No description available.

Historically, disenfranchised students in the American education system have been promised opportunity through successful participation in the school system. These promises are voiced in legislation like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and by executive actions like President Obama’s Race to the Top Initiative. Evidenced by the continuing education gap, the promises of success through education continue to evade many American children across the nation, especially students who are most in need of the support promised in these quixotic visions of opportunity. This is a qualitative interview study that aimed to gather the voices of educators involved in the implementation of the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards (ELA CCSS) to investigate the potential benefit of an information loop during the time period Bridges (2009) labeled the Neutral Zone, a period when change agents can reflect on and possibly enhance the implementation of an initiative. The study aimed to answer the following research question: What are the experiences of teachers, school principals, and district-level administrators during the transition to the ELA CCSS in three public school districts in the greater Los Angeles area? The narratives constructed throughout the interview process with the study’s participants point to the value of establishing an information loop during the Neutral Zone as an untapped vein of knowledge in the change process. This information can potentially be used to take inventory of the trajectory an implementation process has taken.

Each of these four units use the exemplar texts outlined by CCSS and highlight four different genres in Literature: Fiction, Nonfiction, Poetry, and Drama.; The purpose of this project design Problem- Based Learning (PBL) Units that would meet the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for a 9/10 grade English Language Arts (ELA) classroom. The CCSS, newly adopted into Florida public schools, were created to provide students with the skills necessary to be successful in both higher education and ultimately, the global economy. PBL has been practiced in some of the country's leading medical schools for decades, and recently, has begun to play a leading role in designing math and science curricula. Until now, few attempts have been made incorporating the structures of Problem- Based Learning into the secondary English Language Arts classroom. My intention in tapping PBL was to utilize a tool that would foster critical thinking skills and create real world relevance in the curriculum for my future ELA students. With the ever increasing shift into a more inquiry- based teaching approach in today's schools, these units will not only meet the CCSS, but they will provide real world application in both research and collaborative learning. PBL utilizes an "ill-structured scenario" that provides the student with a role that gives them ownership into solving a problem (Lambros, 2004). In order to create these scenarios, I examined the 9/10 Grade exemplars offered throughout the CCSS. I then used the CCSS to identify which standards would be met by each unit. I also evaluated the Brevard County District calendar to identify the constraints on time that a teacher might typically encounter in the classroom. The result is four PBL units that meet the CCSS for Grade 9/10 English Language Arts. I developed these units with the idea that they would be the main methods of instruction in an ELA classroom and therefore provided time frames for each unit to be completed. The time frames account for research, project completion and presentation.

No description available.

The research study investigated the history of the curriculum standards movement in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the context of the national standards movement in order to explain how and why the Commonwealth of Virginia arrived at the decision not to adopt the Common Core State Standards based on descriptive evidence. The study utilized a qualitative methodology with a two-phase data collection process. First, documents from the Virginia Board of Education and the Virginia Department of Education were collected and analyzed using the constant comparative method (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). Second, data were collected from major figures in the history of Virginia public education over the last 20 years, including former Superintendents of Public Instruction, through in-person interviews. Data from the interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). An interview protocol was developed, tested for content validity, and piloted prior to conducting the interviews. Categories that emerged from the data analysis for both research questions were identified and descriptive evidence was presented related to both research questions. Three major conclusions from the study were identified and discussed that appeared to influence Virginia's decision not to participate in the Common Core State Standards: the Virginia Standards of Learning are an institutionalized system; the Virginia Standards of Learning had bipartisan political support; and confidence in the Standards of Learning outweighed confidence in the Common Core State Standards. / Ed. D.

<p>Utilizing action research as the methodology, this study was developed with the ultimate goal of describing and reflecting on my implementation of one aspect of the <i>Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (</i><i>CCSSM)</i> in an algebra classroom. This implementation focused on the Problem-Solving Standard of Mathematical Practice (SMP) as described in <i>CCSSM </i>(Making sense of problems and persevere in solving them). The research question that guided my work was the following: How is the <i>Common Core State Standards for Mathematics </i>(<i>CCSSM</i>) Problem-Solving Mathematical Standard enacted in an algebra class while using a <i>Standards-</i>based curriculum to teach a quadratics unit?</p> <p>I explored this by focusing on the following sub-questions:</p> <ul> <li>Q1. What opportunities to enact the components of the Problem-Solving Mathematical Standard are provided by the written curriculum? </li> <li>Q2. In what way does the teacher’s implementation of the quadratics unit diminish or enhance the opportunities to enact the components of the Problem-Solving Mathematical Standard provided by the written curriculum? </li> <li>Q3. In what ways does the teacher’s enactment of problem-solving opportunities change over the course of the unit? </li> </ul> <p>Reviewing the literature related to the relevant learning theories (sociocultural theory, the situated perspective, and communities of practice), I outlined the history of <i>CCSSM, </i>National Council of Teachers of Mathematics <i>(</i>NCTM), National Research Council (NRC), and the <i>No Child Left Behind Act of 2001</i>. Exploring the details of <i>CCSSM</i>’s Standards of Mathematical Content (SMCs) and Standards of Mathematical Practice (SMPs), I discussed problem solving, the Problem Solving Components (PSCs) listed in the Problem-Solving SMP of <i>CCSSM</i>, teaching through problem solving, and <i>Standards-</i>based curricula, such as <i>College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM)</i> which is the algebra curricula I chose for this study. </p> <p>There are many definitions of the construct problem solving. <i>CCSSM </i>describes this construct in unique ways specifically related to student engagement. The challenge for teachers is to not only make sense of <i>CCSSM</i>’s definition of problem solving and its components, but also to enact it in the classroom so that mathematical understanding is enhanced. For this reason, studies revealing how classroom teachers implemented <i>CCSSM</i>, especially in terms of problem solving, are necessary. </p> <p>The Critical Theoretic/Action Research Paradigm is often utilized by researchers trying to improve their own practice; thus, I opted for an action research methodology because it could be conducted by the practitioner. These methods of data collection and analysis were employed in order to capture the nature of changes made in the classroom involving my teaching practice. I chose action research because this study met the key tenets of research in action, namely, a collaborative partnership concurrent with action, and a problem-solving approach. </p> <p>While I knew how I wanted to change my classroom teaching style, implementing the change was harder than anticipated. From the onset, I never thought of myself as an absolute classroom authority, because I always maintained a relaxed classroom atmosphere where students were made to feel comfortable. However, this study showed me that students did view my presence as the authority and looked to me for correct answers, for approval, and/or for reassurance that they were on the right track. My own insecurities of not knowing how to respond to students in a way to get them to interact more with their group and stop looking to me for answers, while not being comfortable forcing students to talk in front of their peers, complicated this study. While it was easy to anticipate how I would handle situations in the classroom, it was hard to change in the moment. </p> <p>The research revealed the following salient findings: while the written curriculum contained numerous opportunities for students to engage with the Focal PSCs, the teacher plays a crucial role in enacting the written curriculum. Through the teacher’s enactment of this curriculum, opportunities for students to engage with the Focal<i> </i>PSCs can be taken away, enacted as written, or enhanced all by the teacher. Additionally, change was gradual and difficult due to the complexities of teaching. Reflection and constant adapting are crucial when it comes to changing my practice. </p> As a classroom teacher, I value the importance of the changes that need to be made in the classroom to align with <i>CCSSM</i>. I feel that by being both a teacher and a researcher, my work can bridge the gap between research and classroom practice.

Student achievement in mathematics continues to be compared internationally, with the results indicating that students in other developed countries are outperforming students from the United States. Mathematical modeling is an expectation in both the new Common Core State Standards and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This study seeks to find the differences in expectations for students in mathematical modeling between the United States and Singapore, which is one country that regularly outperforms the U.S. on international assessments. Since teachers and students regularly use textbooks for curriculum, homework, and other resources, this study compares two textbooks from the U.S. with the high school series adopted in Singapore. More specifically, the aim of this study is to compare frameworks of mathematical modeling and code to-be-solved problems in algebra textbooks using characteristics common to all frameworks. While the U.S. textbooks explicitly state which word problems address the expectation of mathematical modeling, the Singapore program does not have this attribute. So, an equivalent chapter (in objective and number of to-be-solved problems) in all three textbooks will be coded for evidence of the expectations of mathematical modeling. The results of this study indicate that no standard framework for mathematical modeling exists, but there are multiple areas of overlap. This study found that the ratio of word problems to numerical problems was comparable in the three textbooks, although the U.S. algebra textbooks used in a one-year course had the same number of to-be-solved problems as the four-year Singapore series. Results also indicate that to-be-solved problems in the Singapore textbook series do not provide students with more explicit mathematical modeling instructions than do the U.S. textbooks. This study also found that the interpretation of to-be-solved problems differed according to the experience of the rater. None of the textbooks in this study provided to-be-solved problems that asked students to engage in the mathematical modeling cycle as delineated by any of the four frameworks.

Applying mathematics to real world problems, mathematical modeling, has risen in priority with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Teachers are at the core of the implementation of the standards, but resources to help them teach modeling are relatively undeveloped. This multicase study explored the perspectives of teachers regarding mathematical modeling pedagogy (the modeling cycle), instructional materials, and professional collaboration, with the assumption that understanding teachers’ views will assist authors, publishers, teacher educators, and administrators to develop better support for modeling instruction. A purposeful sample of six high school mathematics teachers from a variety of school settings across the country was interviewed using a semi-structured protocol. A conceptual framework developed by applying the theories of Guy Brousseau (1997) to the modeling literature guided the analysis. Qualitative methods including elements of grounded theory were used to analyze the data and synthesize the study’s results. The research showed that teachers structure their instruction consistently with the modeling cycle framework, but it also uncovered the need for additional detail and structure, particularly in the initial steps when students make sense of the problem and formulate an approach. Presenting a modeling problem is particularly important and challenging, but there is inadequate guidance and support for this teaching responsibility. The study recommends the development of additional materials and training to help teachers with these steps of the modeling cycle. Furthermore, teachers find that modeling problems are engaging, and they help students make sense of mathematical concepts. Teachers would employ modeling problems more often if they were more available and convenient to use. The study recommends that features for an online depository of modeling materials be researched and developed, including a course-based, chronological organization, a diverse variety of materials and formats, and tapping teachers to contribute their lessons.

The Common Core State Standards are a set of challenging learning goals in English language arts/literacy and math and their use in special education has been a controversial topic. On the one hand, many special education advocates have been pleased that the standards were written for all students, including students with disabilities. On the other hand, many special education teachers have been concerned that an overemphasis on the Common Core State Standards is limiting their students’ access to the full benefits of an Individualized Education Program, which is the central component of special education that makes it so special. Recent research conducted on teachers across the United States has shown that, overall, they believe that the Common Core State Standards are beneficial for students. However, there is a gap in the research documenting the specific views of special education teachers. It is important to understand their experiences because they have the unique task of balancing the general education curriculum with individualized instruction that may include skills not covered by the Common Core. This study aims to address this gap by answering several key questions about the experiences of special education teachers who use the Common Core State Standards with students with disabilities. A total of 476 special education teachers from across the United States were surveyed. This study found that they have a moderately strong understanding of the standards and they frequently used them to guide their teaching. The results of this study showed that while the majority of these teachers echoed the general belief that the Common Core State Standards are beneficial for students without disabilities, they did not believe that they are beneficial for students with disabilities. Strikingly, 86.9% did not believe that the standards provide adequate information about their application to students with disabilities. Of concern, 70.9% reported that, when using these standards, they are unable to address their students’ individualized goals—especially in the areas of social and functional skills. Moreover, when asked if they believed that the Common Core State Standards would help their students to be prepared for independent life, 79.1% said “no.” These results yield important information regarding current practice using the Common Core State Standards in special education and suggest important implications for teacher training courses related to the Common Core State Standards and students with disabilities as well as how the Common Core State Standards document and guidance materials may be revised to better meet the needs of students with disabilities.

No description available.