Understanding the Development and Elements of Common Core Standards

Chapter 5
Understanding the Standards
And I’m calling
on our nation’s
governors and state
education chiefs to
develop standards
and assessments
that don’t simply
measure whether
students can fill
in a bubble on a
test, but whether
they possess 21st
century skills like
problem solving and
critical thinking and
entrepreneurship
and creativity.
—Barack Obama,
March 1, 2009
Learning Outcomes
By the end of the chapter, you will be able to:
• Explain the development of the Common Core standards
movement.

•Describe the basic elements of the Common Core English
language arts standards.
•Discuss the basic elements of the Common Core mathematics
standards.
•Recall the basic elements of the Next Generation Science
Standards and the National
Educational Technology Standards.
•Analyze how differentiated instruction applies to the newly
emerging standards and the
technology standards for students.
5
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Pre-Test Chapter 5
Introduction
Differentiated instruction is built on a foundation of effective
teaching practices. Quality cur-
riculum is one of these defining principles, as what is taught
serves as the basis for how it is
taught. Quality curriculum has its basis in standards, or
descriptions of student outcomes in
content areas. The standards in the United States are undergoing
major changes with the adop-
tion of the Common Core State Standards and new standards in
science and social studies.
Initially developed by a consortium of state governors and state
superintendents of instruction,
they have been vetted by professional groups, state and local

education representatives, and
parents within each state.
These standards mark a departure from past practices, which is
good news for differentiated
instruction. States had previously been responsible for
developing their own standards, and
the creation of assessment systems based on those standards
immediately followed. While this
approach assured an articulation between standards and
assessment, there were unintended
consequences. The effect was a narrowing of the curriculum. In
practice, the assessment sys-
tems began to drive the curriculum and often resulted in
teaching methods that were drill
based, had low cognitive demand, used bubble-in-the-answer
assessments, and relied on a
stand-and-deliver means of presenting content. (Kendall, 2011).
The new standards aim to rec-
tify that approach. They describe student outcomes in terms of
college and career readiness,
and encourage increasingly complex cognitive tasks throughout
the K-12 experience. Moreover,
the manner in which they were written and adopted has
encouraged districts and teachers to
develop curriculum first, rather than waiting until an assessment
system is in place (Kendall,
2011). Since their release, the authors of the standards have
vetted a number of resources that
assist teachers, parents, and community members in
understanding and planning for imple-
mentation (Millar, 2012).
However, some educators have concerns about these new
standards, especially as they relate
to accountability, or find them complicated to understand at

first. This chapter unpacks the
standards initiatives, examining the Common Core State
Standards and the Next Generation
Science Standards (social studies is still under development).
Additionally, the National
Educational Technology Standards for Students and their
relationship to the core and content
standards is presented. The relationship of these standards and
teacher accountability systems
concludes the chapter.
Pre-Test
1. Common Core State Standards are a result of
a. a federal government mandate to build a foundation to work
collaboratively across states
and districts.
b. a Department of Defense education activity.
c. a state-led initiative in collaboration with teachers, school
administrators, and content
experts.
d. a Wall Street coalition that funded a grant to allow pooling of
resources in education.
Pre-Test Chapter 5
2. A strong emphasis in the Common Core State Standards is
that instruction in English lan-
guage arts (ELA)
a. requires significant changes in our nation’s teacher
preparation programs to provide

highly qualified instructors.
b. should focus on the early years and that formal reading and
writing instruction should
begin much earlier that in the past.
c. is a shared responsibility across all subject areas and that all
teachers must teach reading
and writing.
d. needs to focus on the basics of learning to read and write
without the distractions of
technology.
3. The standards for mathematical practice focus on practices
that
a. encourage students to set aside curiosity and persistence until
they understand how
mathematical processes work.
b. focus on procedure and tedium while moving toward the
beauty of mathematics.
c. encourage students to question how and why mathematics
works the way it does.
d. engage students in mathematical content in abstract ways
without regard for real-life
problems.
4. Teachers can best support the learning of science and
engineering concepts by
a. structured learning of factual information.
b. doing the practices of science and engineering within the
context of the core disciplines.
c. reading and talking about the practices of science and
engineering.

d. studying the behaviors of scientists and engineers as they
engage in inquiry and
discourse.
5. Which of the following are NOT used to measure teacher
effectiveness?
a. classroom artifacts
b. observation protocols
c. NET-S standards
d. student achievement
Answers
1. c. a state-led initiative in collaboration with teachers, school
administrators, and content
experts. The correct answer can be found in Section 5.1.
2. c. is a shared responsibility across all subject areas and that
all teachers must teach reading
and writing. The correct answer can be found in Section 5.2.
3. c. encourage students to question how and why mathematics
works the way it does. The
correct answer can be found in Section 5.3.
4. b. doing the practices of science and engineering within the
context of the core disciplines.
The correct answer can be found in Section 5.4.
5. c. NET-S standards. The correct answer can be found in
Section 5.5.
The Common Core Initiative Chapter 5

5.1 The Common Core Initiative
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are the result of a
state-led initiative. Development
began in 2009, when the National Governors Association and
State Commissioners of Education
agreed to create a set of common state standards in K-12
English language arts (ELA) and
mathematics. These standards were published in 2010. The Next
Generation Science Standards
were released in April 2013, and committees are working on the
creation of core standards in
social studies. Adoption of the standards is voluntary. When
states adopt the CCSS, they agree
that those standards will comprise at least 85 percent of their
state’s standards, while state-
specific standards may comprise the remaining 15 percent. As
of 2013, 45 states, the District of
Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense
Education Activity have adopted the
CCSS. Their implementation is based on the timelines and the
context within each state (NGA
& CCSSO, 2010).
The federal government was not involved in the development of
the standards but supported
their implementation (IDEA Partnership, 2012). The United
States Department of Education
made acceptance of the CCSS as one of the criteria for awarding
competitive grant funds to
the states (e.g., Race to the Top). The Department of Education
also funded the centers that are
developing assessments aligned to the CCSS.
Why a Common Core?
The CCSS address college and career readiness skills that will

prepare students to succeed in
education and training after high school. They are aligned with
college and work expectations
and include relevant, rigorous content with the intent of
applying knowledge through high-
order skills. They are internationally benchmarked, or compared
to similar skills in other coun-
tries, so students are prepared to succeed in a global economy
and society, and to ensure that
they are globally competitive (NGA & CCSSO, 2010).
The CCSS evolved from earlier state standards-based
movements, where disparate standards
made it difficult to communicate common progress among the
states. With the CCSS, expec-
tations are consistent for all. Moreover, they form a foundation
to work collaboratively across
states and districts, allowing for a pooling of resources and
expertise to create curricular tools,
professional development, and common assessments. A common
set of standards ensures con-
sistent expectations for student learning regardless of the
geographical location or socioeco-
nomic status. It provides the framework to develop a quality
curriculum for all students. The
broad goals and principles aim to ensure that receiving a quality
education is not dependent on
a student’s zip code (Kendall, 2011).
The CCSS are research and evidence based, and informed by
practices in top performing coun-
tries to provide a clear and consistent framework. They were
developed in collaboration with
teachers, school administrators, and content experts, with
multiple rounds of feedback from
teachers, researchers, higher education professionals, and the

general public, and a review by
a validation committee. The standards focus on conceptual
understandings and procedures
starting in the early grades, and are repeated throughout the
grades, providing teachers with
the time needed to teach core concepts and giving students the
opportunity to master them
The Common Core Initiative Chapter 5
(NGA & CCSSO, 2010). English language
arts and math were the first subjects cho-
sen for the CCSS because they build skill
sets in other subject areas and are the most
frequently assessed subjects for account-
ability purposes (Kendall, 2011).
Concerns about Common Core
Some administrators, policymakers, and
families have expressed apprehension
about these new standards, though most
concerns tend to be not about their content
but about their implementation. Several
political leaders mistrust the “common”
part of the Common Core State Standards,
believing that local control is the best way
to meet the needs of learners. Some educa-
tors have watched as other promising edu-
cational initiatives were poorly applied,
misused, or unfunded. They are reserving
their enthusiasm about the new reform until they have seen it in
action. Still others wonder
whether the standards are developmentally appropriate, or

whether enough thought has been
given to how they will be met by students with special needs.
Finally, teachers who for many
years have worked with the previous standards may be anxious
about the sheer volume of new
information to learn and implement, and some fear they will not
receive adequate preparation,
resources, and support.
A prevalent worry involves how the standards will
be used for accountability, and whether students,
teachers, and schools will be fairly assessed when it
comes to determining how well the standards have
been met. For example, New York and Kentucky,
the first states to develop their own tests aligned to
the CCSS, reported a significant decrease in student
scores across all content areas and for all demo-
graphic groups (Hernandez & Gebeloff, 2013). These
early reports about student declines are disturbing,
with many critics stating that the standards are too
high, others citing more time needed for teachers and
students to adjust to new requirements. Most other states are
implementing the standards, but
are waiting until the 2014–2015 school year to apply the
corresponding assessments that will
be available through nationwide consortia and that promise new
testing methodologies. These
problems with assessment are not a fault of the standards, but
they will need to be addressed if
the CCSS are to be effective.
Ryan McVay/Lifesize/Thinkstock
▲ College and career readiness for all students are the goals of
the new standards. Do you feel that your high school educa-
tion prepared you fully for your future?

Think About It
Based on what you already know about the
Common Core State Standards, do you feel
optimistic about their potential to change edu-
cation? Why or why not? What more do you
need to learn about CCSS to have an informed
opinion?
Common Core Standards in English Language Arts Chapter 5
5.2 Common Core Standards in English Language Arts
The standards emphasize that instruction in English language
arts (ELA) is a shared respon-
sibility across all subject areas, and that all teachers must teach
reading and writing (NGA &
CCSSO, 2010). The standards in reading, writing, speaking and
listening, and language are
anchored by College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards
(CCR). These anchor standards
define 32 broad competencies that form the basis for literacy
expectations in K-12 topics that
apply across all grades. The standards apply to ELA and also,
beginning at sixth grade, to lit-
eracy in history, social studies, science, and technical subjects.
These standards are articulated at
each level, with grade-level descriptions of what students
should know. For example, the CCR anchor
standard 3 in writing is stated as follows:
Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or
events using effective technique,
well-chosen details and well-structured event sequences.

This standard in the writing strand for second grade is stated as:
Write narratives in which they recount a well-elaborated event
or short sequence of events,
include details to describe actions, thoughts, and feelings, use
temporal words to signal event
order, and provide a sense of closure (CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.W.2.3).
The same standard for sixth grade describes more sophisticated
writing techniques, details, and
sequences (as noted by additions W.6.3a-e below), while
keeping the coherence of the same CCR
anchor standard:
(CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.6.3): Write narratives to develop real or
imagined experiences or events
using effective technique, relevant descriptive details, and well-
structured event sequences.
W.6.3a. Engage and orient the reader by establishing a context
and introducing a narrator
and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds
naturally and logically.
W.6.3b. Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, and
description, to develop
experiences, events, and/or characters.
W.6.3c. Use a variety of transition words, phrases, and clauses
to convey sequence and sig-
nal shifts from one time frame or setting to another.
W.6.3d. Use precise words and phrases, relevant descriptive
details, and sensory language

to convey experiences and events.
W.6.3e. Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated
experiences or events.
The standards keep this organizational structure in each grade
level, demonstrating that a con-
cept that is learned in early grades is further developed later on.
ELA Standards for Reading
The reading standards focus on a holistic view of
comprehension as an evolving skill, and empha-
size developing meaning from the start of reading. As seen in
Table 5.1, these standards are
based around the idea of gradually increasing the complexity of
text so that by the end of high
school, students are ready for the demands of college-level and
career-level reading. This requires
progressive development in reading comprehension so students
can gain more from what is
read. The anchor standards are grouped according to concepts of
key ideas, craft and structure,
integrating knowledge and ideas, range of reading, and text
complexity. Comprehension skills
and higher levels of vocabulary are emphasized at younger ages
using texts that are grounded
in the content areas—science, social studies, history, and
others. Throughout the grades and
within the standards, reading occurs in classic and
contemporary literature as well as challeng-

ing informational texts in a range of subjects. While the CCSS
has no reading list, Appendix
A of the Common Core website (www.corestandards.org) gives
annotated examples of sample
texts that meet the standards for each grade level, which are
intended to help teachers and dis-
tricts choose appropriate curriculum.
Table 5.1 College and career readiness anchors for reading
Strand Standard
Key Ideas and Details CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.1 Read
closely to determine what the text says explicitly
and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual
evidence when writing or
speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R. 2 Determine central ideas or
themes of a text and
analyze their development; summarize the key supporting
details and ideas.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.3 Analyze how and why
individuals, events, or ideas
develop and interact over the course of a text.
Craft and Structure CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R .4 Interpret
words and phrases as they are used in a
text, including determining technical, connotative, and
figurative meanings, and
analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.5 Analyze the structure of texts,
including how specific
sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a

section, chapter,
scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R .6 Assess how point of view or
purpose shapes the
content and style of a text.
Integration of Knowledge
and Ideas
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.7 Integrate and evaluate content
presented in diverse
media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as
well as in words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.8 Delineate and evaluate the
argument and specific
claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well
as the relevance and
sufficiency of the evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.9 Analyze how two or more texts
address similar
themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the
approaches the
authors take.
Range of Reading and
Level of Text Complexity
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.10 Read and comprehend complex
literary and informa-
tional texts independently and proficiently.
Note: To build a foundation for college and career readiness,
students must read widely and deeply from among

a broad range of high-quality, increasingly challenging literary
and informational texts. Through extensive reading
of stories, dramas, poems, and myths from diverse cultures and
different time periods, students gain literary and
cultural knowledge as well as familiarity with various text
structures and elements. By reading texts in history/social
studies, science, and other disciplines, students build a
foundation of knowledge in these fields that will also give
them the background to be better readers in all content areas.
Students can only gain this foundation when the
curriculum is intentionally and coherently structured to develop
rich content knowledge within and across grades.
Students also acquire the habits of reading independently and
closely, which are essential to their future success.
Source: English Language Arts Standards. Accessed from
http://www.corestandards.org.
http://www.corestandards.org
Text Complexity
One of the most important concepts in the reading standards is
anchor standard 10, Read and
comprehend complex literary and informational texts
independently and proficiently. Research
has shown that complexity of text is a necessary condition for
developing higher order and
critical thinking skills, and that students who can read and
respond in this manner are better
equipped for college or career-level reading (Kendall, 2011).
The CCSS describe a three-part
model for evaluating complex literary and informational texts

using quantitative tools, qualita-
tive dimensions, and the relationship among the reader, the task,
and the text. This model is
displayed in Figure 5.1.
Quantitative tools are those aspects of reading typically
measured using mathematical for-
mulas that calculate difficulty level using word length, sentence
length, and word frequency, as
measured by readability formulae for grade level or Lexile
scores indicating a scale of text diffi-
culty. Common systems include the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
test, which assigns a U.S. grade
level to a text, and the Lexile Framework for Reading, which
assigns a score to both reader and
text so they can be appropriately matched. As Appendix A of
the Common Core ELA standards
points out, formulas that use word and sentence length to
calculate difficulty are not fail proof;
longer words and sentences are not always more challenging
than short ones. For example,
many readers who recognize “sunflower” would likely struggle
with “qi.” However, such mea-
sures provide a fast and generally accurate place to start.
Qualitative dimensions require human readers to make
judgments about the text complexity.
These judgments may include recognizing multiple meanings of
text, or varying levels of pur-
pose (such as persuasion, or hidden purposes, like defending an
agenda that was not identified).
They also include looking at text structure (including
manipulations of time and sequence),
language conventionality (conversational style versus figurative
language or other unfamiliar
styles), and the background knowledge that the text requires of

a reader. CCSS Appendix A
offers sample analyses of the complexity of excerpted texts.
f05.01_EDU673.ai
Reader and Task
Q
ua
lit
at
iv
e
Q
uantitative
Figure 5.1: Three factors for measuring text complexity
This is the three-part model the CCSS describes for evaluating
complex literary and informational
texts. It uses quantitative tools, qualitative dimensions, and the
relationship among the reader, the
task, and the text.
Source: English Language Arts Standards. Measuring Text
Complexity: Three Factors. Accessed from
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/standard-10-range-
quality-complexity/measuring-text-complexity-three-factors.
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/standard-10-range-
quality-complexity/measuring-text-complexity-three-factors

The third dimension is that of matching the reader to task,
which considers variables inherent
in the readers when determining if a text is appropriate for an
individual student. These fac-
tors may include motivation, interest, knowledge, experiences,
and the purpose for reading the
text. Using this dimension to establish text complexity requires
that teachers know the subject
and the student, and use professional judgment to assess which
texts would be appropriate. For
example, not all students are ready for the same level of
difficulty. Teachers will need to guide
text selection for students who read above or below their
suggested grade complexity level.
Fortunately, the standards recognize the importance of
professional judgment and anchor the
complexity standards on this principle (Kendall, 2011).
Foundational Skills
The fundamental literacy skills identified by the National
Reading Panel, phonemic aware-
ness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension, are
included in the ELA stan-
dards (NICHHD, 2000). They are described as foundational
skills, those that foster students’
working knowledge of concepts of print, alphabetic principle,
phonics and word recognition,
and fluency. These foundational skills are included in the ELA
standards for grades K-5, but
not beyond.
The foundational skills include noteworthy recommendations to
teachers. While these skills are
considered to be components of a comprehensive reading

program, the focus of the standards is
on outcomes, not the process. For example, the introduction to
the foundational skills cautions
teachers that good readers will need less practice with these
skills and poor readers will need
more practice; teachers must discern what is appropriate for
each child, and not teach what
students may already know (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). In other
words, the purpose of learning
phonetic patterns in words is to aid in fluent recognition of the
word and its potential mean-
ing, thus aiding in comprehension of the sentence
and passage. Students who quickly and automati-
cally apply these concepts will need fewer exercises
in identifying these phonetic principles; those who
are struggling may need more. This guidance may be
most appreciated for teachers who have been required
to use scripted curriculum programs for all students,
even for those who were able to move to higher level
literary texts.
ELA Standards for Writing
Table 5.2 lists the anchor standards for writing. These standards
are grouped according to the
strands of text types and purpose, production and distribution of
writing, research to build and
present knowledge, and range of writing. The standards require
students to write across three
text types. They learn to write arguments using sound logic and
reasoning based on evidence.
In order to do this, they must learn to express opinions in
writing from the earliest grades
(Kendall, 2011). Students learn how to convey ideas clearly by
writing informative texts that
demonstrate their understanding of concepts they are learning.

Students also learn narrative
writing, clearly conveying events or experiences. They learn the
concept of communicating in
a manner that an audience would understand, to adapt their
writing for its intended purpose,
and to learn production skills of editing, revising, organizing,
and disseminating their writing.
These standards emphasize research skills in short, focused
projects as well as longer term in-
depth research. In order to accomplish these goals, students
must engage in frequent, routine
Think About It
What aspects of differentiation support the
general recommendations of the ELA founda-
tional skills in reading?
writing, devoting significant time and effort, and producing
numerous pieces throughout the
grades (Kendall, 2011). Appendix C of the Common Core
website (www.corestandards.org)
gives annotated examples of student writing that meet the
standards for each grade level.
Table 5.2 College and career readiness anchor standards for
writing
Strand Standard
Text Types and Purposes CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.1 Write
arguments to support claims in an analysis

of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant
and sufficient
evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.2 Write informative/explanatory
texts to examine and
convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately
through the effective
selection, organization, and analysis of content.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.3 Write narratives to develop real
or imagined experi-
ences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details
and well-structured
event sequences.
Production and
Distribution of Writing
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.4 Produce clear and coherent
writing in which the
development, organization, and style are appropriate to task,
purpose, and
audience.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.5 Develop and strengthen writing
as needed by
planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.6 Use technology, including the
Internet, to produce
and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others.
Research to Build and
Present Knowledge

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.7 Conduct short as well as more
sustained research
projects based on focused questions, demonstrating
understanding of the subject
under investigation.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.8 Gather relevant information
from multiple print and
digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each
source, and integrate the
information while avoiding plagiarism.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.9 Draw evidence from literary or
informational texts to
support analysis, reflection, and research.
Range of Writing CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.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 tasks, purposes, and audiences.
students need to learn to use writing as a way of
offering and supporting opinions, demonstrating understanding
of the subjects they are studying, and conveying
real and imagined experiences and events. They learn to
appreciate that a key purpose of writing is to communi-
cate clearly to an external, sometimes unfamiliar audience, and
they begin to adapt the form and content of their
writing to accomplish a particular task and purpose. They
develop the capacity to build knowledge on a subject
through research projects and to respond analytically to literary
and informational sources. To meet these goals,
students must devote significant time and effort to writing,
producing numerous pieces over short and extended

time frames throughout the year.
Think About It
How might acknowledging student interests become an effective
way to develop student
writing across the grades? What other aspects of the
differentiated instruction model
could support these College and Career Readiness anchor
standards for writing?
ELA Standards for Speaking and Listening
Table 5.3 lists the anchor standards for speaking and listening.
These standards are grouped in
two major areas, comprehension and collaboration, and
presentation of knowledge and ideas.
Students develop these skills through multiple opportunities to
take part in academic discus-
sions and conversations in one-on-one, small-group, and whole-
class settings. Comprehension
and presentation skills are also developed by using increasingly
complex information, ideas, and
evidence, using a variety of media, including digital sources
(NGA & CCSSO, 2010). Appendix
A of the Common Core website describes the role of oral
language in literacy development

(www.corestandards.org).
speaking and listening
Strand Standard
Comprehension and
Collaboration
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.1 Prepare for and participate
effectively in a range of
conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building
on others’ ideas
and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.2 Integrate and evaluate
information presented in
diverse media and formats, including visually, quantitatively,
and orally.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.3 Evaluate a speaker’s point of
view, reasoning, and
use of evidence and rhetoric.
Presentation of Knowledge
and Ideas
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.4 Present information, findings,
and supporting
evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and
the organization,
development, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and
audience.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.5 Make strategic use of digital

media and
visual displays of data to express information and enhance
understanding of
presentations.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.6 Adapt speech to a variety of
contexts and commu-
nicative tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when
indicated or
appropriate.
students must have ample opportunities to take
part in a variety of rich, structured conversations—as part of a
whole class, in small groups, and with a partner.
Being productive members of these conversations requires that
students contribute accurate, relevant information;
respond to and develop what others have said; make
comparisons and contrasts; and analyze and synthesize a
multitude of ideas in various domains.
New technologies have broadened and expanded the role that
speaking and listening play in acquiring and sharing
knowledge and have tightened their link to other forms of
communication. Digital texts confront students with
the potential for continually updated content and dynamically
changing combinations of words, graphics, images,
hyperlinks, and embedded video and audio.
Think About It
Flexible grouping is one of the general principles of
differentiated instruction (discussed in

Chapter 3). How might using this concept support the Common
Core standards in speak-
ing and listening? What other aspects of the differentiated
instruction model also support
these anchor standards?
ELA Standards for Language
Table 5.4 lists the anchor standards for language. These
standards are grouped according to
conventions of standard English, knowledge of language, and
vocabulary acquisition and
use. Conventions and vocabulary extend across reading, writing,
speaking, and listening.
Knowledge of language standards emphasize the use of formal
English in writing and speak-
ing as well as choice in the many other ways that language is
used in expression. Vocabularies
develop through a mix of conversations, direct instruction, and
reading (IDEA Partnership,
2012). The standards are meant to help students continuously
expand their repertoire of words
and phrases using general academic and domain-specific
vocabulary. General academic words
are those that are commonly used in academic writing but are
seldom used in informal speech.
For example, the term multiple opportunities is more often
expressed in informal conversation
as many chances. Domain-specific words, such as fractal,
species, phylum, and cardiovascular

are specific to a content area. Understanding domain-specific
words is reinforced in the reading
and writing standards, as well as literacy standards for the
subject areas (Kendall, 2011).
language
Strand Standard
Conventions of Standard
English
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.L.1 Demonstrate command of the
conventions of standard
English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.L.2 Demonstrate command of the
conventions of
standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when
writing.
Knowledge of Language CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.L.3 Apply
knowledge of language to understand how
language functions in different contexts, to make effective
choices for meaning or
style, and to comprehend more fully when reading or listening.
Vocabulary Acquisition
and Use
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.L.4 Determine or clarify the
meaning of unknown and
multiple-meaning words and phrases by using context clues,
analyzing mean-
ingful word parts, and consulting general and specialized

reference materials, as
appropriate.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.L.5 Demonstrate understanding of
figurative language,
word relationships, and nuances in word meanings.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.L.6 Acquire and use accurately a
range of general
academic and domain-specific words and phrases sufficient for
reading, writing,
speaking, and listening at the college and career readiness level;
demonstrate inde-
pendence in gathering vocabulary knowledge when encountering
an unknown
term important to comprehension or expression.
Note: (On range and content of student language use)To build a
foundation for college and career readiness in
language, students must gain control over many conventions of
standard English grammar, usage, and mechanics
as well as learn other ways to use language to convey meaning
effectively. They must also be able to determine
or clarify the meaning of grade-appropriate words encountered
through listening, reading, and media use; come
to appreciate that words have nonliteral meanings, shadings of
meaning, and relationships to other words; and
expand their vocabulary in the course of studying content. The
inclusion of Language standards in their own
strand should not be taken as an indication that skills related to
conventions, effective language use, and vocabu-
lary are unimportant to reading, writing, speaking, and
listening; indeed, they are inseparable from such contexts.

ELA Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and
Technical Subjects
The ELA standards in history/social studies, science, and
technical subjects begin in sixth
grade. In the elementary grades, the CCR anchor standards for
reading, writing, speaking and
listening, and language are applied across a variety of subject
areas, building the skills needed
to interact with informational texts in the content areas. In the
upper grades, the CCR anchor
standards in reading and writing form the basis for literacy
expectations in these subject areas.
The basic premise of the ELA standards for history/social
studies, science, and technical subjects
is that college and workforce training programs require literacy
skills based on sophisticated
nonfiction. Because reading is such an important skill for
building knowledge, the standards
require students to learn discipline-specific reading in order to
understand particular termi-
nology and phrases, attend to details and concepts, and evaluate
and synthesize arguments
and information. This involves being able to apply literacy
skills when reading primary and
secondary sources in history and social studies. It also involves
reading and understanding
challenging scientific and technical texts that use diagrams and
data to convey information

and illustrate concepts. When writing in the areas of history and
social studies, students are
required to use narrative in analyzing individuals, places, and
historical events. When writing
in science and technical subject areas, students must be able to
write descriptions of procedures
and results in a manner that others could replicate (NGA &
CCSSO, 2010).
The reading and writing standards, with descriptions of what
students should know, are orga-
nized by middle school grades 6-8, and high school grades 9-10
and 11-12. They have the same
structure as other ELA standards; organized by strand, anchor
standard, and subject specific
standard. Except for the fact that these standards apply to
subject-specific or discipline-specific
areas, they are written in a similar language and with similar
terms as their corresponding stan-
dards in reading and writing. Table 5.5 offers a side-by-side
comparison of two standards, one in
reading (standard 3) and one in writing (standard 6) across the
upper grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12.
In the reading example in Table 5.5, note that the CCR anchor
standard forms the basis for
standards in reading informational text as well as for the
standards in reading for science and
technical subjects. The column Reading: Informational Text
shows a seventh grade example
(CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.7.3) to correspond with the grade 6-8
example in in the column Science
and Technical Subjects (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.3). The
logic of CCR anchor standard 3 in
reading is followed within each subsequent grade level, 9-10
and 11-12.

The same table structure is used for the CCR anchor standard 6
in writing. Here, the language
of the anchor standard, the grade level standards in writing, and
the standards for science and
technical subjects are quite similar. Each standard, as written,
can be applied to writing within
an ELA curriculum as well as discipline-specific curriculum.
Think About It
How do you, as a lifelong learner, come to understand the
meaning of newly encoun-
tered vocabulary? What strategies do you use? Where is it that
you initially encounter
these new terms? What influence would a quality curriculum
have on the develop-
ment of new vocabulary for students? How might student
interest contribute to this
development?
Table 5.5 Side-by-side comparison of ELA anchor standards in
reading and writing
in science and technical subjects
Reading: Key Ideas and Details: Anchor Standard 3
(CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.3)
Analyze how and why individuals, events, or ideas develop and
interact over the course of a text.
Grade Level Reading: Informational Text Science and Technical

Subjects
6-8 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.7.3
Analyze the interactions between individuals,
events, and ideas in a text (e.g., how ideas
influence individuals or events, or how indi-
viduals influence ideas or events).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.3
Follow precisely a multistep procedure when
carrying out experiments, taking measure-
ments, or performing technical tasks.
9-10 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.3
Analyze how the author unfolds an analysis or
series of ideas or events, including the order
in which the points are made, how they are
introduced and developed, and the connec-
tions that are drawn between them.
Follow precisely a complex multistep
procedure when carrying out experiments,
taking measurements, or performing technical
tasks, attending to special cases or exceptions
defined in the text.
11-12 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.11-12.3
Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence
of events and explain how specific individuals,
ideas, or events interact and develop over the

course of the text.
Follow precisely a complex multistep
procedure when carrying out experiments,
taking measurements, or performing technical
tasks; analyze the specific results based on
explanations in the text.
Writing: Production and Distribution of Writing: Anchor
Standard 6
(CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.6 )
Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish
writing and to interact and collaborate
with others.
Grade Level Writing Science and Technical Subjects
6-8 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.6
Use technology, including the Internet, to
produce and publish writing and link to and
cite sources as well as to interact and collabo-
rate with others, including linking to and citing
sources.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.6-8.6
produce and publish writing and present the
relationships between information and ideas
clearly and efficiently.
9-10 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.6

produce, publish, and update individual or
shared writing products, taking advantage of
technology’s capacity to link to other informa-
tion and to display information flexibly and
dynamically.
produce, publish, and update individual or
shared writing products, taking advantage of
technology’s capacity to link to other informa-
tion and to display information flexibly and
dynamically.
11-12 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.6
produce, publish, and update individual
or shared writing products in response to
ongoing feedback, including new arguments
or information.
produce, publish, and update individual
or shared writing products in response to
ongoing feedback, including new arguments
or information.
(continued)

Note: (Writing in History/Social Studies, Science and
Technical Subjects)
Students’ narrative skills continue to grow in these grades. The
standards require that students be able to incor-
porate narrative elements effectively into arguments and
informative/explanatory texts. In history/social studies,
students must be able to incorporate narrative accounts into
their analyses of individuals or events of historical
import. In science and technical subjects, students must be able
to write precise enough descriptions of the step-
by-step procedures they use in their investigations or technical
work that others can replicate them and (possibly)
reach the same results.
Source: NGA & CCSSO, 2010.
ELA Standards and Differentiated Instruction
The anchor standards for ELA do not specify any particular
teaching method. Indeed, method-
ology was purposefully absent from the standards and their
descriptions to allow for the profes-
sional judgment of teachers in determining how to teach them.
The standards also recognize
the variability in abilities, needs, learning rates, and
achievement levels of students in most
classrooms. This language and the recommendations for
reading, writing, speaking and listen-
ing, and language found within the standards documents support
the concepts of differentiated
instruction. Refer to Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1, where the concepts
of differentiated instruction

were first introduced. Consider how the ELA standards are
compatible with the general prin-
ciples of differentiation (respectful tasks, flexible grouping,
quality curriculum, teaching up,
building community). Additionally, Appendix B of the Common
Core website (NGA & CCSSO,
2010) suggests texts for each grade level, demonstrating the
progression of text complexity
throughout the grades. Consider how these suggestions are
compatible with differentiating
content in response to student characteristics (readiness,
interests, and learning profile).
Think About It
What is the value in having the same anchor standards
reinforced grade after grade?
What drawbacks might there be to incorporating the same
standards throughout
the grades?
V O I C E S F R O M T H E C L A S S R O O M
Reading World History: A Core Approach
As a ninth grade world history teacher, I initially thought that
the Common Core standards in ELA
would have little to do with me. After all, in my own
profession, the broad questions of what to
teach in the social studies had its own local debates that kept
my focus on analyzing the political
climate, not the Common Core standards. Our district finally
adopted a comprehensive set of world
history standards and curriculum patterned after
recommendations from the National Center for
History in the Schools (NCHS), the National Council for the

Social Studies (NCSS), and the hard-won
standards for history adopted by our state department of
education. I worked on some of those
committees, and I am proud of the curriculum we have and
know it well. Adding the CCSS for read-
(continued)
ing and writing in social studies is new for me, but I like the
integration. I still have the same world
history content standards, and I use the Common Core literacy
standards as a guide to develop
other skills, such as citing evidence from the text and being able
to write about what they read.
One thing to understand about the Common Core standards is
that they are new to the students as
well as to the teachers. Students are learning to expect work on
core literacy skills within the sub-
ject area in addition to concentrating on the content.
For example, we were studying the apartheid system in South
Africa and the role of Nelson
Mandela in helping the Black majority win their political rights.
While we used the textbook as
one content source, we also used excerpts from The Long Walk
to Freedom: The Autobiography of
Nelson Mandela. We began with Part One: A Country
Childhood, Chapter 4; Mandela’s account of
the ceremonies marking his coming of age (at 16) and the
speech by a tribal chieftain that planted
the seeds of understanding of the role of apartheid in South
African society. Although written in

a simple prose, I knew that many of the students would not
identify with the cultural conditions in
this account or understand some of the vocabulary terms.
Before adding the Common Core literacy standards to the
curriculum, I would have planned the
lesson to ensure that students who were struggling could
understand the content and context
through discussion, or a video, or news clips, or simplified
written accounts of Mandela’s life. But
the new standards require that students also read from primary
sources and that they learn the
meaning of words and phrases as they are used in the text. The
standards advise that all students
should have access to complex text regardless of their reading
ability. I could not merely give this
autobiography to the advanced readers and provide a simpler
text for the rest. Instead of asking
students to read things that I thought they could handle, I
wanted all to be exposed to the tougher
but more interesting material, even knowing that some would
struggle, at least initially.
At first, some students didn’t understand the chapter, but I put
them in discussion groups, and
said that we were going to look at the first paragraph, and break
it apart, and take it step by step.
Instead of preteaching vocabulary, I let them identify terms that
were unfamiliar to them, and gave
them the opportunity to use their research skills to find the
meaning. Some of the cultural practices
in this passage were also strange, so students who were
interested either read ahead or did some
further research to find out more about rites of passage for
males as well as for females. I was able
to show them that with a few supports, they were able to

understand something that they did not
comprehend on the first read.
I enjoy using what I know about the content and applying it
toward skills that help students read,
write, and speak about world history. I feel that my content
knowledge brings richness to the stu-
dents’ literacy development in a manner that would not be
possible if I were a reading specialist or
only a history specialist.
—Frances B., world history teacher
Critical Thinking Questions
1. How does this scenario support the notion that instruction in
literacy skills is a shared responsibil-
ity within the school and within all content areas?
2. Which of the general principles of differentiation are evident
in this scenario?
Source material: Mandela, N. (1994). The Long Walk to
Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company.
Retrieved from
http://www.mandeladay.com/images/uploads/the-autobiography-
of-nelson-mandela.pdf.
http://www.mandeladay.com/images/uploads/the-autobiography-
of-nelson-mandela.pdf
Common Core Standards in Mathematics Chapter 5
5.3 Common Core Standards in Mathematics

The Common Core standards in mathematics represent a shift in
instructional emphasis toward
higher levels of cognitive demand. The standards are divided
into two sets, mathematical prac-
tice and mathematical content. The mathematical practice
standards describe ways that stu-
dents should engage with mathematics content as they grow in
maturity from kindergarten
through high school. The mathematical content standards stress
a balance between procedural
skill and conceptual understanding (IDEA Partnership, 2010).
They are intended to build a
foundation of procedural skill and fluency as well as conceptual
understanding from the earli-
est grades. Taken together, the CCSS mathematical standards
aim to develop procedural fluency
and conceptual understanding of mathematical content through
engagement and methods that
focus on the process of learning.
Implementation of these standards requires a paradigm shift for
many teachers, and challenges
them to develop instructional strategies that promote active
engagement through discourse and
involvement with real-world applications. While knowing
mathematical procedures are impor-
tant, the standards emphasize that deep conceptual
understanding is equally important. Lack
of understanding causes students to rely too heavily on
procedures, and prevents them from
engaging in useful mathematical practices, such as applying
math to practical situations, using
technology mindfully, or explaining mathematics accurately
(Zimba, 2011).
The purpose of the following discussion is to present an

overview of the mathematical stan-
dards in view of their potential intersection with concepts of
differentiated instruction. As you
read through these descriptions, make note of potential
applications to elements of DI, such as
the general teaching principles, the instructional elements of
content, process, and product, and
learner characteristics. This overview is not intended to
thoroughly explain the mathematical
standards. For a closer reading and understanding of the
mathematical practice and content
standards, refer to the Additional Resources section of this
chapter.
Mathematical Practice
The standards for mathematical practice shown in the feature,
CCSS Standards for Mathematical
Practice, focus on the processes that students should use to
learn and engage with mathemati-
cal content in meaningful ways. These standards focus on
practices that encourage students
to question how and why mathematics works the way it does, to
look for solutions to real-life
problems using mathematical principles, to develop a mindset of
curiosity and persistence, and
to ultimately move beyond procedure and tedium to experience
the elegance, beauty, and truth
of mathematics. These are laudable goals that will most likely
involve a change of mindset for
teachers and students alike.
Practice Standard 1: Make Sense of Problems and Persevere in
Solving Them
This standard (making sense of problems and perseverance)
addresses problem solving from

two perspectives: drawing on one’s knowledge and
understanding of concepts and proce-
dures to develop an appropriate response, and having the
mindset to persist to a successful
outcome (Larson, Fennell, Adams, Dixon, Kobett, & Wray,
2012). Practice standard 1 reflects
several assumptions toward learning mathematics. First,
problem solving is not about learn-
ing procedures, rather it is about learning concepts and
procedures to solve new problems.
Second, it assumes that this problem-solving capacity is a
different experience for every student.
Effective problem solving depends not only on the variables in
the task, but also the student’s
interpretation of the problem. Third, because this problem-
solving interpretation is a differ-
ent experience for each student, it is often a source of
frustration. Teachers have to walk a fine
line in setting up a situation that is possible to solve without
protecting students from mental
struggle. Students must have the opportunity to work through
their frustration without aban-
doning the task or feeling overwhelmed. Protecting students
from mental struggle denies them
the opportunity to develop skills of perseverance (Larson et al.,
2012).
Teacher actions that facilitate practice standard 1 are to
provide good problems (see suggestions in the feature,
Creating Good Problems) and to guide students in the
problem-solving process by providing opportunities

for discussion with others. Building successful prob-
lem solvers involves a realization that powerful learn-
ing occurs even when the answer evades the student.
Success is not simply measured by the right answer,
but also by the effort and perseverance involved in the
problem-solving process (Larson et al. 2012).
Practice Standard 2: Reason Abstractly and Quantitatively
The goal of practice standard 2 is for students to reason with
and about mathematics. In other
words, students learn to take a specific situation and generalize
it, or make it abstract, so its
mathematical principles could be applied in other situations.
They learn to reason about the
ideas and mathematical properties of a situation without the
details (Zimmerman, Carter,
Kanold, & Toncheff, 2012). Reasoning is the means through
which the students make sense of
mathematics so that it becomes useful.
Teachers promote mathematical reasoning through discourse,
which involves teacher-to-
student communication that probes student thinking beyond a
suggested answer. Discourse
also involves discussion among students, peer-to-peer
exchanges that support or challenge stu-
dent explanations and provide justification for their thinking.
When students engage in this
practice, they share and adjust their thinking based on math
information gathered through
CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively

3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of
others
4. Model with mathematics
5. Use appropriate tools strategically
6. Attend to precision
7. Look for and make use of structure
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
Source: NGA & CCSO, 2010.
Think About It
Apply the learning theories from Chapter 2
to math practice standard 1. Which theories
seem to support this practice standard, and in
what ways? Which theories might not com-
pletely support this standard and why?
discussions and in response to questions. Reasoning is a
continuous expectation for practice,
beginning in the early grades and extending into high school
(Zimmerman et al., 2012).
Students can analyze and justify reasoning even in very early
grades. For example, in learning
addition, Sarah might provide the correct answer to the question

“What is 2 plus 3?” Instead
of stopping there and moving on to the next sum, the teacher
might ask Sarah how she came
to that conclusion. Perhaps Sarah has simply memorized the
problem and answer. This is one
valid approach to a simple addition exercise, but the teacher can
extend the discourse by asking
whether anyone else got the same answer but used a different
method. By hearing from students
who combined a pair of manipulatives with three manipulatives
and then counted the total, or
from students who made tally marks on paper and then counted
them, the class learns about
different ways of thinking and about explaining their thinking.
If Sarah had said that 2 plus 3
was 6, it would still be helpful for students to evaluate her
thought process. Was her reasoning
not quite solid? Or did she make a simple calculation error?
Practice Standard 3: Construct Viable Arguments
and Critique the Reasoning of Others
The goal of this standard is for students to construct viable
arguments by making and testing
their own conjectures as well as those of others in a supportive
mathematical environment.
Successful implementation of standard 3 is dependent on the
social environment, which must
have social and behavioral norms that convey respect for others,
a willingness to hear all stu-
dent voices, the proper use of mathematical vocabulary, and an
awareness of the importance of
demonstrating the mathematical processes being used.
Creating Good Problems
These six questions can help teachers design problem-solving

activities.
1. Is the question interesting? Create or select problems that use
information about students’ lives
or interests to engage them and to foster a personal investment.
2. Does the problem involve meaningful mathematics? Do not
distort the understanding of the
mathematical principle by providing numbers that are overly
complex, or that distract from the
main objective of the lesson.
3. Does the problem provide students with an opportunity to
apply and extend mathematics?
Problems that come from a base of what students have already
learned help them understand
the purpose of the problem and are a good starting point for
extending learning.
4. Is the problem challenging? The objective is not to frustrate
students, but to pose a problem that
develops the attitudes and perseverance necessary to be
successful problem solvers.
5. Does the problem support the use of multiple strategies?
Given the same set of variables, no
two students will approach the problem in exactly the same
way. How each student sees the
problem is unique. Choose or create problems that lend
themselves to discovery and discussion
of the different ways they could be attacked.
6. Will students’ interactions with the problem reveal
information about their mathematical under-
standing? Students’ work and discourse should reveal how they
are thinking, the background

knowledge they bring to the task, and any assumptions they are
using to solve the problem.
Source: Adapted from Larson et al., 2012, pp. 28–29.
Teachers promote this standard by establishing supportive
social norms where it feels safe to
communicate one’s own mathematical ideas and question the
thinking of others (Larson et al.,
2012). Teachers must also provide a rich array of problems that
would stimulate student con-
jectures and arguments, help to identify misconceptions, and
guide discussion around impor-
tant mathematical ideas (Larson et al., 2012). When students are
engaged in this standard,
they explain and justify their thinking to classmates, who listen
to the explanation and judge
the reasonableness of the claim based on its clarity and
precision. When disagreements occur,
students are able to present their claims and counterclaims with
appropriate mathematical
justifications.
Practice Standard 4: Model with Mathematics
The goal of practice standard 4 is for students to use their
knowledge of mathematics to model
real-world situations, thus developing the ability to solve
problems of everyday life (Larson
et al., 2012). Modeling means taking a problem, thinking of a
description, and coming to a
mathematical solution. It applies to real-world problems from
business and the community. It

is the heart of what students will do when using mathematics as
educated adults (McCallum &
Zimba, 2011).
The word model in this standard is often misinterpreted to mean
using manipulatives to rep-
resent mathematical concepts. Manipulatives, either tangible,
such as base-ten blocks, or pic-
torial, such as drawings, are certainly elements of modeling, but
there are others to consider.
Students may use other instructional tools, such as diagrams,
tables, charts, symbols, and for-
mulas to convey a mathematical idea. The use of these models
increases in sophistication as
students progress through the grades. For example, a student
may model the number of action
figures among three friends as 5+5+5 in the first grade, and as 5
× 3 by the third grade. By high
school, students may be able to take several years’ data from
Internet sources (such as the per-
centage of adults who smoke cigarettes, the percentage of teens
who drink caffeinated soda, or
ridership in public transportation) and develop a model to
predict future trends (Larson et al.,
2012; Zimmerman et al., 2012).
Teachers promote this practice standard by providing
opportunities to solve problems that arise
from daily life. Learning to model mathematically is developed
by exploring and sharing solu-
tions to naturally arising situations as they present
themselves, with examples that are familiar, interest-
ing, or part of the students’ culture. As with practice
standard 3, successful implementation of this standard
is dependent on a learning environment conducive to

respectful discussion and discourse about mathemat-
ics (Larson et al., 2012; Zimmerman et al., 2012).
Practice Standard 5: Use Appropriate Tools Strategically
The intent of practice standard 5 is for students to use a variety
of tools in an active, hands-on
manner. Mathematically proficient students are familiar with
the strategic use of tools appro-
priate for their grade or course, can use them appropriately, and
are able to make decisions
about when each tool is helpful (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). These
tools may range from simple
paper and pencil to concrete models, rulers, protractors,
calculators, spreadsheets, computer
algebra systems, or dynamic geometry software.
Think About It
How would you use principles of DI to develop
examples that are familiar, interesting, or part
of the students’ environment?
The important thing to consider about this standard is that
it is not about the teacher demonstrating various tools.
Students must develop understanding by applying and using
mathematical tools, and by being actively engaged partici-
pants in this process. In order to accomplish this, classrooms
need to be equipped with adequate resources for students to
use as they explore problems and their solutions (Larson et
al., 2012). Teachers facilitate this practice standard by devel-
oping systems for using tools and by allowing students to
choose what they would consider appropriate for the problem

at hand (Zimmerman et al., 2012). For example, a student
solving for the angle of a triangle may choose to measure it
using a protractor, or she may be able to use paper and pencil
or a calculator to calculate the angle mathematically. At a
higher level, a student solving for sine might choose to use
a unit circle or a scientific calculator to determine the value.
Practice Standard 6: Attend to Precision
The goal of practice standard 6 is for students to commu-
nicate with precision, using clear definitions in discussions
with teachers and peers (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). This stan-
dard also addresses accuracy, such as the accurate use of
vocabulary and labels to support reasoning and being accu-
rate with procedures and calculations (Zimmerman et al.,
2012). The intent is for students (and teachers) to commu-
nicate precisely and correctly. Using correct mathematical
terminology supports the development of fine distinctions,
or nuances, of mathematical ideas and prepares students for
future concepts. For example, when a second grade student
explains that he cannot subtract a
big number from a smaller number, he may not realize that he
can do this with the use of posi-
tive and negative integers. Similarly, describing a rectangle as
having two long sides and two
short sides overgeneralizes the concept of a rectangle and
excludes the square from that defini-
tion; describing a fraction as part of a whole could confound
later realizations that fractions can
also describe parts of a set (Larson et al., 2012).
In order to support the development of this standard, teachers
should model appropriate use
of mathematics vocabulary, symbols, and explanations (recall
the comment from a sixth grade
student in Voices from the Classroom, Chapter 2, that the use of
top and bottom number in

referring to fractions was “so fifth grade!”). Teachers
supporting this standard also provide
opportunities for students to share their thinking and to explain
and justify their mathemati-
cal ideas.
Practice Standard 7: Look For and Make Use of Structure
The goal of practice standard 7 is for students to recognize and
use structure to understand
and learn mathematics (Larson et al., 2012). Mathematically
proficient students use patterns
as a tool for learning—making comparisons, looking for
similarities and differences that exist
across topics. In this manner, they are recognizing mathematical
structure (Zimmerman et
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
▲ Teaching students to use appropri-
ate tools strategically means allowing
them to choose tools, such as a calcula-
tor, protractor, or compass, to solve math
problems. How could this apply to another
content area?
al., 2012). Structure is found across the curriculum, in
geometry, basic operations, place value,
numerical patterns—the list goes on. For example, second
graders learn the structure of dou-
bles when they see the problems 7 + 8 as a doubles plus 1 fact
(7 + 7 = 14 plus 1 to equal 15).
Third graders may learn that names assigned to polygons are

related to the number of sides
(pentagon, heptagon, octagon, etc.).
Students may not always recognize structure, and should be
encouraged to look for it. Helping
students recognize familiar structures in problems helps them to
determine what to expect,
and they begin to learn how and why mathematics works the
way it does. The ultimate aim of
this standard is to introduce students to the aesthetic of rational
thought and logical reasoning.
Structure reveals the power of mathematics—that no matter the
context, problems of a certain
structure are worked similarly. Rather than a system of tedious
formulas used with mundane
tasks, mathematics is about asking questions and finding simple
solutions to problems. Through
attention to structure, students may come to see the clarity of
mathematics and realize that it
follows simple, regular rules that can explain great complexity
(Xander, 2010). When support-
ing the development of practice standard 7, teachers provide
opportunities for students to create
examples of structure on their own to share and discuss
(Zimmerman et al., 2012).
Practice Standard 8: Look For and Express Regularity in
Repeated Reasoning
The aim of this standard is for students to look for patterns as a
way to reason about and make
sense of mathematics (Zimmerman et al., 2012). This involves
encouraging students to move
beyond solving problems to find ways to generalize and
determine efficient methods for those
procedures (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). If students are encouraged
to pinpoint patterns between

calculations, they are more likely to look for and make sense of
generalizations. This is referred
to as regularity in repeated reasoning. Consider this example.
First grade students are
asked to show the different number pairs that could be used to
make 10. They may show that
9 + 1 = 10, and also that 1 + 9 = 10. As they experiment with
other number pairs, 8 + 2 = 10,
7 + 3 = 10, 6 + 4 = 10, they begin to see that as the first addend
decreases by one, the second
addend increases by one and the sum is still 10. In other words,
noticing that repeated calcula-
tions of the addends for 10 produces a pattern, which is what is
meant by seeking regularity.
With this regularity, students begin to discover their own
repeated reasoning—thinking, for
example that if 5 + 5 = 10, then I know the answer to 6 + 4
without counting because 6 is one
more than 5, and 4 is one less than 5. Making sense of patterns
and noticing repeated reason-
ing leads to their own discovery of general methods and
shortcuts for computing, which is the
intent of this standard.
The classroom atmosphere sets the stage for students to engage
in this practice. The role of
the teacher is to create and maintain the type of discovery-
oriented supportive environment
for this to take place. This involves providing multiple
examples as well as a progression of
examples to allow students to make sense of repeated reasoning
and to move from a single
example to building a general method. With this practice
standard, teachers are cautioned to
avoid teaching shortcuts too early, before the students’
understanding of the regularity of pat-

terns is developed (Zimmerman et al., 2012). For example,
students may write their number
pairs in a table, discuss the generalizations that they notice
from the table, and then test their
generalizations on other number pairs, ultimately discovering
their own shortcuts.
Mathematical Content Standards
The standards for mathematical content are organized by grade
in K-8 and by conceptual catego-
ries in high school (e.g., number and quantity, algebra,
functions, etc.). The standards are further
organized according to domains and clusters. Domains are one
or two words that describe the
big ideas that connect standards across grade levels. For
example, number and operations in
base ten (NBT) is a domain in grades K-5. A cluster is a group
of related standards that describe
related aspects of a domain. For example, in the domain of
number and operations in base ten,
two standards are clustered under the concept understand place
value. Each grade begins with a
brief overview of its domains and clusters and an introduction
that identifies and describes areas
for instructional focus. Figure 5.2 is a graphic depiction of how
to read the grade level standards.
Design of the Content Standards
The major design of the content standards is on focus and
coherence. Focus means greater mas-

tery of fewer things, and spending more time on the mastery of
important concepts so students
can apply them to a wide range of problems. Far from drills and
practice worksheets or the use
of rote procedures, the way the content standards are written
redefines the concept of focus.
Focus demands a vibrant, activity-based classroom with ample
time for discussion and reason-
ing (Zimba, 2011).
The focus in the early grades is on arithmetic. This enables
students to become fluent in compu-
tation, in the four basic operations, and in the basic
mathematical properties and their uses. It
positions students with a firm foundation and the skill set to
generalize to algebra, which begins
in the middle grades, and then on to the use of mathematics in
high school, in preparation for
the mathematics that is used in careers (Zimba, 2011).
Coherence in the standards refers to how mathematical ideas fit
together, or how they logi-
cally flow. Throughout the standards, mathematics keeps
coming together to become one uni-
fied idea. The concept is that mathematic ideas may become
more complex, but they are not
more complicated. The same basic ideas learned earlier hold in
new applications; the addition
and subtraction learned in lower grades is the same process
when used with fractions and in
algebraic equations. A careful reading of the standards shows
this progress, that underlying
f05.02_EDU673.ai
Number and Operations in Base Ten

Standard Cluster
Domain
3.NBT
Use place value understanding and properties of operations to
perform
multi-digit arithmetic.
1. Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to
the nearest
10 or 100.
2. Fluently add and subtract within 1000 using strategies and
algorithms
based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the
relationship
between addition and subtraction.
3. Multiply one-digit whole numbers by multiples of 10 in the
range 10–90
(e.g., 9 × 80, 5 × 60) using strategies based on place value
and properties
of operations.
Figure 5.2: How to read the grade level standards
Standards outline what students should know. Standards that are
closely related to one another
are grouped together and summarized in clusters. Domains are
comprised of large groups of
related standards.
Source: © Copyright 2010. National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School
Officers. All rights reserved.

principles guide the understanding of how and why math works,
topics flow from one idea
to another, and ultimately make sense. An example of coherence
is the flow of ideas toward
algebra in the number and operations domains from elementary
to high school. In elementary
school, three domains deal with numbers—operations and
algebraic thinking (OA), number
and operations in base ten (NBT), and number and operations in
fractions (NF). These ideas
come together in middle school into two domains. OA concepts
lead to understanding in the
domain of expressions and equations (EE), and NBT and NF
lead to a single unifying idea of
the number system (NSS). The concepts in these two domains,
learning to deal with symbolic
expression in the EE domain and a facility with the rational
number system in the NSS domain,
flow into the algebra domain in high school (for a graphic
explanation of these concepts, refer
to McCallum, 2011).
Standards
The standards begin with kindergarteners’ work on the number
core—learning how numbers
correspond to quantities, and how to put numbers together and
take them apart. For example,
students will be asked how many ways can the number 6 be
shown. With this form of num-
ber sense, addition and subtraction is the logical next step.
What follows in the standards is a

continuous progression from grade to grade, stressing
procedural skill and conceptual under-
standing. The K-5 content standards provide a solid foundation
in whole numbers, addition,
subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, and decimals,
which builds the basis for suc-
cessful application of more demanding concepts and procedures.
This skill set prepares stu-
dents in middle school to represent numbers symbolically.
Middle school becomes an area of
growth because of the foundational work in the elementary
grades (McCallum & Zimba, 2011).
Students do hands-on learning in geometry, and probability and
statistics. The middle school
standards prepare students for algebra, which begins in eighth
grade. High school students
become real users of mathematics. They learn not just how to do
mathematics, but why; that
math has a purpose, and has structure and coherence. One
purpose of the high school stan-
dards is the connection with other disciplines—science,
engineering, and technology, so there
is also an emphasis on modeling, making a situation into a
mathematical problem (McCallum,
2011). Table 5.6 displays the progression of mathematical
domains across grade levels.
Table 5.6 CCSS mathematical content standards: domains by
grade level
Grades K-5 Domains
Grades 6-8 (Middle
School) Domains

High School Domains (crossing a number
of traditional course boundaries)
Counting and cardinality Number and quantity
Operations and algebraic
thinking
Expressions and equations Algebra
Number and operations in
base ten
The number system Modeling
Number and operations—
fractions
Ratios and proportional
relationships
Functions Functions
Geometry Geometry Geometry
Measurement and data Statistics and probability Statistics and
probability
Source: NGA & CCSO, 2010; McCallum, 2011.
Science and Technology Standards Chapter 5
Mathematical Standards and Differentiated Instruction

These standards paint an encouraging picture of expectations
for mathematical learning and
practice. The standards also relate, in the tone of their wording
as well as in their structure, to
several of the concepts presented in differentiated instruction,
and in the theories and strategies
used to support those concepts. As with ELA, the math
standards set outcomes for each grade
level but do not define methods or materials necessary to
support students who are well below
or well above grade-level expectations, or the supports needed
for English language learners
and for students with special needs (NGO & CCSSO,
2010). Nevertheless, the standards state that all stu-
dents must have the opportunity to learn and meet the
same standards, and that they should be interpreted
to allow for the widest range of students to participate,
with accommodations as needed (McLaughlin, 2012).
They acknowledge that grade-specific standards do
not account for the variety in abilities, needs, learn-
ing rates, and achievement levels of students in any
given classroom, but act as signposts for the goal of
college and career readiness (NGO & CCSSO, 2010).
These statements validate the claim that DI is neces-
sary for effective, quality instruction.
5.4 Science and Technology Standards
The CCSS have a powerful support system—the science and
technology standards. CCSS provide
the essential literacy and math skills to enable a deep
understanding of science concepts and
add relevance to the technology standards. Conversely, the
science and technology standards pro-
vide application, convenience, depth, and meaning to the CCSS.
The Next Generation Science
Standards were developed in conjunction with CCSS and are

purposefully aligned. The National
Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS·S)
provide the guidance for developing
skills needed within the context of the CCSS and NGSS.
Next Generation Science Standards
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
(www.nextgenscience.org) are a joint effort
of the National Research Council, the National Science
Teachers Association, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve, a
nonprofit organization. The stan-
dards are based on the Framework for K-12 Science Education
developed by the National
Research Council. These standards are based on three
interrelated dimensions, science and
engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary
core ideas.
Science and engineering practices describe the behaviors of
scientists and engineers as they
engage in inquiry and discourse when developing and refining
ideas. The standards make it
clear that science and engineering concepts are learned by doing
the practices of science and
engineering within the context of the disciplinary core ideas,
not by learning factual infor-
mation in isolation. Students should engage in each of these
practices over each grade band
(K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12). The standards identify eight practices
that grow in complexity across
the grades:
Think About It

React to the statement that all students must
have the opportunity to learn and meet the
same math standards, with the widest range
of students participating with accommoda-
tions as needed. Does this statement have the
potential to change mathematical teaching
practices for the grade levels that you are most
familiar with? Give an example that supports
your answer.
http://www.nextgenscience.org
a. asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for
engineering)
b. developing and using models
c. planning and carrying out investigations
d. analyzing and interpreting data
e. using mathematics and computational thinking
f. constructing explanations (for science) and designing
solutions (for engineering)
g. engaging in argument from evidence
h. obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Crosscutting concepts, listed below, unify the study of science
and engineering through their
common application across all science content areas, thus
bridging the domains of science and
providing a way of organizing knowledge. These concepts
provide the mental tools for under-
standing concepts using a scientific point of view. For example,
when approaching the concept
of flooding, an approach that makes sense would be to make
observations of the patterns of

typical and atypical rainfall, look at the scale or amount of
water, the systems available for
drainage in the terrain, and the energy behind the movement of
water, which could lead to sug-
gestions for explanations and predictions, matching those
predictions with actual occurrences.
Repetition of these concepts as tools for investigation in one
setting reinforces their familiarity
in other settings, thus helping students to better understand
science and engineering practices
and core ideas. Explanatory material accompanying the
standards (e.g., Appendix G of the
NGSS) indicate that these concepts are intended for all students,
even for those who in the past
may have been assigned to basic science classes that
emphasized factual information and lower
order thinking skills. Furthermore, they are not intended to be
assessed as concepts separate
from practices or core ideas; such as identifying a definition of
“pattern” or “system.” Since the
standards preceded the development of evaluation instruments,
it is wise for professionals to be
aware of this sensibility and work to hold assessment creators
accountable to these expectations.
Crosscutting concepts include:
a. Patterns are observations that prompt questions about
relationships or ways to organize
and classify.
b. Cause and effect helps students to understand the causes
behind events and to predict and
explain events in new contexts.
c. Scale, proportion, and quantity are concepts that help
students to recognize how changes

in size, time, and energy affect a system’s structure or
performance.
d. Systems and systems models are concepts that help students
to explicitly define the param-
eters or features of a system and then to develop its model in
order to understand and
test ideas.
e. Energy and matter are concepts that help students understand
the flow of energy and
matter throughout systems in order to understand possibilities
and limitations.
f. Structure and function is a concept that helps students to
understand that the way an
object is shaped is related to its purpose.
g. Stability and change is a concept that describes the relative
rate of change in a system,
which can occur quickly or slowly.
Disciplinary core ideas prepare students
with sufficient core knowledge so that they
can acquire additional information on their
own in four content areas. This selection
was intentional. The limited number of core
ideas is meant to avoid shallow coverage of
a large number of topics and to clarify what
is most important to study, thus avoiding
the learning of factual information with-
out accompanying conceptual grounding.

Appendix E of the NGSS further explains
the progression of 44 core ideas, with
expectations for increasing sophistication
of thinking, across each of the grade bands
classified into the following areas:
a. Physical science
b. Life science
c. Earth and space science
d. Engineering, technology, and applications of science
Conceptual Shifts in Science Standards
With the goal of college and career readiness, the NGSS
emphasize critical thinking, investiga-
tion, and real-world application. These standards are intended to
support students in “thinking
like” scientists and engineers from an early age. Even primary
students are taught to identify
questions to investigate and use the scientific method to design
their own experiments, rather
than merely following instructions and making observations
about results. So, instead of sim-
ply making “oobleck” together out of cornstarch and water and
then noting how this substance
has some properties of liquids and some of solids, students
might be challenged to develop and
test a hypothesis about whether any substance can combine
more than one state of matter. Or
they might make oobleck and then use their observations of it,
along with additional research,
to design their own oobleck-like non-Newtonian fluid.
Like the CCSS for math, the NGSS present a smaller set of core
ideas in a more integrated,
coherent fashion. The focus on disciplinary core ideas in just
four areas (physical science, life

science, earth and space science, and engineering, technology,
and applications of science) form
the basis for a progression of knowledge across the grades,
beginning in kindergarten. The stan-
dards focus on critical thinking and primary investigation,
reflecting real-world interconnec-
tions—acquiring and applying science concepts to the world
around us. Rather than teaching
science as a set of disjointed and isolated facts, these standards
focus on descriptions of what
students should know and be able to do at the end of the grade
level.
The NGSS paint an encouraging picture of expectations for
scientific learning in the United
States. The standards were developed using current research in
cognitive science on how people
learn, (e.g., the work of Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000)
which was based on the theories and
strategies that support the concepts of differentiated instruction
(NGSS, 2013). As with the ELA
and math standards, the science standards set outcomes for each
grade level but do not define
methods or materials. Nevertheless, all students must have the
opportunity to learn and meet
Juice Images/SuperStock
▲ The Next Generation Science Standards are based on scien-
tific and critical thinking, and emphasize supporting students
in investigating their own questions. Does this seem different
than science classes when you were in school? Explain.

the same standards, and the widest range of students should be
allowed to participate in learning
the core ideas and practices of science. The title of Appendix D,
All Standards, All Students, on
the NGSS website, cites evidence and makes arguments for the
instructional shifts that teach-
ers must make for all students to be college and career ready.
Differentiated instruction and
Universal Design for Learning are cited as appropriate
frameworks for making this a reality. This
appendix is supplemented with case studies that provide
examples of strategies teachers can use
to ensure accessibility in seven areas: (1) economically
disadvantaged, (2) race and ethnicity, (3)
students with disabilities, (4) English Language Learners, (5)
girls, (6) alternative education, and
(7) gifted and talented students
(http://www.nextgenscience.org/appendix-d-case-studies).
The feature, Example of a Next Generation Science Standard for
Grade 2, shows a sample stan-
dard for second grade. This example illustrates the student
performance expectations (make
observations and construct evidence), a core idea (some earth
events happen quickly, others
more slowly) using the medium of a primary investigation
(observing a natural phenomenon).
Since the standards do not define the method or materials, it is
up to the teacher to find the
real-world connections. Detailed instructions on how to read the
standards (the disciplin-
ary core idea codes, connections to other grade levels and to
ELA and math) are accessed at
http://www.nextgenscience.org/how-to-read-the-standards. Next
Generation Science Standards

were launched in 2013, so there are relatively few examples of
classroom practice demonstrat-
ing these standards. One excellent resource has been developed
by Paul Anderson, a science
teacher, who takes each of the practices, crosscutting concepts
and disciplinary core ideas and
illustrates them with a series of short videos. The link is listed
here and at the end of this chapter.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLllVwaZQkS2rtZG_L7h
o89oFsaYL3kUWq
Example of a Next Generation Science Standard for Grade 2
2-ESS1 Earth’s Place in the Universe
Students who demonstrate understanding can:
Make observations from media to construct an evidence-based
account that Earth events can
occur quickly or slowly. [Clarification Statement: Examples of
events and timescales could include
volcanic explosions and earthquakes, which happen quickly and
erosion of rocks, which occurs
slowly.]
Science and Engineering Practices:
Constructing Explanations and Designing
Solution
s

Make observations (firsthand or from media) to construct an
evidence-based account for natural
phenomena.
Disciplinary Core Ideas ESS1.C: The History of Planet Earth
Some events happen very quickly; others occur very slowly,
over a time period much longer than
one can observe. (2-ESS1-1)
Crosscutting Concepts: Stability and Change
Things may change slowly or rapidly. (2-ESS1-1)
Source: Next Generation Science Standards. Accessed from
http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-
standards.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/appendix-d-case-studies
http://www.nextgenscience.org/how-to-read-the-standards
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLllVwaZQkS2rtZG_L7h
o89oFsaYL3kUWq
http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-
standards

Connections to ELA and Math
The NGSS were developed concurrently with the CCSS, and
feature connections with ELA
and mathematics to advance learning in these content areas from
a science perspective. (See,
for example, Appendix L for connections to CCSS in
mathematics at http://www.nextgen-
science.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix-
L_CCSS%20Math%20Connections%2006_03_13.pdf and
Appendix M for connections to CCSS in ELA at
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/
Appendix%20M%20Connections%20to%20the%20CCSS%20for
%20Literacy_061213.pdf).
These connections are illustrated in Figure 5.3. Note the
convergence of the NGSS with math
and ELA standards depicted in the white area of the diagram.
The overlapping math and science
standards are depicted in the purple area of the diagram, English
and science standards in the
green area, and the math and English standards in the orange
area.

f05.03_EDU673.ai
S2. Develop
and use models
M4. Model with
mathematics
S5. Use mathematics and
computational thinking
E2. Build strong base of knowledge
through content rich texts
E5. Read, write, and speak
grounded in evidence
M3 and E4. Construct viable
arguments and critique
reasoning of others
S7. Engage in
argument from

evidence
E1. Demonstrate independence in reading complex
texts, and writing and speaking about them
E7. Come to understand other perspectives and
cultures through reading, listening,
and collaborations
M1. Make sense of
problems and persevere
in solving them
M2. Reason abstractly and
quantitatively
M6. Attend to precision
M7. Look for and make
use of structure
M8. Look for and

express regularity
in repeated
reasoning
S1. Ask questions and
define problems
S3. Plan and carry out
investigations
S4. Analyze and interpret
data
S6. Contruct explanations
and design solutions
E6. Use
technology
and digital
media
strategically and
capably
M5. use appropriate

tools strategically
S8.
Obtain,
evaluate
and
communicate
information
E3. Obtain,
synthesize, and
report findings clearly
and effectively in
response to task and
purpose
Math
ELA
Science

Figure 5.3: Relationships and convergences found in the CCSS
and the NGSS
The labels that precede each practice/portrait indicate the
discipline and number associated with
the content standards in ELA/literacy, mathematics, and
science.
Source: Cheuk, T. (2013). Relationships and Convergences
found in the CCSS and the NGSS, Understanding Language:
Science. Reprinted with permission.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix-
L_CCSS%20Math%20Connections%2006_03_13.pdf
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix-
L_CCSS%20Math%20Connections%2006_03_13.pdf
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20M
%20Connections%20to%20the%20CCSS%20for%20Literacy_06
1213.pdf
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20M
%20Connections%20to%20the%20CCSS%20for%20Literacy_06
1213.pdf

Think About It
Given the newness of the Next Generation Science Standards,
most
states and districts have not yet developed the corresponding
cur-
riculum. What advice would you give curriculum developers to
ensure
that all students have the opportunity to learn and interact with
these
standards?
National Education Technology Standards for Students
The National Education Technology Standards for Students
(NETS•S) were developed by the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) for
evaluating the skills and knowl-
edge students need to learn effectively and live productively in
an increasingly global and digi-
tal world. Although the NETS•S predate the CCSS, they are
particularly relevant because media
and technology are integrated throughout the CCSS and NGSS,

both in critical analysis and
production of media. Of course, implementing the NETS•S does
not happen on its own. ISTE
identified several essential conditions that promote technology
integration in schools (ISTE,
2007). In order to be successful, the school-based community
must be supportive. Teachers
need school policies that reflect a vision supportive of
technology use, reliable and equitable
access to equipment and connectivity, ongoing professional
learning, and consistent and reli-
able technology support. Implementing the NETS•S in the
curriculum is also relevant to con-
cepts of differentiated instruction. DI concepts are closely
related to essential conditions of a
curriculum framework that integrates content standards with
technology resources, engaging
student-centered learning approaches, and continuous
assessment and evaluation of learning.
With this in mind, technology integration is not considered an
add-on set of standards that
teachers must balance with other demands. It actually can
become a viable means for effective
implementation of CCSS, NGSS, and DI concepts—allowing for
flexibility in student group-

ings, access to diversity of content, and assessment support that
would be difficult to implement
in its absence.
The NETS•S standards are used by teachers as guidelines to
structure technology use and
instruction at each grade level in six broad areas—creativity and
innovation; communication
and collaboration; research and information fluency; critical
thinking, problem solving, and
decision making; digital citizenship; and technology operations
and concepts.
As is evident by the titles of these standards, simply being able
to use technology (as covered in
the standard technology operations and concepts) is no longer
enough. The standards are meant
to guide students as they use technology to analyze, learn, and
explore. The outcomes they pro-
duce also correlate with the CCSS. For example, in the
mathematical standards, technology is
used as a tool to support mathematics. Technology does not do
the math; the students do the
math. They must use technology appropriately, be strategic in
its use, and know how to interpret

the results (McCallum & Zimba, 2011). Similarly, in the ELA
standards, students use technol-
ogy to gather information and to produce products, but they
must be able to interpret what they
find, use the information appropriately, express themselves with
clarity, and use technology
strategically in production of their work.
Four performance indicators explain the intent of each standard.
For example, the performance
indicators for standard 1, creativity and innovation, are:
Students demonstrate creative thinking, construct knowledge,
and develop innovative prod-
ucts and processes using technology. Students:
a. apply existing knowledge to generate new ideas, products, or
processes;
b. create original works as a means of personal or group
expression;
c. use models and simulations to explore complex systems and

issues;
d. identify trends and forecast possibilities. (ISTE, 2007)
The six standards and their performance indicators are quite
broad and can be difficult for
teachers and students to understand. In the interest of building
the knowledge base of a learn-
ing community, ISTE developed an implementation wiki where
teachers can share ideas, hopes,
frustrations, and ask for help, accessed at http://nets-
implementation.iste.wikispaces.net/.
Teachers who post to this wiki agree to license their work
through the share-alike creative com-
mons attribution, meaning that the work can be shared for any
non-commercial use as long as
the author is acknowledged.
For example, primary teachers were concerned that their
students may not grasp the concepts
behind the standards as they were written, so they modified the
language to make it more
student friendly. For each NETS•S standard, they developed a
student-friendly title and an
explanation, and shared it on the wiki. Table 5.7 lists the results
of their efforts along with

the NETS•S standards. To explore this concept further, visit
http://nets-implementation.iste.
wikispaces.net/Student+Friendly+Standard+Names. The
graphics show potential technology
applications for each standard that are suitable for K-2 students.
The web page, accessed on the
wiki, provides links to these free or low cost web-based
programs. While many of the programs
listed are most suitable for K-2 students, others, such as
Glogster and Wordle are suitable for
students of any age.
Table 5.7 NETS•S, student-friendly standard names, and
student-friendly
explanations
NETS•S Standard
Student-Friendly
Standard Name
Student-Friendly
Explanations

Understanding the Development and Elements of Common Core Standards

Understanding the Development and Elements of Common Core Standards

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Understanding the Development and Elements of Common Core Standards

Similar to Understanding the Development and Elements of Common Core Standards (20)

More from joyjonna282

More from joyjonna282 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Understanding the Development and Elements of Common Core Standards