timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
College and Career Ready Standards were released by NGA and CCSSO November 2009 • Common Core State Standards K-12 Work and Feedback Groups Announced December 2009 • States submitted comments and also supporting documents January 2010 • Second Draft Released to States Feb-March 2010 • States solicit input from educators and give feedback to CCSSO March 2010 • First Public Draft of CCSS released June 2010 • CCSS released to stated (June 1) • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Council of State Governments host a policy discussion of the CCSS for legislators and education officials (June 1) • CCSS released to the public for the first time (June 24) • IL State Board of Ed adopts CCSS (June 24)
research and evidence based, (2) aligned with college and work expectations, (3) rigorous, and (4) internationally benchmarked. A particular standard was included in the document when the best available evidence indicated that its mastery was essential for college and career readiness in a twenty-first- century, globally competitive society.
With guidance and support from adults, use technology to produce and publish writing (using keyboarding skills) as well as to interact and collaborate with others.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.8 Recall information from experiences or gather information from print and digital sources; take brief notes on sources and sort evidence into provided categories. (W.3.9 begins in grade 4)
over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of discipline-specific tasks, purposes, and audiences.
to college and career readiness by the end of high school, mark students’ progress toward this goal from 3rd grade up, and provide teachers with timely information to inform instruction and provide student support. The PARCC assessments will be ready for states to administer during the 2014-15 school year.
administered as close to the end of the school year as possible. The ELA/literacy PBA will focus on writing effectively when analyzing text. - End-of-Year Assessment (EOY) administered after approx. 90% of the school year. The ELA/literacy EOY will focus on reading comprehension.
to be an indicator of student knowledge and skills so that instruction, supports and professional development can be tailored to meet student needs - Mid-Year Assessment comprised of performance-based items and tasks, with an emphasis on hard-to-measure standards. After study, individual states may consider including as a summative component
awarded a four-year $160 million grant by the U.S. Department of Education to develop a student assessment system aligned to a common core of academic standards.
innovative assessments for grades 3-8 and high school in English language arts and mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards so that all students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching. Mission Statement
timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric and critiques • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
used as a vehicle to show higher order thinking skills – e.g. writing a scientific argument instead of remembering the scientific facts or getting the definitions or rules right CCSS: Reasons for Excitement Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
standards but the switch will require new textbooks, resulting in huge revenues for publishing companies Alan Singer, Hofstra University, the Huffington Post [link] “The Wall Street Journal reports that the Thomas B. Fordham Institute estimates the national cost for compliance with common core will be between $1 billion to $8 billion and the profits will go almost directly to publishers.”
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor 2. The word “analysis” appears 94 times in the CCSS; the word “emotion” twice in a clinical sort of way, and the word “affect” not at all.
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor 2. The word “analysis” appears 94 times in the CCSS; the word “emotion” twice in a clinical sort of way, and the word “affect” not at all. 3. The CCSS eliminates reading for pleasure and choice and, although the CCSS claims to be “internationally benchmarked,” does not say which nations.
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor 2. The word “analysis” appears 94 times in the CCSS; the word “emotion” twice in a clinical sort of way, and the word “affect” not at all. 3. The CCSS eliminates reading for pleasure and choice and, although the CCSS claims to be “internationally benchmarked,” does not say which nations. 4. Music is mentioned once, the visual arts not at all.
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor 2. The word “analysis” appears 94 times in the CCSS; the word “emotion” twice in a clinical sort of way, and the word “affect” not at all. 3. The CCSS eliminates reading for pleasure and choice and, although the CCSS claims to be “internationally benchmarked,” does not say which nations. 4. Music is mentioned once, the visual arts not at all. 5. Albert Einstein would push for more fairy tales; Charles Darwin would push for poetry (not the 75% - 25% informational : narrative split of the CCSS)
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor 2. The word “analysis” appears 94 times in the CCSS; the word “emotion” twice in a clinical sort of way, and the word “affect” not at all. 3. The CCSS eliminates reading for pleasure and choice and, although the CCSS claims to be “internationally benchmarked,” does not say which nations. 4. Music is mentioned once, the visual arts not at all. 5. Albert Einstein would push for more fairy tales; Charles Darwin would push for poetry (not the 75% - 25% informational : narrative split of the CCSS) 6. By privileging efferent reading the CCSS privilege information processors, over “aesthetics” (not mentioned until 11th grade).
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor 2. The word “analysis” appears 94 times in the CCSS; the word “emotion” twice in a clinical sort of way, and the word “affect” not at all. 3. The CCSS eliminates reading for pleasure and choice and, although the CCSS claims to be “internationally benchmarked,” does not say which nations. 4. Music is mentioned once, the visual arts not at all. 5. Albert Einstein would push for more fairy tales; Charles Darwin would push for poetry (not the 75% - 25% informational : narrative split of the CCSS) 6. By privileging efferent reading the CCSS privilege information processors, over “aesthetics” (not mentioned until 11th grade). 7. “Close reading” focus = less room for personal connections & local epistemologies
Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link] 1. The elementary text exemplars are primarily by and about White people, thus privileging White children and marginalizing children of color and the poor 2. The word “analysis” appears 94 times in the CCSS; the word “emotion” twice in a clinical sort of way, and the word “affect” not at all. 3. The CCSS eliminates reading for pleasure and choice and, although the CCSS claims to be “internationally benchmarked,” does not say which nations. 4. Music is mentioned once, the visual arts not at all. 5. Albert Einstein would push for more fairy tales; Charles Darwin would push for poetry (not the 75% - 25% informational : narrative split of the CCSS) 6. By privileging efferent reading the CCSS privilege information processors, over “aesthetics” (not mentioned until 11th grade). 7. “Close reading” focus = less room for personal connections & local epistemologies 8. Extra money spent on testing can’t go for infrastructure, playgrounds, labs, libraries, field trips, and teacher Professional Development
timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • CCSS: Case study (3rd gr. Language Arts) • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
position writing in the classroom, students end up viewing it as mainly a vehicle for proving their content knowledge. (e.g. Applebee & Langer, 2006, 2009; Nystrand, et al, 1997) (from the literature) Source: Alecia Magnifico, Assess-As-You-Go Team Member, English Faculty UNH
meaning-centric changes to their writing, students tend to view a second draft as one that eliminates lexical errors and adds new information. (Beason, 1993; Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Dyson, 2006) (from the literature) Source: Alecia Magnifico, Assess-As-You-Go Team Member, English Faculty UNH
revision processes cognitively and procedurally challenging. (e.g. Flower, et al, 1986; Hayes & Chenoweth, 2006; McCutchen, 2000) (from the literature) Source: Alecia Magnifico, Assess-As-You-Go Team Member, English Faculty UNH
from readers can serve as frameworks for rethinking and revision. (Halverson & Magnifico, in press; Prior, 2004) (from the literature) Source: Alecia Magnifico, Assess-As-You-Go Team Member, English Faculty UNH
review can create assessment frameworks where incremental rethinking and revision is useful. (Black & Wiliam, 1998, 2009; Graham & Perin, 2007) (from the literature) Source: Alecia Magnifico, Assess-As-You-Go Team Member, English Faculty UNH
timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • CCSS: Case study (3rd gr. Language Arts) • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
• Students involved in constructive peer <-> peer learning dialogue • An active, knowledge producing community • Continuous formative assessment, supplementing teacher assessments New Media and New Learning Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • CCSS: Case study (3rd gr. Language Arts) • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
comes from the interaction of ‘peers’. Creator, a simple and powerful multimedia web authoring space. Publisher, a space to design projects with multiple forms of peer and machine feedback. http://cgscholar.com Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B110008 to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. And Thank You to the DoDES-Europe!
olmansju
ange
cbtlibrary
japanstrokeassociation
kenjiro56
matleenalaakso
terasawat
ponponmikankan
signer
nonxxxizm
yasulab
junghyeonjae
sferik
addyosmani
marktimemedia
lara
aki_iinuma
pedronauck
trallard
reverentgeek
bermonpainter
pauljervisheath
lauravandoore
