Writing, Technology Integration, and the Common Core State Standards

This presentation is an introduction to the Common Core State Standards with a special focus on writing and technology.

1. Writing, Technology Integration, and the Common Core State Standards Justin Olmanson, PhD University of Illinois Urbana Champaign May 22,2013
2. Writing, Technology, and the CCSS • CCSS: A genesis and timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
3. Writing, Technology, and the CCSS • CCSS: A genesis and timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
4. A brief history of the CCSS Sept 2009 • Draft 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)
5. A brief history of the CCSS
6. A brief history of the CCSS
7. A brief history of the CCSS the Standards are (1) 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.
8. A brief history of the CCSS
9. The CCSS Writing Standards Grade 3
10. The CCSS Writing Standards Text Types and Purposes CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.1 Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons.
11. The CCSS Writing Standards Text Types and Purposes CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.2 Write informative/explanatory texts to examine a topic and convey ideas and information clearly.
12. The CCSS Writing Standards Text Types and Purposes CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences.
13. The CCSS Writing Standards Production and Distribution of Writing CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.4 With guidance and support from adults, produce writing in which the development and organization are appropriate to task and purpose.
14. The CCSS Writing Standards Production and Distribution of Writing CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.5 With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing.
15. The CCSS Writing Standards Production and Distribution of Writing CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.6 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.
16. The CCSS Writing Standards Research to Build and Present Knowledge CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.7 Conduct short research projects that build knowledge about a topic.
17. The CCSS Writing Standards Research to Build and Present Knowledge 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)
18. The CCSS Writing Standards Range of Writing CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.10 Write routinely 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.
19. CCSS and Assessment
20. CCSS and Assessment
21. CCSS and Assessment PARCC received an $186 million grant to support the development and design of the next-generation assessment system.
22. CCSS and Assessment
23. CCSS and Assessment New K-12 assessments will build a pathway 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.
24. CCSS and Assessment 2 Summative Assessment Components: Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) 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.
25. CCSS and Assessment 2 Interim Assessment Components: Early Assessment designed 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
26. CCSS and Assessment
27. CCSS and Assessment
28. CCSS and Assessment
29. CCSS and Assessment The 31-state SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium was 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.
30. CCSS and Assessment To develop a set of comprehensive and 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
31. CCSS and Assessment
32. CCSS and Assessment
33. CCSS and Assessment
34. CCSS and Assessment
35. CCSS and Assessment
36. CCSS and Assessment
37. CCSS and Assessment
38. CCSS and Assessment
39. CCSS and Assessment
40. CCSS and Assessment
41. CCSS and Assessment
42. Writing, Technology, and the CCSS • CCSS: A genesis and timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric and critiques • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar) • Technology: Implementation
43. CCSS: Reasons for Excitement
44. • Less of a focus on content and more about underlying capacities to do knowledge work CCSS: Reasons for Excitement Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
45. • Less about memorization, more about disciplinary orientations and capacities CCSS: Reasons for Excitement Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
46. • Writing is emphasized in almost every subject area , 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
47. • Three main writing types: 1) argument, 2) narrative and 3) informative/explanatory text CCSS: Reasons for Excitement Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
48. Critiques of CCSS
49. Critiques of CCSS Testing will become even more frequent Stephen Krashen Stanford University, Washington Post [link]
50. Critiques of CCSS CCSS are very similar to other previous 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.”
51. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns Jane M. Gangi, PhD [link]
52. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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
53. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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.
54. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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.
55. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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.
56. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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)
57. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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).
58. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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
59. Critiques of CCSS The English Language Arts CCSS: 8 concerns 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
60. Writing, Technology, and the CCSS • CCSS: A genesis and 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
61. Writing as it is Commonly Experienced Based on how teachers 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
62. Writing as it is Commonly Experienced Instead of making holistic, 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
63. Writing as it is Commonly Experienced Students find high-level, abstract 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
64. Writing as it is Commonly Experienced Initiating texts and comments 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
65. Writing as it is Commonly Experienced Formative response and peer 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
66. Writing, Technology, and the CCSS • CCSS: A genesis and 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
67. Traditional Architecture for Classroom Interaction Teaching & Learning as it is Commonly Experienced Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
68. Grading Educator bandwidth Formative Feedback Planning & Administration Teaching & Learning as it is Commonly Experienced Teaching & Instructing (Olmanson & Abrams, 2013)
69. New Learning discursive flows: • Scaffolded peer <-> peer feedback • 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
70. Writing, Technology, and the CCSS • CCSS: A genesis and 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
71. Community, a class discussion space where the social media glue 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
72. Three spaces:
73. Shifts in how students learn, express, produce, and reflect
74. Shifts in evaluation and formative feedback
75. Shifts in how teachers prepare for and approach teaching
76. Shifts in the affect and metaphors associated with academic expression
77. Instant message overlay Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
78. Not (quite) a wall, creating different social ‘stickiness’ Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
79. Not (quite) a blog, from speaking to writing Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
80. Not (quite) LinkedIn, a portfolio space Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
81. Web writing: a semantic editor Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
82. Designing and navigating textual architectures Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
83. While-you-work review criteria (metacognitive move 1) Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
84. Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC Giving feedback on other’s work (metacognitive move 2)
85. Reading feedback against review criteria (metacognitive move 3) Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
86. Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC Applying feedback to one’s work (metacognitive move 4)
87. Detailed, in-text annotations; anonymous or named dialogue Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
88. Checker – Not (quite) a spelling and grammar checker Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
89. The contemporary ‘essay’ – a knowledge representation that can include image, video, audio, dataset Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
90. ‘Knowledge Communities’ where I am ‘Publishing Admin’ … and the projects they are doing Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
91. Status of works, click in to see up to the latest Project members, subgroups Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
92. Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
93. Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
94. Source: Bill Cope, Assess-As-You-Go PI, EPOL Faculty UIUC
95. Bidirectional Writing Analysis Source: Alecia Magnifico, Assess-As-You-Go Team Member, English Faculty UNH
96. Writing, Technology, and the CCSS • CCSS: A genesis and timeline • CCSS: The soaring rhetoric • Writing: From the literature • Writing: Formative assessment • Technology: Case study (Scholar)
97. For More Information • The Common Core State Standards • The Assess-As-You-Go • Bidirectional Analysis • Scholar Project
98. Acknowledgements The research reported here was supported by the Institute 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!
99. Writing, Technology Integration, and the Common Core State Standards Justin Olmanson, PhD olmansju@gmail.com University of Illinois Urbana Champaign May 22,2013