
(2012). Getting Serious about the System: A Fieldbook for District and School Leaders, Corwin. For many districts, the improvement process can seem like trying to nail Jello to the wall. This fieldbook shows how to avoid a haphazard approach by focusing on all aspects of the system and specific issues that have most impact upon student achievement. This multidimensional process also entails increasing the competencies of everyone involved and implementing solutions districtwide. The authors outline a proven framework and offer step-by-step guidance for addressing the essential components and competencies of the local educational system. Key strategies include: (1) Concentrating on aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment to state and Common Core State Standards; (2) Working on the underlying issues and people that impact the system; and (3) Garnering support from all staff members to maximize time, resources, and energy. Included are vignettes for each phase that illustrate how the work might play out in typical districts and schools. Hands-on tools include an extensive Facilitator Guide with PowerPoint slides, handouts, and a companion website with online resources. A separate volume provides a brief overview of the process for staff and teachers that provides a brief rationale based on research, explains what it means to work systemically, and outlines the phases. There is no "quick fix" for boosting school performance, but "Getting Serious About the System" will help district and school leaders set priorities, break the gridlock, and reap sustainable results. [For companion book, "A Teacher's Guide for Getting Serious about the System," see ED534365.] [More] Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Educational Improvement, Systems Approach, Instructional Leadership
(2012). Let History Not Repeat Itself: Overcoming Obstacles to the Common Core's Success. ES Select, Education Sector. The Common Core State Standards project is the latest in a series of efforts to improve the academic success of American students. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have endorsed new academic benchmarks that substantially raise the bar for achievement in English and mathematics. Aiming at a deeper form of learning, the initiative is a potential watershed in U.S. education, uniting most of the country around an ambitious yet practically grounded vision of what schools and students need to accomplish. But will it succeed? History is not on its side. Twice before, the nation has rallied around bold reforms–first in the 1980s with responses to A Nation at Risk and later with the No Child Left Behind Act. Neither moved the nation's students substantially forward. But history need not be repeated. If the implementers of the Common Core take a hard look at the past, they will find not only potential pitfalls but also some research guidance for the path ahead. This "ES Select" identifies five big obstacles to the Common Core's success–assessments, performance levels, accountability, teachers, and technology–with essential lessons that policymakers must consider as the Common Core unfolds. [More] Descriptors: Common Core State Standards, Barriers, Educational Change, Educational Assessment
(2012). 95 Strategies for Remodeling Instruction: Ideas for Incorporating CCSS, Corwin. Would you rather listen to a lecture or play classroom Jeopardy? Research shows that the most successful learning happens when teachers talk less and engage their students in actively applying concepts. This book shows you how to enhance lessons with 95 research-based strategies that work for all subjects and grade levels. In addition, the authors explain the research on student learning, describe best practices, and provide tools for analyzing your lessons. This step-by-step guide shows how to remodel lessons to: (1) Align with the Common Core State Standards; (2) Develop 21st century skills; (3) Engage students; and (4) Enhance content learning. The book's evidence-based Present-Apply-Review (PAR) model is highly effective for addressing shortfalls in student learning. Included are diagrams, examples, clear instructions for connecting lessons to CCSS anchors, and a guide to sharing the strategies in a professional learning setting. Why teach tomorrow's adults with yesterday's lessons? Amplify your arsenal with storyboarding, Socratic role-play, Wikis, peer huddles, and more–and watch learning soar! Appended are: (1) Ideas for Grouping Students; and (2) Guide to Lesson Remodeling PLCs. An index is included. [More] Descriptors: Evidence, Play, State Standards, Learning
(2016). Effects of Peer-Mediated Instruction on Mathematical Problem Solving for Students with Moderate/Severe Intellectual Disability, ProQuest LLC. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2006) set a precedent that established even higher expectations for all students, including those with disabilities. More recently, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers developed a common set of state standards for proficiency in English language arts and mathematics known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010). The CCSS in mathematics define and detail the content expectations and standards for mathematical practices for grades K-12. Their intent is to provide a rigorous, focused, and structured set of standards to prepare students in the 21st century to be college and career ready upon exiting the high school system. To meet these increased expectations, this investigation sought to determine the effects of peer-mediated schema based instruction on the number of correct steps of a task analysis to solve the "change" problem type of mathematical word problems with middle school students with moderate/severe intellectual disabilities (MS/ID). Additionally, this study investigated the effects of peer-mediated schema based instruction on the number of correct mathematical problems solved, the ability of students with MS/ID to discriminate between addition and subtraction in word problems for the "change" problem type, and if students with MS/ID were able to generalize the learned mathematical skills to an unfamiliar peer. Finally, this study examined the effects of peer-mediated instruction on both tutors' and tutees' social attitudes and perceptions of one another before and after the study was completed. The findings of this study demonstrated a functional relation between peer-mediated schema-based instruction (SBI) on the number of correct steps of a task analysis. Results also provided several implications for practice, offers suggestions for future research in this area, and discusses the social and academic benefits of using peer-mediated instruction for students with MS/ID. [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: Moderate Intellectual Disability, Severe Intellectual Disability, Mathematics Instruction, Problem Solving
(2012). Assessment in a Common Core Era: Revolutionary or Evolutionary?, Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College. In conjunction with the adoption and subsequent implementation of the "Common Core State Standards for Mathematics" (CCSSM), state-led consortia are developing next-generation assessments aligned to the CCSSM. This paper discusses the progress and plans of two main coalitions of states–the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)- as they work to develop new and innovative assessments to measure the CCSSM and replace current state assessments. They attempt to integrate into each of their assessment systems various facets of testing (e.g., online administration, computer adaptive testing, performance-based tasks) already in existence. What is proposed to be revolutionary and innovative in testing appears more like the next evolutionary step in assessment. Scheduled for full implementation in 2014-2015, what remains to be seen is whether these assessments can accomplish two goals: (1) close the gap with NAEP and (2) replace college placement tests. [More] Descriptors: Common Core State Standards, Alternative Assessment, Test Construction, Testing Programs