Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (August 2011) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

Common Core

From:

Norm Stahl <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:07:35 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (243 lines)

 From Educ Week


Focus on: Curriculum
Academics Find Common Standards Fit for College
But Academics Maintain Some Skills Are Missing
By Catherine Gewertz



Instructors of entry-level college courses consider the common 
standards in mathematics and English/language arts good reflections 
of the skills students must master to be successful in courses in a 
range of disciplines, according to a survey released last week.

The study, "Reaching the Goal," aims to verify a key premise of the 
academic standards that have been adopted by all but five states: 
that they prepare students for college by defining the skills and 
knowledge that are crucial to success in entry-level coursework. 
Although college instructors served on the panels that crafted the 
standards, the new survey is believed to be the only study to test 
that premise by putting the question directly to higher-education 
faculty members.

"It suggests strong support for the validity of the common-core 
standards, in terms of their applicability to college courses and 
their importance, and the appropriate level of challenge for students 
to be successful," said Michael W. Kirst, a professor emeritus of 
education at Stanford University who focuses on college-readiness 
issues and serves on the board of directors of the research group 
that produced the report. "Nobody has cross-checked it with the 
actual people who teach these courses, until now."

Rating the Common Core

Researchers asked college instructors whether the common standards in 
English/language arts and mathematics are applicable to the 
entry-level courses they teach. Instructors who found them applicable 
then rated the standards, and substandards, on a scale of 1 to 4, 
from least important to most important for students to master in 
order to succeed in the course. Survey participants rated a total of 
113 standards and substandards in English/language arts and 200 in 
math.
SOURCE: Educational Policy Improvement Center

In conducting the study, a team led by David T. Conley, the chief 
executive officer of the Educational Policy Improvement Center, in 
Eugene, Ore., posed two types of questions to the instructors of 
1,897 courses at 944 two- and four-year colleges across the country.

First, the "applicability" question: Do the high school standards 
reflect material that will be covered or reviewed, or considered a 
prerequisite, in your course?

If instructors answered yes, they went on to the "importance" 
questions, rating on a scale of 1 to 4 how crucial mastery of each 
broad "strand" or "conceptual category" of standards-and scores of 
standards and substatements within them-is to success in their 
courses.
Across Disciplines

The instructors in the study come not just from the math and 
English/language arts disciplines. They teach courses in other 
general education areas such as science and social studies, as well 
as courses often associated with career pathways in health care, 
computer technology, and business management. All were asked to 
review both the math and English/language arts standards, on the 
theory that many skills articulated there were meant to cut across 
the disciplines.

Standards in English/language arts earned strong ratings for 
importance, with every area except one rated between 3 and 3.3. The 
math standards received somewhat lower ratings, mostly between 2.6 
and 3, a difference that might be attributable, Mr. Conley said, to 
their greater degree of specialization.

Digging deeper into the results yields variations that shed light on 
the importance instructors from the different disciplines place on 
the 300-plus ideas they evaluated. Those variations, Mr. Conley said, 
can inform how curriculum is designed for the standards and how they 
are taught and tested.

"When we start thinking about what to teach and what to test, the 
variations become far more important than the generalizations," said 
Mr. Conley. Those variations suggest that even students who don't 
master every standard can excel in college, he said.

"Are you better off with a strong core of knowledge? Of course," Mr. 
Conley said. "The more you know, the more options you have in 
college. But even if you don't master all the standards, you still 
have good options."

The math standards to earn the highest and most interdisciplinary 
applicability ratings were those in the "mathematical practices," 
which include skills such as applying math knowledge to everyday 
problems. Even some English/language arts instructors found those 
standards relevant to their courses, with two in 10 giving the 
thumbs-up. Six in 10 of those in social science did so as well, along 
with three-quarters or more of those in the other disciplines.

In English/language arts, the speaking and listening skills were the 
ones seen as the most highly applicable by instructors across the 
disciplines. Standards in literary reading got somewhat lower 
applicability ratings. But those focusing on informational reading 
were seen as highly relevant. Instructors from non-English/language 
arts courses, in particular, saw the standards for reading in 
specific disciplines, such as science and social studies, as 
applicable to their courses.
Prioritizing Skills

When it came to rating the importance of the standards and statements 
within the standards, some were seen as far more important than 
others.


Within the speaking and listening standards, for instance, 
instructors said it was very important for students to be able to 
"come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material 
under study [and] explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to 
evidence from texts and other research ... to stimulate a thoughtful, 
well-reasoned exchange of ideas." They placed less value on the 
ability to "evaluate a speaker's point of view, reasoning, and use of 
evidence and rhetoric, assessing the stance, premises, links among 
ideas, word choice, points of emphasis, and tone used."

Within math practices, raters placed the most value on "making sense 
of problems and persevering in solving them" and the least on 
"looking for and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning," though 
both still received above-average-importance ratings. Within the 
geometry standard, instructors placed more importance on using volume 
formulas to solve problems than on the ability to prove that all 
circles are similar.

The appraisals of the math standards by instructors in varied fields 
are "bound to raise the question" of how much math students need to 
succeed in various college majors and fields of work, a question that 
has been debated by experts.

"Many subjects don't require math beyond Algebra 2," said Mr. Kirst 
of Stanford. "This [study] expands the dialogue and perspective on 
that to many other teachers. Math teachers want everybody to know a 
lot of math, but they're not the ones that have a handle on what is 
needed in all these other fields."

Another central idea of the standards-that they are rigorous enough 
to prepare students for college-was explored in an optional question. 
Ninety-six percent of the responding instructors agreed that the 
standards were at a level of rigor sufficient for preparation for 
their courses.

But even as the study buttressed key ideas about the standards' 
reflection of college readiness, some of its strongest language was 
reserved for areas they do not cover. Mr. Conley, widely known for 
his work detailing strategies and habits of mind that are important 
for success in college, such as persistence and study skills, 
cautioned against viewing the standards as a complete recipe for 
college preparation.

"Defining a set of standards as 'college and career ready' that 
overlook ... dimensions beyond content knowledge will result in 
assuming that students who have achieved a particular score on the 
common assessments [of the standards] are fully ready for college and 
career studies when, in fact, they may possess only a subset of the 
knowledge and skills, strategies and techniques necessary to be fully 
ready for postsecondary success," he and his co-authors write in the 
study.

Donna Ekal, the associate provost for undergraduate studies at the 
University of Texas at El Paso, agreed that students' mastery of 
academic standards is a misleading gauge of their readiness for 
college or work. It's important to know what college instructors 
consider crucial to success in their courses, she said, but 
researchers should also ask students what skills proved pivotal to 
their college success.

"If you asked students, they would certainly say content is 
important, but we hear an awful lot, too, about time management and 
about unrealistic expectations. Many students expect college to be 
like a 13th year of high school," said Ms. Ekal, whose 23,000-student 
campus has worked for 20 years with local school districts, city 
officials, and the community college to align K-12 work with college.

"I think it would be especially important to ask the students that 
did well in high school and came to college and weren't so 
successful, what was the disconnect?"

Creating assessments that are informed by college instructors' views 
involves an inherent "tension" in ensuring that the tests cover what 
is important to learn in high school, without shortchanging the more 
narrowly focused math and literacy skills that meet higher 
education's definition of what's required for success in entry-level, 
credit-bearing courses, said Michael Cohen, the president of Achieve, 
a Washington-based group that has worked with colleges and K-12 to 
shape academic expectations and tests for states in its American 
Diploma Project network.

A key tenet of the common assessments, which two groups of states are 
designing for the common standards, is that colleges could support 
their use for course-placement decisions. Achieve is a 
project-management partner of one of those two state consortia, the 
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career, or 
PARCC.

Achieve's research showed that college-placement tests in math tend 
to focus heavily on algebra, since that is often the first 
credit-bearing course in college, Mr. Cohen said. Consequently, a 
high school math test designed for the standards will have to focus 
sufficiently on algebra to predict success in first-year, 
credit-bearing courses, but also must include other areas of math in 
the standards, he said. Number and quantity, for instance, was an 
area of math that received as high an applicability rating from the 
college instructors in the study as algebra did. Statistics and 
probability was close behind.
Guidance for Policymakers

As school districts and states work to reshape curricula and tests to 
reflect the common standards, college instructors' views of the 
relative importance of the standards-and more narrowly focused goals 
within each standard-can help them prioritize, Mr. Kirst said.

"This is very useful for state policymakers like me," said Mr. Kirst, 
the president of the California state board of education. "We can't 
cover all the standards in the common core equally. We cannot test 
all of them equally. As you look through what people think is more or 
less important, it gives you some guidance as to what may be the 
things you have to teach and assess in depth versus those you assess 
in less depth or not at all."

Coverage of "deeper learning" that will prepare students with the 
skills and knowledge needed to succeed in a rapidly changing world is 
supported in part by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett 
Foundation, at www.hewlett.org.

Vol. 31, Issue 02, Pages 1,12-13

FULL STUDY AT https://www.epiconline.org/standardsvaliditystudy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager