Transcript CommonCoreStdsChicagoAreaFeb2011pdp

Common Core State Standards:
Opportunity for Reform or Same Old,
Same Old…?
P. David Pearson
UC Berkeley
February 2011
Acknowledgements
 Karen Wixson Standards and Assessment
 Sheila Valencia Assessment
 Freddy Hiebert Complexity
My Relationship with CCS
• Member of the Validation Committee
• Background work on text complexity with a grant from
Gates Foundation
• Long (and occasionally checkered) history with standards
going back to
–
–
NBPTS: Standards for Teaching
IRA/NCTE Standards
• Research and development work on assessment
Just to remind us
College and Career Readiness Standards
Common Core State Standards (grade by grade)
Assessments to measure their mastery
10 recurring standards for College and Career Readiness
Show up grade after grade
In more complex applications to more sophisticated texts
Across the disciplines of literature, science, and social studies
Affordances of the CCS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
An uplifting vision based on our best research on the
nature of reading comprehension
Focus on results rather than means
Integrated model of literacy
Reading standards complement cognitive theory and
NAEP
Elaborated theory of text complexity
Shared responsibility (text in subject matter learning)
Lots of meaty material in writing and language
standards
An exercise
 Take one of the CCR standards and trace it out across all
the grade levels to see how it changes
1. An Uplifting Vision: ELA CCSS
 Students who meet the Standards readily undertake the close,
attentive, reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying
complex works of literature.
 They habitually perform the critical reading necessary to pick
carefully through the staggering amount of information available
today in print and digitally.
 They actively seek the wide, deep, and thoughtful engagement with
high-quality literary and informational texts that builds knowledge,
enlarges experience, and broadens world views.
 They reflexively demonstrate the cogent reasoning and use of
evidence essential to both private deliberation and responsible
citizenship in a democratic republic.
2. Focus on results rather than means
 Why?
 Leave a place for each lower level to add its own signature
 Some decisions about means really are local
 Appropriate role for a larger body politic
 Balance between our goals and our methods
From the ELA Standards Document…
 By emphasizing required achievements, the Standards
leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states
to determine how those goals should be reached and what
additional topics should be addressed.
 Thus, the Standards do not mandate such things as a
particular writing process or the full range of
metacognitive strategies that students may need to monitor
and direct their thinking and learning.
 Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever
tools and knowledge their professional judgment and
experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals
set out in the Standards.”
3. Integrated Model of Literacy
 Two views of integration
 Integrated Language Arts
 Integration between ELA and disciplines
 The CCSS are better on the interdisciplinary than on the
ELA integration
 Corresponds to the actual uses to which reading and
writing are put.
 Reading, writing, and language always serve specific
purposes


Reading and writing, not generically,
But about something in particular
The something in particular
 What reading, writing and language look like in a domain
 The information for a particular topic or unit or chapter
 The information in a particular text
Language Arts
Social Studies
Science
Mathematics
Our current view of curriculum
A model I like: Tools by Disciplines
Academic Disciplines………..
Science
Social
Studies
Mathe- Literature
matics
Reading
Writing
Language

Early: Tools dominate
Academic Disciplines………..
Science
Social
Studies
Mathematics
Literature
Reading
Writing
Language

Later: Disciplines dominate
Academic Disciplines………..
Science Social
Studies
Mathe Literature
matics
Reading
Writing
Language

Weaving is even a better metaphor than a matrix
Writing
Language
Reading
math
literature
Social studies
Science

4. Comprehension Complements Other
Important Efforts
 NAEP
 Rand view of Comprehension
NAEP
 Locate and Recall
 Interpret and Integrate
 Critique and Evaluate
Common Core
 Key ideas and details
 Craft and structure
 Integration of knowledge and ideas
 Range and level of text complexity
CCSS
NAEP
 Key ideas and details
 Locate and Recall
 Craft and structure
 Interpret and Integrate
 Integration of knowledge
 Critique and Evaluate
and ideas
 Range and level of text
complexity
 Complexity is specified
but implicit not explicit
Consistent with Cognitive Views of Reading
 Kintsch’s Construction-Integration Model
 Build a text base
 Construct a “situation” model
 Put the knowledge gained to work by applying it to
novel situations.
Consistent with Cognitive Views of Reading
 Kintsch’s Construction-Integration Model
Locate
andbase
Recall
What the text says
 Build
a text
Integrate
and Interpret
 Construct
a “situation”
model What the text means
the textitdoes
Critique andgained
Evaluate
 Put the knowledge
to work What
by applying
to novel
situations.
These consistencies provide…
 Credibility
 Stretch
 Research “patina”
5. Elaborated Theory of Text Complexity
Why text complexity? The gap for college and
career readiness
Jack Stenner’s (lexile guy) depiction of the 200 lexile gap
6. Shared Responsibility
 English and Subject Matter
 What we said before, reading and writing are always
situated in a topic and a purpose.
 Knowledge fuels comprehension and writing.
 Reading and writing, along with experience and
instruction, fuel knowledge.
 Reading and writing and language work better when they
are “tools” for the acquisition of



Knowledge
Insight
Joy
Why sharing now?
 The gap for college and workplace readiness
 The increasing demands of an informational society
 Finally addressing a problem that has always been there
 Increasing awareness among disciplinary scholars
 April 23, 2010 edition of Science.
7. Lots of meaty material in writing and
language
 All of the good vocabulary skills and content that we
often claim for reading?

As much of an issue for oral language and writing as for reading.
 Writing
 Media
 Argumentation: Claim-evidence-warrant
 Form follows function: we write with particular structures to
achieve particular purposes

As important for comprehension as it is for composition
Constraints, Dilemmas, and Puzzles?
Can we manage the text complexity issue?
2. How do we disarm the “We already do all this” stance?
3. How do we avoid a canon of texts?
4. What do we do about assessment?
1.
Text Complexity
 Can we really make up the gap?
 If we are really honest, we’ll acknowledge that in our current
“dumbed down” world, we have LOTS of kids who can’t handle the
texts we currently give them
 What makes us think that we can up the ante without promoting even
greater angst among students and teachers?
 Doesn’t text complexity have to be calibrated at an individual level?

Independent-Instructional-Frustration level
 What are we going to do about text complexity in Grades
K-3?

Lexiles are highly unstable at prior to grade 3
Broaden our notions of Text Complexity—
Appendix A
 Qualitative evaluation of the text

Levels of meaning, structure, language
conventionality and clarity, and knowledge
demands
 Quantitative evaluation of the text

Readability measures and other scores of text
complexity
 Matching reader to text and task

Reader variables (such as motivation,
knowledge, and experiences) and task variables
(such as purpose and the complexity generated
by the task assigned and the questions posed)
Grapes of Wrath (9-10 Complexity Band)
Qualitative Measures
Levels of Meaning

There are multiple and often implicit levels of meaning within the
excerpt and the novel as a whole. The surface level focuses on
the literal journey of the Joads, but the novel also works on
metaphorical and philosophical levels.
Structure

The text is relatively simple, explicit, and conventional in form.
Events are largely related in chronological order.
Language Conventionality and Clarity

Although the language used is generally familiar, clear, and
conversational, the dialect of the characters may pose a challenge
for some readers. Steinbeck also puts a great deal of weight on
certain less familiar words, such as faltering. In various portions of
the novel not fully represented in the excerpt, the author
combines rich, vivid, and detailed description with an economy of
words that requires heavy inferencing.
Knowledge Demands

The themes are sophisticated. The experiences and perspective
conveyed will be different from those of many students.
Knowledge of the Great Depression, the “Okie Migration” to
California, and the religion and music of the migrants is
helpful, but the author himself provides much of the context
needed for comprehension.
Quantitative Measures
The quantitative assessment of The Grapes of Wrath demonstrates
the difficulty many currently existing readability measures have in
capturing adequately the richness of sophisticated works of
literature, as various ratings suggest a placement within the grades
2–3 text complexity band. A Coh Metrix analysis also tends to
suggest the text is an easy one since the syntax is uncomplicated and
the author uses a conventional story structure and only a moderate
number of abstract words. (The analysis does indicate, however, that
a great deal of inferencing will be required to interpret and connect
the text’s words, sentences, and central ideas.)
No matter how many indicators we have in
place, teacher judgment will have to be used
in particular cases.
What we really need are even more
instructional scaffolds, so we
can answer the
Reader-Task Considerations
These are to be determined locally with reference to such variables
question, under what conditions
support
as a student’s of
motivation,
knowledge, and experiences as well as
purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the questions
can particular students read
the text?
posed.
Recommended Placement
Though considered extremely easy by many
quantitative measures, The Grapes of Wrath has a
sophistication of theme and content that makes it
more suitable for early high school (grades 9–10),
which is where the Standards have placed it. In this
case, qualitative measures have overruled the
quantitative measures.
And we are going to need a whole new
theory of text complexity for grades K-3?
2. How do we prevent the “threre’s nothing
new” response?
 If educators do the mapping at a fairly general level, they
will conclude that we already do all of these things.
 Almost any current set of state standards will map onto
these standards at the 60-80% level, especially if we
include the foundational skills.
 Have to examine the entirety of these standards, regard
them as an integrated system of pedagogy.
Start with the ELA Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)
Three main sections
K−5 (cross-disciplinary)
 6−12 English Language Arts
 6−12 Literacy in History/Social Studies,
Science, and Technical Subjects
Shared responsibility for students’ literacy development

Three appendices
•
•
•
A: Research and evidence; glossary of key terms
B: Reading text exemplars; sample performance tasks
C: Annotated student writing samples
Karen Wixson
Learn How to Read the ELA CCSS
 The standards are meant to be read as an integrated ELA program
 The Reading standards should be read with the complexity
information in Appendix A and with the exemplary works that
comprise each complexity band found in Appendix B
 The Writing standards should be read with the writing samples in
Appendix C, which illustrate how good is good enough for each
genre, grade by grade
 The Language standards should be read with the skills ladder in
Appendix A which illustrates when skills should be
introduced/mastered
 In sum, a standard “alignment” exercise should take into account
not just the grade level standards alone, but also how the
appendices help define these standards PLUS what comes before
and after each grade band
ELA CCSS 6-12
The opportunity of a lifetime…
 We are poised, with these standards in hand, to achieve
integration both within the language arts and between
ELA and the disciplines
 Do we have the chutzpah and commitment to take
advantage of this moment?
3. The Textual Canon Dilemma
 The tyranny of the example: if it was good enough to
illustrate the sort of thing we should be doing, then we
should do it!
No one will read this disclaimer…
Given space limitations, the illustrative texts listed
above are meant only to show individual titles that
are representative of a wide range of topics and
genres. (See Appendix B for excerpts of these and
other texts illustrative of K–5 text complexity
4. The VAST unknown: CCSS and
Assessment
 Assessments will make or break the CCSS movement
 This is where we decide whether the movement is
 Opportunity for reform
 Or
 Same old, same old
 If assessments are not changed, these standards will not
make an iota of difference in teaching and learning
The Players in the Assessment Game
 Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College




and Careers: PARCC
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: SBAC.
State Assessments
NAEP
Testing Industry
 Constraints
 Common Core Standards
 Assessment consortia frameworks



Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
Different audiences and purposes (summative/formative/diagnostic)
 Affordances
 Learning progressions
 Computer adaptive testing
 Automated and distributed scoring
 Improved psychometric tools
Through-Course, Interim/Benchmark
Assessment Visions
 PARCC
 Signal
& model good instruction
 Rich & rigorous performance tasks
 SBAC
 Empirically
validate descriptions of learning
progressions
Through-Course Comprehension
Assessments & Learning Progressions
 Should:
 reflect
the interactive and multidimensional nature of
comprehension
 assess readers’ abilities to understand, learn from, and use
text to accomplish specific purposes
 provide transparent models of the demands of skilled
reading across a range of grades, disciplines, tasks
 provide strong and informative predictors of success in
college, careers, and K-12
From Pearson, Valencia, and Wixson
An assumption/prediction?
 Whatever model we develop, it is likely to be a hybrid
model.

Item format
Efficiency
Multiple Choice
 Constructed Response Instructional Validity
 Performance Tasks
Deeper Learning


Passage issues
Length and authenticity
 Disciplines—Literature, Science and History

My focus
 Given ourvast experience with MC and CR, I’ll focus on
performance tasks…
 Except to say that well developed theories of mc items,
along with equally well-developed theories about classes
of distractors, are really important to decision validity and
the information value of test items.
 We need to learn something from each and every response
a student makes, not just the right ones.
Performance Tasks: Why bother?
 External validity
 College ready
 Career ready
 Curricular validity
 Powerful learning
 Deeper learning
 Consequential validity
 What curricular activities will it lead teachers and students toward?
Compare the PARCC and SMARTER
Proposals to ELA CCSS
 Two Salient Issues from the CCSS
 Text Complexity
PARCC proposes to create a “text complexity diagnostic tool”
 SMARTER doesn’t consider directly


Reading across the Disciplines
PARCC addresses indirectly through sample items
 SMARTER makes general references, but nothing specific

PARCC Attention to Discipline/Genre
 Through-Course Assessments (Interim/Benchmark)
 After roughly 25% of instructional time (ELA-1)
 After roughly 50% instructional time (ELA-2)
 After roughly 75% instructional time (ELA-3
 Sample Extended Constructed Response Items for ELA-1
and ELA-2
Through-Course Assessments
 Measure the most fundamental capacity essential to achieving college
and career readiness according to the CCSS: the ability to read
increasingly complex texts, draw evidence from them, draw logical
conclusions and present analysis in writing.
 ELA-1 & ELA-2 assessments include up to 2 extended constructed
response items
 For ELA-3, students have extended time to identify or read relevant
research materials and compose written essays. Students then publicly
present the results of that research and writing, answering questions or
engaging in debate, so teachers can assess their speaking and listening
skills using common rubric
 Provide actionable data and useful models of student work teachers can
use to plan and adjust instruction
Sample Extended Constructed Response
Items (taken from CCSS)
 9-10 ELA, Informational--Students analyze how Abraham
Lincoln in his “Second Inaugural Address” unfolds his
examination of the ideas that led to the Civil War, paying
particular attention to the order in which the points are
made, how Lincoln introduces and develops his points,
and the connections that are drawn between them.
 11-12, ELA, Informational--Students delineate and
evaluate the argument that Thomas Paine makes in
Common Sense. They assess the reasoning present in his
analysis, including the premises and purposes of his
essay.
Sample Extended Constructed Response
Items (taken from CCSS)
 11-12, ELA, Drama--Students compare two or more recorded or
live productions of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman to the
written text, evaluating how each version interprets the source
text and debating which aspects of the enacted interpretations of
the play best capture a particular character, scene, or theme.
 11-12, ELA Poetry--Students cite strong and thorough textual
evidence from John Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” to support
their analysis of what the poem says explicitly about the urn as
well as what can be inferred about the urn from evidence in the
poem. Based on their close reading, students draw inferences
from the text regarding what meanings the figures decorating the
urn convey as well as noting where the poem leaves matters
about the urn and its decoration uncertain.
Sample Extended Constructed Response
Items (taken from CCSS)
 11-12, Informational Texts: Science--Students analyze the
concept of mass based on their close reading of Gordon Kane’s
“The Mysteries of Mass” and cite specific textual evidence from
the text to answer the question of why elementary particles have
mass at all. Students explain important distinctions the author
makes regarding the Higgs field and the Higgs boson and their
relationship to the concept of mass
Resources
 www.commoncore.org (not the “official” website,
provides curriculum “maps”)
 Lee, C. D. & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the
disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New
York, NY: Carnegie Corp.
Example of a New Standards Task from mid 1990s
 Man and His Message
 MLK
 6-8 days, depending on class time
 Culminating task: write an essay based upon choosing one
of several prompt options.
Pearson
Texts Encountered






A video about the Civil Rights Movement entitled, A Time for Justice.
An article about the Civil Rights Movement entitled, Confrontations.
An article about Ghandi from Scholastic's SEARCH magazine.
An oral rendition of King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
Printed versions of other King speeches.
An excerpt from a Time magazine account of the Rodney King riots in
East Central Los Angeles.
 Two CNN video accounts of the riots: Rage of Despair and Roots of the
Problem.
Tasks Completed over the Period
 collaboratively complete separate cognitive webs on key concepts





from the readings (Martin Luther King, Civil Rights Movement,
Non-Violent Resistance).
keep an ongoing log/chart of emerging learnings from all the
different texts (written, oral, or video).
answer straightforward "assignment-like" questions.
compare the similarities and differences between King and Ghandi
in a modified Venn diagram display.
the culminating essay
EVERYTHING can be scored
Affordances
 Has the look and feel of powerful or deeper learning
 Engages students in workplace like behaviors, including social




behaviors
Expands our conceptualization of what counts as a text
High capacity for engagement: interest and relevance
Maps onto many of the Common Core Standards for reading in
History
Could build professional community of teachers around
implementation and scoring
Constraints
 Whose work is it anyway?
 The inevitable dilemma of collaboration
 Not just reading
 (video and audio texts)
 The usual suspects for performance tasks
 Task generalizability
 Scoring costs
 Domain coverage
 What counts for which standards
Example of a MEAP Inspired Pilot Task circa 2000 for a
Local Michigan District
School-wide Comprehension Assessment




Instructionally embedded (took a week out of the LA block)
Multiple text
Listening and reading
Reliance on multiple choice questions


Individual texts
Cross texts
 Written Response to Reading




Position taken in response to the prompt question
Support from personal experience
Support from texts
Counts for both writing and reading comprehension depending on the
rubric used
Listening: Sister Anne’s Hands
Multiple Choice Question Stems
facts, relationships, inferences
 This story is mostly about…
 Sister Anne showed determination when she said…
 What did Sister Anne mean when she said, “For me, I’d rather open
my door enough to let everyone in”?
 The children learned much from Sister Anne. This selection tells us
that…
Kate Shelly and the Midnight Express
Multiple Choice Question Stems
facts, relationships, inferences
 An important lesson of this story is…
 How are Kate and her mother different?
 In this selection, how do you know Kate showed determination and bravery
when crossing the Des Moines River Bridge?
 Because Kate followed through, how would you predict she will face
problems in the future?
 What dialogue does the author use to show you Kate has determination?
 How do you know this story takes place in the past?
A Day’s Work
Multiple Choice Question Stems
facts, relationships, inferences
 By showing determination, Francisco…
 An important lesson from this selection is…
 In this selection, why did Francisco and Grandpa leave the weeds?
 This selection is not only about determination, it is also about…
 Why did the author have Grandpa and Francisco speak in Spanish?
Cross Text Mult Choice Stems
facts, relationships, inferences
 What important advice would both Grandpa and Kate give?
 In both reading selections you read about main characters who…
 How are Francisco and Kate different?
 How were the characters rewarded for showing determination and
following through?
Applying Ideas to a Task
If you were trying to do something that was very hard, and you did
not think you could get it done, would you keep trying or quit? Use
examples from the two stories we read to support your decision.
Scoring
Answers questions by making connections bet ween
readings and u sing ideas from both readings to support
position taken
Answers questions and u ses ideas from at least
one story to support position taken.
Answers question and refers to
ideas in on e text
Answers question or
responds to theme
Writing in Response to Reading
Point Score 6
The student clearly and effectively chooses key or important ideas from each reading
selection to support a position on the question and to make a clear connection between
the reading selections. The point of view and connection are thoroughly developed
with appropriate examples and details. There are no misconceptions about the reading
selections. There are strong relationships among ideas. Mastery of language use and
writing conventions contributes to the effect of the response.
Affordances
 In the direction of powerful and deeper learning, but…
 Only one task for rubric-based scoring
 Pretty good coverage of a range of cognitive targets vis a
vis question types.
Constraints
 Does the reliance on MC format compromise its position
vis a vis powerful and deeper learning?
 Limited to a single discipline—literature
 Limited to a single genre—narrative
 Limited to a single medium—text
Looking Ahead
 Lots of dilemmas to manage
 Back to the future and déjà vu all over again
 Take advantage of new technologies, tools, and
understandings
Dilemmas to Manage
 Social nature of embedded tasks
 Domain coverage
 Enabling skills or just the big outcomes
 Dependence/independence across
 Standards/cognitive targets/items
 Issues of equity across populations, especially ELL and
LD populations
Déjà vu all over again
 Build on what worked
 Face the music on
 Intertask generalizability
 Scoring reliability and cost
Take advantage of new tools and technologies
 Learning progressions (see SBAC)
 But they are hard and different in reading
 Discipline, topic, and text play a MAJOR role in shaping item
difficulty
 We’ll just have to see how things scale in IRT models
 Computerized scoring, but…
 Easily corruptible
 Will clever kids learn how to school the systems?
 Computer adaptive testing
 Garbage in-Garbage out
FINAL THOUGHT ABOUT ASSESSMENT
The promise of the ELA CCSS will not be realized
unless we create a new generation of reading
assessments that capitalize on the knowledge gained in
recent decades and the visions for the future.
To Summarize
 Lots to Like
Affordances of the CCS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
An uplifting vision based on our best research on the
nature of reading comprehension
Focus on results rather than means
Integrated model of literacy
Reading standards complement cognitive theory and
NAEP
Elaborated theory of text complexity
Shared responsibility (text in subject matter learning)
Lots of meaty material in writing and language
standards
Lots to Worry about
Constraints, Dilemmas, and Puzzles?
Can we manage the text complexity issue?
2. How do we disarm the “We already do all this” stance?
3. How do we avoid a canon of texts?
4. What do we do about assessment?
1.
Old Chinese Proverb
 May you live in interesting times…