Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards
Instructor Name: Dr. Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Facilitator Name: Professor Steven Dahl
Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday – Friday
Address: Virtual Education Software
16201 E Indiana Ave, Suite 1450
Spokane, WA 99216
Technical Support: email@example.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 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.
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.
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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 email@example.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
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/
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.
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
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.