Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards
Instructor Name: Dr.
Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Facilitator Name: Professor
Steven Dahl
Phone: 509-891-7219
Office Hours: 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday – Friday
Email: steve_dahl@virtualeduc.com
Address: Virtual
Education Software
23403 E Mission Avenue, Suite 220F
Liberty Lake,
WA 99019
Technical Support: support@virtualeduc.com
Welcome to Understanding & Implementing Common Core
Standards, an interactive computer-based instruction course designed to
give you a deeper understanding of the rationale for and structure of this particular standards-based framework. In this course you will learn a number of factors that contributed to the overall design
of the Common Core Standards as well as practical pedagogical approaches that
will support practitioners working toward deeper implementation. We will reflect on the instructional “shifts”
emphasized throughout the Common Core Standards and contextualize the shifts
based on the diverse population of students course
participants serve. Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards will also
provide connections to a variety of instructional considerations that will
support implementation regardless of educational context. Practitioners will be provided opportunities
to reflect on current practice and the degree to which they align with the
Common Core Standards as well as with colleagues across a wide range of
settings implementing these standards.
This computer-based
instruction course is a self-supporting program that provides instruction,
structured practice, and evaluation all on your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found in
the Help section of your course.
Course Materials (Online)
Title: Understanding & Implementing
Common Core Standards
Instructor: Dr.
Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Facilitator: Professor
Steven Dahl
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2014,
Revised 2016, Revised 2019
Academic Work
Academic work submitted by
the individual (such as papers, assignments, reports, tests) shall be the
student’s own work or appropriately attributed, in part or in whole, to its
correct source. Submission of commercially prepared (or group prepared)
materials as if they are one’s own work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage
honesty in others by refraining from providing materials or information to
another person with knowledge that these materials or information will be used
improperly.
Violations of these academic standards
will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit
for the course.
This course is designed for anyone working to
implement the Common Core State Standards with a diverse learning population
across the K-12 spectrum. While the
information presented may have relevance to any student-centered educational
setting, it will have the most relevance for K-12 mixed ability classrooms.
Expected Learning Outcomes
As a result of
this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
This course, Understanding
& Implementing Common Core Standards, has been divided into four
chapters. The organization of the course
covers the rationale for and design of the Common Core State Standards, the
“Common Core Mindset” practitioners need for successful implementation, and
what specific actions can be taken for deeper implementation across settings.
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Shifts Resulting From CCSS Implementation
Chapter 2: Developing a CCSS Mindset
Chapter 3: Common Core Mindset in Action
Chapter 4: Thinking Through the Core
In Chapter 2,
we will move past the "what" of standards to identify the underlying
principles teachers need to understand when implementing the CCSS. Teachers who take time to re-examine their
operating principles are in the best position to know how well their approach
aligns with what the authors of the CCSS had in mind when developing the
standards. This is what is referred to
in this course as developing the “CCSS Mindset.” Clarification will be made between “rigor”
and “difficulty” and the implications will be discussed for teachers as they
work to create equitable learning conditions. We will also articulate the difference between
a “fixed” and a “growth” orientation and the implications of each view for
students and teachers. A self-assessment
tool will be used so course participants can determine the priority level to
which course participants and their students believe that ability is
expandable. A seven-step process for
directly teaching students that ability is expandable is also provided.
In Chapter 3,
the emphasis will be on designing accessible learning conditions in partnership
with students. We do this in partnership
with learners in ways that will accelerate their growth toward college, career,
and citizenship. The various ways in
which student and teacher self-efficacy are interconnected will be
discussed. In light of
these interconnections, a four-step process for articulating standards and
increasing student ownership over learning outcomes will be outlined. Additionally, the purpose of and a process for
providing effective prescriptive feedback will be provided. As it pertains to the implementation of the
Common Core Standards, the significance of the emergence of educational
neuroscience and corollary strategies will be outlined. The importance of explicitly teaching academic
language and methods for increasing student ownership of learning across
settings will also be outlined. Participants
will be supported to think through how they will approach students who struggle
when implementing the Common Core Standards and the role of
differentiation.
In Chapter 4,
we will further explore how implementation of the Common Core Standards is
aimed at deepening student comprehension and higher order thinking skills. The difference between a teaching strategy and
a learning strategy will be discussed in conjunction with a particular
implementation strategy, compare and contrast. Specific web-based tools for designing
engaging learning activities using primary source documents and for engaging
students in higher order thinking skills will be provided. The importance of student use of reasoning and
argument in writing across the CCSS is addressed. Course participants will be provided a tool
for further reflection on their own implementation of the standards and support
in planning for any changes identified through reflection.
Each chapter contains additional handouts that cover
specific topics from the chapter in greater depth. They are provided for you to read, ponder, and
apply to the setting in which you work. Some
of the handouts are directly related to the concepts and content of the
specific chapter, but also included are handouts indirectly related to provide
extended learning connections.
Student Expectations
As a student you will be
expected to:
●
Complete all four information sections showing a
competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
●
Complete all four section examinations, showing a
competent understanding of the material presented. You
must obtain an overall score of 70%
or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, and successfully
complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by
college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to
determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
●
Complete a review
of any section on which your examination score was below 50%.
●
Retake any examination, after completing an
information review, to increase that examination score to a minimum of 50%,
making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by
college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to
determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
●
Complete all
course journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word
count shown for each writing assignment.
●
Complete a course
evaluation form at the end of the course.
Examinations
At the end of each course
section, you will be expected to complete an examination designed to assess
your knowledge. You may take these exams a total of three times. Your last
score will save, not the highest score.
After your third attempt, each examination will lock and not allow
further access. The average from your
exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final grade since
your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written
required writing assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in
the course syllabus, will affect your grade.
As this is a self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review
course information as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any
examinations until you have answered all questions. If you try to exit the exam
before you complete all questions, your information will be lost. You are
expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
Writing
Assignments
All
assignments are reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written
assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus
for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined
by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other
fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines which were sent as
an attachment with your original course link. You should also refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum which was sent as
an attachment with your original course link, to determine if you have any
writing assignments in addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and
Journal Article Summations (JAS). If you
do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will
also apply.
Your writing assignments must
meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your final
citations as part of your word count. In
other words, the question and citations are not to be used as
a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking
Questions
There
are four CTQs that you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words
(maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you
gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong
understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on REQUIRED
ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will bring up a
screen where you may enter your essay.
Prior to course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your
essay, but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You
must click SAVE before you write another essay or move on to another part of
the course.
Journal Article Summations
You
are required to write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three
peer-reviewed or scholarly journal articles (one article per JAS), written by
an author with a Ph.D., Ed.D. or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS
section in the “Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs, abstracts,
news articles or similar are not acceptable). Your article choice must relate
specifically to the discussion topic listed in each individual JAS. You
will choose a total of three relevant articles (one article per JAS) and write
a thorough
summary of the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum
of 200 words with a 400
word maximum per JAS). Be sure to provide the URL or the journal name,
volume, date, and any other critical information to allow the facilitator to
access and review each article.
To write your summary, click on REQUIRED
ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A writing program
will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When you are ready
to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at
any point to edit your summaries but you must be
certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information
on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE before you write another summary
or move on to another part of the course.
Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards has been
developed with the widest possible audience in mind because the core principles
and practices of implementation need to be applied across K-12 settings. The primary goal of the course is to provide
the rationale for the Common Core Standards (the why) and what research-based
pedagogical approaches will help practitioners implement these standards in
their unique context. The course
acknowledges that practitioners are at varying stages of implementing these
standards, so opportunities for self-reflection, learning about cross-cutting
implementation strategies, and action planning are based on each course
participant’s current practice and context.
Steve Dahl, the instructor of record, has served as a
district-level administrator overseeing a variety of federal programs, such as
Special Education, English Language Learning (ELL), and Title 1, for over 10
years. He
currently serves as a school administrator overseeing programs for students who
are provided academic and social emotional learning opportunities in very
restrictive settings, including regional juvenile justice facilities. He has a master’s degree in Special Education
and has completed post-master’s coursework to obtain a Washington State
Administrator Credential, which certifies him to oversee programs ranging from
preschool settings through 12th grade (as well as post-secondary
vocational programs for 18–21-year-old students). He has 22 years of combined experience in
resource-room special education classrooms, inclusion support in a
comprehensive high school, and provision of support to adults with disabilities
in accessing a wide range of in-school and community learning
opportunities. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or
examination questions.
Pamela Bernards has 30 years
of combined experience in diverse PK–8 and high school settings as a teacher
and an administrator. In addition to
these responsibilities, she was the founding director of a K-8 after-school
care program and founder of a pre-school program for infants to 4-year-olds. As
a principal, her school was named a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon
School of Excellence in 1992, as was the school at which she served as
curriculum coordinator in 2010. She currently serves as a principal in a
PK3–Grade 8 school. Areas of interest include curriculum, research-based
teaching practices, staff development, assessment, data-driven instruction, and
instructional intervention (remediation and gifted/talented). She received a
doctorate in Leadership and Professional Practice from Trevecca Nazarene
University. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have
course content or examination questions.
You
may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl at steve_dahl@virtualeduc.com or calling him at 509-891-7219, Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages will be answered within 24
hours. Phone conferences will be
limited to ten minutes per student, per day, given that this is a self-paced
instructional program. Please do not contact the instructor about technical
problems, course glitches, or other issues that involve the operation of the
course.
Technical Questions
If you have questions or problems related to the
operation of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists
please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your course.
If you
need personal assistance then email support@virtualeduc.com or call (509) 891-7219. When contacting technical support, please
know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the
Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be seated in front of the
computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s
website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further questions about
the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum
regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information, Items to be
Submitted and how to submit your completed information. The addendum will also
note any additional course assignments that you may be required to complete
that are not listed
in this syllabus.
Bibliography
(Suggested Readings)
Abadie, M.,
& Bista, K. (2018). Understanding the stages of
concerns: Implementation of the Common Core State Standards in Louisiana
schools. Journal of School Administration
Research and Development, 3(1), 57–66. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1190934.pdf
Achieve
the Core: Resources developed by Student Achievement Partners. Free, ready-to-use classroom resources designed to help educators understand and
implement the Common Core and other college and career ready standards. http://achievethecore.org/
Aligned. Recognize Alignment:
Deepen your knowledge of the Shifts and Standards and learn what to look for in
aligned materials. Retireved on 9/7/19 from: .https://achievethecore.org/aligned/
Coherence Map for Common Core State
Standards in Mathematics: http://achievethecore.org/page/1118/coherence-map
Deep Dive Into the Math Shifts: http://achievethecore.org/page/400/deep-dive-into-the-math-shifts
Instructional Practice Toolkit and
Classroom Videos: The Instructional Practice Toolkit is designed for use by
teachers and those who support teachers to build understanding and experience
with instruction aligned to College and Career Readiness (CCR) standards in mathematics
and ELA/literacy. http://achievethecore.org/category/1193/instructional-practice-toolkit-and-classroom-videos
Lesson Planning Resources: Rather
than focusing exclusively on literacy skills, the Common Core State Standards
set expectations for the complexity of texts students need to be able to read
to be ready for college and careers. This collection includes tools to help
with each step and research to support teachers' understanding of text
complexity. To plan a close-reading lesson with text complexity in mind, use
the Lesson Planning Tool. http://achievethecore.org/lesson-planning-tool/
Progressions Documents for the Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics: http://achievethecore.org/page/254/progressions-documents-for-the-common-core-state-standards-for-mathematics
Understand How CCSS Aligned
Assessment is Different: All of the mini-assessments
presented are designed to highlight the math Shifts of Focus, Coherence, and
Rigor. The resources below explain what each of the Shifts look like in
CCSS-aligned assessment. Learn more about the math Shifts. http://achievethecore.org/page/2732/understand-how-ccss-aligned-assessment-is-different
Understand the Common Core State
Standards Shifts in Mathematics: http://achievethecore.org/page/900/the-common-core-state-standards-shifts-in-mathematics
Understand the Mathematics Tasks: http://achievethecore.org/page/2738/understand-the-mathematics-tasks
Understanding the Shifts: http://achievethecore.org/category/419/the-shifts
Akkus, M.
(2016). The Common Core State Standards for mathematics. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1),
49–54. doi:10.21890/ijres.61754
American Federation of Teachers
(2016). A teacher’s guide to the Common
Core: A resource guide for success in English language arts for teachers who
work with English learners and students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://achievethecore.org/page/2892/a-teacher-s-guide-to-the-common-core-a-resource-guide-for-success-in-english-language-arts-for-teachers-who-work-with-english-learners-and-students-with-disabilities
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy
of educational objectives: Handbook 1. New York, NY: David McKay.
Brookhart, S. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Brophy, J. (1998, May). Failure syndrome students. Retrieved on 9/7/19 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED419625.pdf
California’s
Department of Education. (n.d.). Resilience—Strengthening protective
factors and developmental assets.
Retrieved on 9/7/19 from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/yd/re/
Center for Applied Special Technology
(CAST). http://www.cast.org/
CEEDAR
Center. Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability
and Reform (CEEDAR). Retrieved on 9/7/19 from: https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/
Center for Parent Information and
Resources. Resources on the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) in parent-friendly language. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/essa-reauth/
Common
Core State Standards
National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. Common Core State Standards.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Myths vs.
Facts: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/myths-vs-facts/
Read the
ELA Standards: The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts &
Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (“the
standards”) represent the next generation of K–12 standards designed to prepare
all students for success in college, career, and life by the time they graduate
from high school. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
Read the
Mathematics Standards: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
Read the
Standards: http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/
Standards
in Your State: http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
What
Parents Should Know: http://www.corestandards.org/what-parents-should-know/
Common Core
State Standards Appendix A: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
CCSSO
General Resources
A
beginners guide to text complexity. Retrieved on
9/7/19 from: https://www.generationready.com/a-beginners-guide-to-text-complexity/
Navigating Text Complexity.
Retrieved on 9/7/19 from: http://navigatingtextcomplexity.kaulfussec.com/
New
Research on Text Complexity: Supplemental Information for Appendix
A of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy:
New Research on Text Complexity (2017). http://www.corestandards.org/assets/E0813_Appendix_A_New_Research_on_Text_Complexity.pdf
Science
SCASS States. Using Crosscutting Concepts to Prompt Student Responses. CCSSO
Science SCASS Committee on Classroom Assessment. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED586953.pdf
Teaching to the
Core. Retrieved on 9/7/19 from: https://ccsso.org/resource-library/teaching-core
Data Wise Project. Harvard
University. https://datawise.gse.harvard.edu/
Differentiation Central provided by
the Institutes on Academic Diversity. Curry School of Education, University of
Virginia. http://differentiationcentral.com/model/
Dweck, C. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Ecker,
A. (2016). Evidence-based practices for teachers: A synthesis of trustworthy
online resources. Insights into Learning
Disabilities, 13(1), 19–37.
EngageNY.
(New York State Common Core State Standards). https://www.engageny.org/common-core-curriculum
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). https://www.ed.gov/essa
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading.
Newark, DE: International Reading.
Francis, E. (2016). Now that’s a good question! How to promote cognitive
rigor through classroom questioning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Frizell,
M., & Dunderdale, T. (2015). A compendium of research on the Common Core
State Standards. Center for Education
Policy.
This updated compendium includes over
85 research studies focused on the Common Core State Standards and encompasses
research from multiple sources, such as government entities, independent
organizations, and peer-reviewed publications from academic journals and other
outlets. Each study in the compendium has been summarized and categorized
across nine topic areas. A URL link to the original research is also provided
when possible. The compendium is presented below both as a single document and
as individual PDFs of the nine topic areas. The compendium will be updated
regularly as the body of CCSS-related research grows. This latest version was
updated as of February 10, 2015. https://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=438
Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York,
NY: Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New
York, NY: Bantam.
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., Stecher, B. M., Naftel, S., Robbins,
M., Thompson, L. E., . . . Opfer, V. D.
(2016). What supports do teachers need to
help students meet Common Core State Standards for mathematics? Findings from
the American teacher and American school leader panels. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1404-1.html
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability
of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. doi:10.1037/stl0000021
Hattie, J., Fisher, D., & Frey,
N. (2016). Visible learning for literacy.
Retrieved from https://visible-learning.org/2016/03/visible-learning-for-literacy-hattie/
Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hull, T. H., Miles, R. E. H., & Balkan, D. S.
(2012). The Common Core mathematics
practices: Transforming practices through team leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Institutes of Educational Sciences
(IES). Assisting students struggling with
mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for
elementary and middle schools. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide/2
International
Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy
implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards [White
paper]. Retrieved 9-6-19 from : https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ela-common-core-state-standards-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=b1a4af8e_8
International
Literacy Association (ILA). A global
advocacy and membership organization that transforms lives through literacy
across 75 countries. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/
Jennings, J. (2012). Why
have we fallen short and where do we go from here? Center for Educational Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=392
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based
learning: The new paradigm of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Corwin.
Johnson,
T., & Wells, L. (2017). English language learner teacher effectiveness and
the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(23). Retrieved on
9-6-19 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137865.pdf
Kaufman, J. H., Opfer,
V. D, Bongard, M., & Pane, J. D (2018). Changes in what teachers know and do in the
Common Core era: American teacher panel findings from 2015 to 2017. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2658.html
Kaufman, J. H., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Naftel, S.,
Robbins, M., Thompson, L. E., . . . Opfer,
V. D. (2016). What supports do teachers
need to help students meet Common Core State Standards for English language
arts and literacy? Findings from the American teacher and American school
leader panels. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1374-1.html
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunities to change. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Lee, J., & Wu, Y. (2017). Is the
Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes in state standards,
school practices, and student achievement.
Education Policy Analysis Archives,
25(35). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2834
Letwinsky,
K., & Cavender, M. (2018). Shifting
preservice teachers’ beliefs and understandings to support pedagogical change
in mathematics. International Journal of Research in Education
and Science, 4(1), 106–120.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1169843.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2018, February). Teacher Training, Evaluation, and
Compensation intervention report: National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards Certification. Retrieved from https://whatworks.ed.gov
Marchitello,
M., & Wilhelm, M. (2014). The cognitive science behind the Common Core.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561076
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for
effective teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Heflebower,
T. (2011). The highly engaged classroom.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Medina, J. (2008) Brain
rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
McCray, E.D., Kamman,
M., Brownell, M., & Robinson, S.
(2017). High-leverage practices and evidence-based practices: A
promising pair. University of Florida,
Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform
Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/portfolio/high-leverage-practices-and-evidence-based-practices-a-promising-pair/
McLeskey,
J., Barringer, M-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M.,
. . . Ziegler, D. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in
special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR
Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC-HLP-Web.pdf
Moss, C., & Brookhart, S. (2012). Learning targets: Helping students aim for
understanding in today’s lesson. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
National Association for the
Education of Young Children. (2015). Developmentally appropriate practice
and the Common Core State Standards: Framing the issues. Research brief.
Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/15_developmentally_appropriate_practice_and_the_common_core_state_standards.pdf
National Center on Accessing the
General Curriculum. Accessible Educational Materials for K-12 Educators. http://aem.cast.org/about/quick-start-educators.html#.XDAF3VxKjIU
National Center on Accessing the
General Curriculum. Access to the general
curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief legal interpretation. http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-curriculum-access-legal-interpretation.html#.XDALdlxKjIU
National Center on Intensive
Intervention. https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools
National Center on Intensive
Intervention. Reading Comprehension Resources. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/ReadCompExample_508.pdf
Oberman,
M., & Boudett, K. P. Eight steps to becoming datawise. Educational
Leadership, 73(3). Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov15/vol73/num03/Eight-Steps-to-Becoming-Data-Wise.aspx
Oregon Department of Education.
(n.d.). Apply the concepts. Retrieved
from http://oregonliteracypd.uoregon.edu/topic/academic-language
Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PAARC). http://parcc-assessment.org/
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
and Sons.
Reeves, D. (2010). Transforming
professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Reeves, D., Wiggs, M., Lassiter, C., Piercy, T.,
Ventura, S., & Bell, B. (2011). Navigating
implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Engelwood,
CO: Lead and Learn Press.
Schlechty, P. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working
on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically
improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Silver, H., Dewing, R., & Perini, M. (2012). The core six: Essential strategies for
achieving excellence with the Common Core. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/about/
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis,
J. (2008, January). Enhancing student learning. Retrieved on
9/7/19 from: http://downloads.pearsonassessments.com/ati/downloads/enhancingstudent_dadmn01-08.pdf
Resources for Educators: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/educators/
Sousa, D. (2010). Mind,
brain, and education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How
neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Stiggins,
R., & Chappuis, J. (2008, January). Enhancing student learning. Retrieved
from http://dr078.k12.sd.us/Library/PLC%20Resources/Enhancing%20Student%20Learning%20Through%20Formative%20Assessment.pdf
Swinney, R., & Velasco, P. (2011). Connecting content and academic language for
English learners and struggling students grades 2–6. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M.
(2014). A differentiated approach to the
Common Core: How do I help a broad range of learners
succeed with challenging curriculum? Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
U.S. Department of Education, Every
Student Succeeds Act. Link to resources: https://www.ed.gov/essa
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). School connectedness. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/connectedness.htm
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. TIMSS 2007 results. National
Center for Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp
University of Oregon’s Brain Development Lab. (2008). Changing brains: Effects of experience on
human brain development [DVD]. Available from www.changingbrains.org
Webb, N. (2002) Depth
of knowledge (DOK) levels in 4 content areas. Retrieved from http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu/normw/state%20alignment%20page%20one.htm
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Willis, J. (2006). Research-based
strategies to ignite student learning: Insights from a neurologist and
classroom teacher. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wormelli, M. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing and
grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Zinski,
C., & Rea, D. (2016). The Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA): What it means for educators of students at risk. National Youth At-Risk Journal, 2(1). doi:10.20429/nyarj.2016.020101
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic
conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content
understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Course
content is updated every three years.
Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or
may have changed. Please type the title
of the organization into the command line of any Internet browser search window
and you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any new
link to the corresponding organization’s web home page.
9/9/19 jn