Once of "my favourite models for classroom observation is the one taken my Doug Lemov and theUncommon Schools network. The idea is ridiculously simple: we look at the data to find out which teachers have the best results and then you observe them to find out what they’re doing. Lemov’s wonderful Teach Like A Champion is a compendium of some of the strategies common to these über teachers which can be practised and replicated us mere mortals.
What makes this particularly interesting is captured by this slide used by Professor Coe"
Research & Practice in Assessment is an online journal dedicated to the advancement of scholarly discussion between researchers and practitioners in the field of student learning outcomes assessment in higher education.
Founded in 1943, ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) is an educational leadership organization dedicated to advancing best practices and policies for the success of each learner.
Teaching Writing Across the K12 CurriculumProfessional development for teachers.By:Patricia DadonnaDistrict Administration, Feb 2013
To teach Common Core effectively, teachers will have to share such teaching methods within their school districts, says Richard Vacca, professor emeritus of Kent State University and a co-author of Content Area Reading: Literacy and Learning Across the Curriculum. “Traditional professional development was always kind of an add-on,” Vacca says. “The difference (with Common Core) is that it’s going to be ongoing and embedded within a district rather than” about bringing an outside person in, he says.
And Barbara Kapinus, director of English Language Arts and literacy for SMARTER Balanced, adds that in the “best of all worlds,” professional development should entail “teachers sitting down in smaller groups looking at samples of kids’ work and talking about what they see and (how) they’d like the kids to do better.”
This is already happening in some states. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg (N.C.) Schools, teachers are sharing grade rubrics and student writing samples from the World War II performance task and using the information to write lessons on their own, says Jami D. Rodgers, humanities literacy specialist for the district.
By increasing information-based and argumentative writing with Common Core, educators believe teachers can elevate the level of discourse so that students can effectively communicate in every subject.
“What the Common Core is doing more than anything else is emphasizing literate behavior, teaching kids how to use literacy to learn and make sense of the world,” says Vacca. “That’s going to take a lot of concentrated instruction. It’s a process. To the extent that teachers focus on writing and reading across the curriculum, it’s going to be better than if they were just teaching their subject matter and assuming kids know how to learn it.”
All five studies analyzed pre/post student writing samples. The writing, with identifying information removed, was independently evaluated at NWP's national scoring conference. Building on a long tradition of writing assessment, the NWP defined a rigorous framework for evaluating student writing, using "anchor papers"—samples exemplifying each level of achievement—along with descriptive commentary.
More than 7,500 writing samples were scored using a rubric adapted from the 6+1 Traits Writing Model (Culham 2003). The four-point scale was extended to six points in order to increase sensitivity, and language was clarified to enhance reliability.
The rubric addressed six specific attributes of writing: ideas, organization, voice, sentence fluency, word choice, and conventions (Bellamy 2005). Each writing sample also received an overall holistic score.
Guest hosts: Franki Sibberson and Antero Garcia, part of the task force that wrote the position statement Formative Assessment That Truly Informs Instruction (The Storify archive of last night's #nctechat on formative assessment is now up
Project Launch Pad: Students get a digital lesson in English The Times Herald “On Halloween, I used a Prezi for Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Raven' that talked about the content and poetry techniques employed in the poem,” Crawford said about the app...
Improve Teachers' 'Data Literacy,' Education Groups Urge Education Week News (blog) The DQC policy brief envisions a K-12 world in which educators "continuously, effectively, and ethically" use multiple types of data about their students to...
Guest blogger Michelle Lampinen, a digital literacy and English teacher at Biotechnology High School, describes how she reverse-engineered a rubric for student assessment that includes links and QR codes.
... encourage conversations about such teaching. I started this blog mainly to experiment with this technology, but I also hope that my successes and failures will help others to create, teach, and assess online writing courses.
Every now and again, I get asked a question about the Common Core State Standards that sends me digging into parts of the CCSS that I haven’t seen in some time. And nine times out of ten, I find something new or see something in a new way.
As an example, let’s consider Appendix C of the English Language Arts standards, which contains student work samples. The introduction on page 2 states:
Following are writing samples that have been annotated to illustrate the criteria required to meet theCommon Core State Standards for particular types of writing—argument, informative/explanatory text,and narrative—in a given grade. Each of the samples exhibits at least the level of quality required to meetthe Writing standards for that grade.
OK. So everything we see in this document is within the acceptable range of quality. Got it.
So what do I make of this on page 100, from an essay entitled “Wood Joints”?
From page 100 of Appendix C of the CCSSO’s English Language Arts standards
Are these citations kinda wonky? What are we, as educators, to take from this? That partial citations are OK? That Wikipedia (which, for the record, I’m perfectly fine with as an initial source from which to mine keywords), is now “at least the level of quality required” (ELA Standards, page 2) for a final reference source? Why is the section on aluminum and magnesium, from a citation on TIG welding, being cited for a research paper on wood joints? AM-wood.com exists as a site, but why is a different domain cited instead?
The references continue on page 101, and they’re just as odd. (More welding links, more odd citations.)
The essay itself is clear and easy to read. I am confident that its clarity and impeccable grammar and punctuation qualified it for inclusion. That being said, there are are only two in-text citations, despite a references list eleven items long. One of the in-text citations uses the author name and omits the year. It includes the page number, but it’s not a direct quote, so it’s not needed. The other cites AM-wood.com but no year.
Now I am the first to say that formatting of citations should be secondary to the actual doing of citations. But this work is held up as a national exemplar. What are the potential implications for students? teachers? librarians?
Has the wild rumpus begun? Are we officially outmoded?
“IMG_2863″ by jmrodri on Flickr. Used with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.