Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Transitioning to the Common Core: What Elementary Teachers Need to Know
For more on our series of Professional Development webinars go to www.edweek.org/go/pdwebinars
Gerald Herbert/AP
Our Moderator:
Anthony Rebora Managing editor, Education Week Teacher
www.edweek.org/tm www.teachersourcebook.org
Featured Guests
Jeff Williams, an award-winning language arts teacher, is the literacy teacher leader for the Solon school district in Ohio. He headed the National Council of Teachers of English's review team on the common standards and is the co-author of Supporting Students in the Time of Common Core Standards: English Language Arts, Grades 3-5. Angela Waltrup is an elementary mathematics teacher specialist for Frederick County, Md., public schools. In this role, she is working with teachers and schools towards systemic transition to the common standards in grades pre-K to 5. A National Board-certified teacher, she has taught in grades 2, 3, and 5, and served as an intervention teacher.
An on-demand archive of this webinar is going to be available at www.edweek.org/go/PDarchives
in less than 24hrs.
As a participant of this webinar, you have earned a certificate of completion from Education Week PD Webinars. To claim your certificate, please send an email to [email protected] with the names and titles of those who attended, and the mailing address to which you would like the certificates sent.
Transitioning To The
Common Core: What Elementary Teachers
Need To Know Mathematics
Strategies For Adapting Instruction To New Content Lesson Planning Tips Adjusting Instructional Practice Overcoming Obstacles
Strategies for Adapting Instruction To New Content
Fostering A Rich & Dynamic Mathematics Culture in the Elementary Classroom Understanding Mathematics Content Demands in the Common Core State Standards Establishing Collaborative and Supportive Professional Learning Communities
Understanding Mathematics Content Demands in the
Common Core State Standards Example 1: Building Understanding of the Language of the Standards
Example 2: Developing an Understanding of
Multiple Representations • Multiply or divide to solve word problems involving
multiplicative comparison, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem, distinguishing multiplicative comparison from additive comparison.
• Fluently add and subtract multi-digit whole numbers using
the standard algorithm. • Multiply a whole number of up to four digits by a one-digit
whole number, and multiply two two-digit numbers, using strategies based on place value and the properties of operations. Illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.
• Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the same whole and having like denominators, e.g., by using visual fraction models and equations to represent the problem.
• Use the four operations to solve word problems involving distances, intervals of time, liquid volumes, masses of objects, and money, including problems involving simple fractions or decimals, and problems that require expressing measurements given in a larger unit in terms of a smaller unit. Represent measurement quantities using diagrams such as number line diagrams that feature a measurement scale.
• Reason with shapes and their attributes. • 3.G.1: Understand that shapes in different categories (e.g.,
rhombuses, rectangles, and others) may share attributes (e.g., having four sides), and that the shared attributes can define a larger category (e.g., quadrilaterals). Recognize rhombuses, rectangles, and squares as examples of quadrilaterals, and draw examples of quadrilaterals that do not belong to any of these subcategories.
• Develop understanding of fractions as numbers. • 3.NF.3: Explain equivalence of fractions in special cases, and
compare fractions by reasoning about their size. • a. Understand two fractions as equivalent (equal) if they are
the same size, or the same point on a number line. • b. Recognize and generate simple equivalent fractions, e.g.,
1/2 = 2/4, 4/6 = 2/3). Explain why the fractions are equivalent, e.g., by using a visual fraction model.
• Understand properties of multiplication and the relationship between multiplication and division.
• 3.OA.5: Apply properties of operations as strategies to multiply and divide. Examples: If 6 × 4 = 24 is known, then 4 × 6 = 24 is also known. (Commutative property of multiplication.) 3 × 5 × 2 can be found by 3 × 5 = 15, then 15 × 2 = 30, or by 5 × 2 = 10, then 3 × 10 = 30. (Associative property of multiplication.) Knowing that 8 × 5 = 40 and 8 × 2 = 16, one can find 8 × 7 as 8 × (5 + 2) = (8 × 5) + (8 × 2) = 40
Lesson Planning Tips
• Resource Selection • Technology • Mathematical Language • Re-engagement • Mathematical Thinking • Questioning
Adjusting Instructional Practice
• What should a vibrant mathematics classroom look like? Feel like? Sound like? In the 21st century? • Worthwhile tasks • Student discourse • Inquiry • Problem Solving • Rich & multiple experiences that
develop, support, & nurture conceptual understanding and procedural fluency
Overcoming Obstacles
• CCSS Label • Isolation • Balance • Assessment
A Worthwhile Journey
Special Thanks… Dr. Christopher Horne, Elementary Mathematics Curriculum
Specialist, Frederick County Public Schools, Maryland Elementary Math Specialist & Teacher Leaders Project, McDaniel
College, Westminster, Maryland, 2011 The Standards For Mathematical Practice “Student Look Fors”, 2011
Elementary Math Instructional Leaders, Frederick County Public
Schools, Maryland
Contact Information: Angela M. Waltrup
Helping You Step Up To Common Core
18
Different Paths to Common Core
Teaching & Learning
Jeff Williams, Solon City Schools
Our Map • Step 1: Teacher teams • Step 2: Deepen understanding of standards • Step 3: Learning targets and success criteria • Step 4: Design instruction • Step 5: Create formative assessments • Concurrently: Address differentiation
Power of Groups
• 438 teachers in New Zealand • Match 100+ items to four different grade level
bands • Round 1: Done individually • Round 2: Done within small groups • Nearly 50% less variability across teachers
when in groups
Process for Deconstructing Standards
• Determine the ultimate target type. • List the underpinning targets. • Define any academic or domain language that
needs clarification. • Review intended learning that comes before
and after this standard.
Product Objective Product
Performance Skill Reasoning Knowledge
Performance Skill Objective
Performance Skill Reasoning Knowledge
Reasoning Objective Reasoning Knowledge
Knowledge Objective Knowledge Source: West Virginia
Department of Education (Based upon work of Richard Stiggins)
Types of Learning Targets
• Knowledge • KNOWING and understanding facts and concepts
• Reasoning • mental processes USING knowledge to solve problems
• Performance Skills • DOING something where the process is most important
• Products • using knowledge, reasoning, & skills to CREATE a product
Adapted from West Virginia Department of Education (Based upon work of Richard Stiggins)
Level 1 - Key words/concepts: In these boxes, you and your colleagues will identify the words or phrases that change from grade-level to grade-level indicating increasing complexity in what students will be expected to do in order to enact the particular grade level standard. Note too that some grade-level standards language does not change from grade to grade, so there may well be some standards that don’t require any notes about language distinctions.
Level 2 – Breaking down grade-level learning tasks: Some grade-level standards require students to understand and be able to do a number of related tasks. In order to teach students how to enact a single standard with multiple expectations, at this level, you might consider what each of these teaching tasks would include.
Level 3 – Identifying what students will do: Finally, based on what you wrote for level two, you’ll want to think about how you’ll ask students to enact the standard in a formative and summative assessment that asks them to put together the learning tasks embedded in the standard.
Source: Williams, J., Homan, E., & Swofford, S. (2011). Supporting Students in a Time of Core Standards: English Language Arts Grades 3-5. NCTE: Urbana, IL.
• When students know both, they are more likely: – to work towards mastering the criteria of
success, – to know where they are on the trajectory
towards this success, – and more likely to have a good chance of
learning how to monitor and self-regulate their progress.”
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge Group: New York. p. 67
• “Good learning intentions are those that make clear to the students the type or level of performance that they need to attain, so that they understand where and when to invest energies, strategies, and thinking, and where they are positioned along the trajectory towards successful learning.”
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge Group: New York. p. 47
Success Criteria
• “Success criteria relate to knowledge of end points—that is, how do we know when we arrive?”
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge Group: New York. p. 47
Draft Learning Target & Success Criteria:
Knowledge: (underpinnings)
1. We are learning to recognize figurative language in text. We are looking for words and phrases that mean something other than what they actually say.
2. We are learning to identify and explain similes in text. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things using the words like or as. (He was like a computer during the math challenge.)
3. We are learning to identify metaphors. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things where the authors says one thing is another. (His brain was a computer during the math challenge.)
Reasoning: 4. We are learning to determine the meanings of similes and metaphors in text. We are looking for clues from the text and/or from our background knowledge to help us understand the figurative meaning of the comparison in a simile or metaphor. Source: Williams, J., Echan, L., Hlvach, J., Ours, E., Arnoff, G.,Spinder, J. (2012). Solon City Schools.
Draft Learning Target & Success Criteria:
Knowledge: (underpinnings)
1. We are learning to recognize figurative language in text. We are looking for words and phrases that mean something other than what they actually say.
2. We are learning to identify and explain similes in text. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things using the words like or as. (He was like a computer during the math challenge.)
3. We are learning to identify metaphors. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things where the authors says one thing is another. (His brain was a computer during the math challenge.)
Reasoning: 4. We are learning to determine the meanings of similes and metaphors in text. We are looking for clues from the text and/or from our background knowledge to help us understand the figurative meaning of the comparison in a simile or metaphor. Source: Williams, J., Echan, L., Hlvach, J., Ours, E., Arnoff, G.,Spinder, J. (2012). Solon City Schools.
Draft Learning Target & Success Criteria:
Knowledge: (underpinnings)
1. We are learning to recognize figurative language in text. We are looking for words and phrases that mean something other than what they actually say.
2. We are learning to identify and explain similes in text. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things using the words like or as. (He was like a computer during the math challenge.)
3. We are learning to identify metaphors. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things where the authors says one thing is another. (His brain was a computer during the math challenge.)
Reasoning: 4. We are learning to determine the meanings of similes and metaphors in text. We are looking for clues from the text and/or from our background knowledge to help us understand the figurative meaning of the comparison in a simile or metaphor. Source: Williams, J., Echan, L., Hlvach, J., Ours, E., Arnoff, G.,Spinder, J. (2012). Solon City Schools.
Draft Learning Target & Success Criteria:
Knowledge: (underpinnings)
1. We are learning to recognize figurative language in text. We are looking for words and phrases that mean something other than what they actually say.
2. We are learning to identify and explain similes in text. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things using the words like or as. (He was like a computer during the math challenge.)
3. We are learning to identify metaphors. We are looking for a comparison of two unlike things where the authors says one thing is another. (His brain was a computer during the math challenge.)
Reasoning: 4. We are learning to determine the meanings of similes and metaphors in text. We are looking for clues from the text and/or from our background knowledge to help us understand the figurative meaning of the comparison in a simile or metaphor. Source: Williams, J., Echan, L., Hlvach, J., Ours, E., Arnoff, G.,Spinder, J. (2012). Solon City Schools.
D
• What questions do you have about this process?
• What support materials would be needed to facilitate the process in your building/district?
Big Ideas
• Slow and steady • Collaborative Teacher Teams • Deconstructing Standards
– Process for
• Constructing Learning Targets – Process for
• Building Lessons and Resources
Sources: Common Core State Standards. http://www.corestandards.org Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge Group: New York. Hess, K., Carlock, D., Jones, B., & Walkup, J.R. (2010). What exactly do “fewer, clearer, and higher standards” really look like in the classroom? Using a cognitive rigor matrix to analyze curriculum, plan lessons, and implement assessments. Ohio Department of Education. http://www.ode.state.oh.us Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J.A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom Assessment for Student Learning: Doing it right—doing it well. Assessment Training Institute, Portland, Oregon. Williams, J., Homan, E., & Swofford, S. (2011). Supporting Students in a Time of Core Standards: English Language Arts Grades 3-5. NCTE: Urbana, Illinois. West Virginia Department of Education. http://wvde.state.wv.us/titlei/pd_director.html
Spiraling and Integration
Writing Standards K-5
Topic Grade Writing Standard 1: Text Types and Purposes
1 - O
pini
on p
iece
s
4
• Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons and information. a.Introduce a topic or text clearly, state an opinion, and create an organizational structure in which related ideas are grouped to support the writer's purpose. b. Provide reasons that are supported by facts and details. c. Link opinion and reasons using words and phrases (e.g., for instance, in order to, in addition). d.Provide a concluding statement or section related to the opinion presented.
5
• Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons and information. a. Introduce a topic or text clearly, state an opinion, and create an organizational structure in which ideas are logically grouped to support the writer's purpose. b. Provide logically ordered reasons that are supported by facts and details. c. Link opinion and reasons using words, phrases, and clauses (e.g., consequentlly, specifically). d.Provide a concluding statement or section related to the opinion presented.
Text Types and Complexity
Warning • Use of challenging texts:
– without scaffolding did not improve achievement of struggling readers
– with scaffolding (echo reading, story maps,
repeated readings, oral recitation, guided reading, etc.) did produce gains for struggling readers
– Allington, R. (2009) What Really Matters: RtI Edition, p. 47-48
Cautions
• Scaffolding for students – Read aloud, shared reading and guided reading
• Increasing Text Complexity without support will NOT increase achievement
Caution
• “While the Standards delineate specific expectations in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language, each standard need not be a separate focus for instruction and assessment. Often, several standards can be addressed by a single rich task.”
– Common Core State Standards, p. 5
Text Exemplars Listed • Not the curriculum • Not listed for the purpose of the coming assessments • Not the only texts allowable
• The only purpose of the included lists is that they
“…exemplify the level of complexity and quality that the Standards require all students in a given grade band to engage with. Additionally, they are suggestive of the breadth of texts that students should encounter…The choices should serve as guideposts in helping educators select texts of similar complexity, quality, and range for their own classrooms. They expressly do not represent a partial or complete reading list.” (Common Core Standards, Appendix B, p. 2)
Quantitative dimensions are the vocabulary, word length and sentence structures that can be used to make some sense of readability. This is acknowledged by CCSS as problematic and should cannot be the basis for determining complexity.
Qualitative dimensions are the factors that only a human reader could consider—layout, types of figurative language, patterns, background knowledge needed, content, themes, etc.)
Reader and Task dimensions “While the prior two elements of the model focus on the inherent complexity of text, variables specific to particular readers (such as motivation, knowledge, and experiences) and to particular tasks (such as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the questions posed) must also be considered when determining whether a text is appropriate for a given student. Such assessments are best made by teachers employing their professional judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and the subject.” (CCSS, Appendix A, p. 4)
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity
Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
10. By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, and poetry, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
10. By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.
10. By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, in the grades 4-5 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
10. By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, at the high end of the grades 4-5 text complexity band independently and proficiently.
10. By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, in the grades 6-8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
• Use of “high-success reading” materials, where 97-100 percent of words are read accurately:
– lead to greatest growth for struggling readers – lead to stamina gains – lead to motivation gains – is necessary for greatest cognitive and conceptual
processing gains – Allington, R. (2009) What Really Matters: RtI Edition, p. 47-48
Partnering with You Every Step of the Way
Partnering with You Every Step of the Way
Partnering with You Every Step of the Way
Partnering with You Every Step of the Way
Partnering with You Every Step of the Way
Supporting Shifts In Learning And Instruction
Increasing Levels of Academic Rigor
Personalizing Learning to Remove Barriers
Managing Data and Accountability
One Goal, One Partner You Can Count On
Learn more at PearsonSchool.com/DigitalCommonCore
www.edweek.org/go/pdwebinars
Gerald Herbert/AP
Making the Common Standards Work in the Classroom
Common-Core Mythubusters: Clearing Up the Biggest Misconceptions About the ELA Standards
Literacy experts Cheryl Dobbertin and Andrew Hossack will discuss—and help resolve—the most common myths and misconceptions surrounding the ELA standards that have sprung up in schools. Their practical advice will help educators better align their instruction to the goals of the standards.
Oct. 23 @ 4 p.m. ET
Common Core: Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum
Literacy experts Donna Ogle and Laura Lang will provide an overview of the expectations under the common-core standards for cross-curricular literacy development. The presenters will offer specific examples of how content-area teachers can collaborate to incorporate reading and writing activities into their classrooms.
Nov. 14 @ 4:30 p.m. ET
