In this paper, we perform a close reading of the New York State Computer Science/Digital Fluency Learning Standards document to determine its coherence and areas of incoherence and disconnection. This investigation, which utilizes content/discourse and textual analysis tools and methods from the tidytext tools developed for the R programming language, sought to understand the structure of the document itself, as well as the types and patterns of the language used in this document by analyzing word frequencies and networks of terms (engrams). The findings indicate a coherence across document in terms of its articulate of key ideas and principles of computer science and digital fluency. The findings describe an incoherence/disconnection between that the language used to articulate high level goals and objectives articulated in the executive summary of the standards document, such as interdisciplinarity, addressing the learning needs of all students, and equity of access, is mostly absent from the articulation of the standards themselves. In addition, the language used in the standards heavily addressed Bloom’s lower level thinking skills (such as identify, discuss, and explain) and less so Bloom’s high level thinking skills (such as design, create, and analyze). Implications for teacher education and curriculum design are addressed. Implications for teacher education and professional development in the development of rich curricular experiences in computer science and digital fluency are discussed.
COGNITIVE AND EPISTEMIC SPACES IN THE CSTA COMPUTER SCIENCE LEARNING STANDARDSIJITE
This paper presents the findings of close reading of the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA)
Computer Science Learning Standards for grades K-12. This document is influential because it has been
adopted by at least five of the United States and has served as an inspiration for several more. Analyses of
the document structure as well as of verb usage, word frequencies, and word pair networks for the
language of the standards themselves as well as the clarification text included in the document for each
standard were conducted using tidytext tools built for the R programming language. These analyses
revealed a high level of internal coherence in this learning standards document, as well as a wide
epistemic space for the teaching and learning of core computer science concepts and practices by K-12
students and their teachers. Implications for student learning, curriculum design, and computer science
teacher preparation were discussed.
Chapter 5Understanding the Standards And I’m calling.docxjoyjonna282
The document discusses the development and key elements of various education standards, including the Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and National Educational Technology Standards. It provides an overview of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and mathematics, noting they aim to ensure students gain 21st century skills and are prepared for college and careers. The document also discusses concerns about the new standards and their implementation.
14RUNNING HEAD Content Design Factors in E-learningEttaBenton28
1
4
RUNNING HEAD: Content Design Factors in E-learning
An investigation on the effect of content design factors on learning outcomes in Basic Education in the US
HCIN 699-51- B-2021/Summer
Applied Project in Healthcare Infor
Professor Chaza Abdul and Professor Glenn Mitchell
Prepared by:
Name: Bolade Yusuf
Student ID: 273092
Harrisburg University
08/18/21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Comment by Author 2: Need to fix the first line start of your pages. All pages should start at 1 inch all sides.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Content Design 8
Figure 2: Factors Affecting Lesson Design 9
Figure 3: Guskey Evaluation Framework 10
INTRODUCTION1.1 Background to research problem
Education has a key role to play for sustainable development both in developing and developed countries (Chimombo, 2005). The progressively increasing pressure majorly on developing countries to be at par with their developed partners has only contributed towards the significance of education. This is aimed at balancing the global competitiveness. According to Chimombo, 2005, hindering circumstances in each developing nation have tomust be improved and aligned regarding compulsory and free education to foster general access to education.
Internet connection is tremendously growing tremendously globally each year. People across the globe are increasingly integrated to what happens on in different parts of the world. This has brought forward huge opportunities and success to individuals. Just like the technology has changed the world, it is now changing the learning and teaching environment. Learning approaches embedded to the Information Communication Technology (ICT) ICT (must define it in full term first before using abbreviations) poli ...
14RUNNING HEAD Content Design Factors in E-learningMatthewTennant613
1
4
RUNNING HEAD: Content Design Factors in E-learning
An investigation on the effect of content design factors on learning outcomes in Basic Education in the US
HCIN 699-51- B-2021/Summer
Applied Project in Healthcare Infor
Professor Chaza Abdul and Professor Glenn Mitchell
Prepared by:
Name: Bolade Yusuf
Student ID: 273092
Harrisburg University
08/18/21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Comment by Author 2: Need to fix the first line start of your pages. All pages should start at 1 inch all sides.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Content Design 8
Figure 2: Factors Affecting Lesson Design 9
Figure 3: Guskey Evaluation Framework 10
INTRODUCTION1.1 Background to research problem
Education has a key role to play for sustainable development both in developing and developed countries (Chimombo, 2005). The progressively increasing pressure majorly on developing countries to be at par with their developed partners has only contributed towards the significance of education. This is aimed at balancing the global competitiveness. According to Chimombo, 2005, hindering circumstances in each developing nation have tomust be improved and aligned regarding compulsory and free education to foster general access to education.
Internet connection is tremendously growing tremendously globally each year. People across the globe are increasingly integrated to what happens on in different parts of the world. This has brought forward huge opportunities and success to individuals. Just like the technology has changed the world, it is now changing the learning and teaching environment. Learning approaches embedded to the Information Communication Technology (ICT) ICT (must define it in full term first before using abbreviations) poli ...
This document discusses the implementation of Common Core standards in Mississippi public schools. It reviews literature on the challenges of Common Core implementation and the use of professional development to help teachers adapt. The document then analyzes test score data from 2014-2016 to see if Common Core improved student performance on standardized tests like PARCC, MCT2, MAP, and SATP2. The data shows initial struggles but eventual growth in test scores and graduation rates over time. Implementing Common Core was difficult for teachers but professional development training helped them embrace the new standards, leading students to perform at the level of their peers in other states.
This document summarizes a lecture on needs analysis and curriculum design. It discusses conducting a needs analysis to determine learners' needs, lacks, and wants to inform curriculum development. A needs analysis was conducted for a private security company in Rwanda to create an English course for employees. Data from needs analyses is used to prioritize learner needs and revise curricula. Curriculum designers must interpret needs analysis data and decide which needs to address in the curriculum. Standardized tests may also factor into curriculum design depending on a program's goals.
This document summarizes a study that investigated the impact of physical and academic environment on student and teacher attitudes towards teaching and learning English for communication in Pakistan. Surveys were conducted with 720 students and interviews with 12 teachers from a university and two affiliated colleges. The results showed significant differences in student attitudes based on environment, with university students demonstrating better attitudes than college students. University teachers' teaching strategies also aligned more closely with communicative language teaching approaches compared to college teachers. The document discusses relevant prior research and the methodology used in the study.
COGNITIVE AND EPISTEMIC SPACES IN THE CSTA COMPUTER SCIENCE LEARNING STANDARDSIJITE
This paper presents the findings of close reading of the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA)
Computer Science Learning Standards for grades K-12. This document is influential because it has been
adopted by at least five of the United States and has served as an inspiration for several more. Analyses of
the document structure as well as of verb usage, word frequencies, and word pair networks for the
language of the standards themselves as well as the clarification text included in the document for each
standard were conducted using tidytext tools built for the R programming language. These analyses
revealed a high level of internal coherence in this learning standards document, as well as a wide
epistemic space for the teaching and learning of core computer science concepts and practices by K-12
students and their teachers. Implications for student learning, curriculum design, and computer science
teacher preparation were discussed.
Chapter 5Understanding the Standards And I’m calling.docxjoyjonna282
The document discusses the development and key elements of various education standards, including the Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and National Educational Technology Standards. It provides an overview of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and mathematics, noting they aim to ensure students gain 21st century skills and are prepared for college and careers. The document also discusses concerns about the new standards and their implementation.
14RUNNING HEAD Content Design Factors in E-learningEttaBenton28
1
4
RUNNING HEAD: Content Design Factors in E-learning
An investigation on the effect of content design factors on learning outcomes in Basic Education in the US
HCIN 699-51- B-2021/Summer
Applied Project in Healthcare Infor
Professor Chaza Abdul and Professor Glenn Mitchell
Prepared by:
Name: Bolade Yusuf
Student ID: 273092
Harrisburg University
08/18/21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Comment by Author 2: Need to fix the first line start of your pages. All pages should start at 1 inch all sides.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Content Design 8
Figure 2: Factors Affecting Lesson Design 9
Figure 3: Guskey Evaluation Framework 10
INTRODUCTION1.1 Background to research problem
Education has a key role to play for sustainable development both in developing and developed countries (Chimombo, 2005). The progressively increasing pressure majorly on developing countries to be at par with their developed partners has only contributed towards the significance of education. This is aimed at balancing the global competitiveness. According to Chimombo, 2005, hindering circumstances in each developing nation have tomust be improved and aligned regarding compulsory and free education to foster general access to education.
Internet connection is tremendously growing tremendously globally each year. People across the globe are increasingly integrated to what happens on in different parts of the world. This has brought forward huge opportunities and success to individuals. Just like the technology has changed the world, it is now changing the learning and teaching environment. Learning approaches embedded to the Information Communication Technology (ICT) ICT (must define it in full term first before using abbreviations) poli ...
14RUNNING HEAD Content Design Factors in E-learningMatthewTennant613
1
4
RUNNING HEAD: Content Design Factors in E-learning
An investigation on the effect of content design factors on learning outcomes in Basic Education in the US
HCIN 699-51- B-2021/Summer
Applied Project in Healthcare Infor
Professor Chaza Abdul and Professor Glenn Mitchell
Prepared by:
Name: Bolade Yusuf
Student ID: 273092
Harrisburg University
08/18/21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Background to research problem 4
1.1.1 Content Design Factors 4
1.1.2 Learning outcomes 5
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Content design Factors 7
2.2 Learning outcomes 8
2.3 Research Framework 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Research Philosophy 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.3 Study Population Sample 13
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 14
3.5 Data Collection 14
3.6 Data Analysis 14
References 16
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 17
Appendix 2: Paired T-Test Analysis 20
Appendix 3: Chi-Squared Test 28
Comment by Author 2: Need to fix the first line start of your pages. All pages should start at 1 inch all sides.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Content Design 8
Figure 2: Factors Affecting Lesson Design 9
Figure 3: Guskey Evaluation Framework 10
INTRODUCTION1.1 Background to research problem
Education has a key role to play for sustainable development both in developing and developed countries (Chimombo, 2005). The progressively increasing pressure majorly on developing countries to be at par with their developed partners has only contributed towards the significance of education. This is aimed at balancing the global competitiveness. According to Chimombo, 2005, hindering circumstances in each developing nation have tomust be improved and aligned regarding compulsory and free education to foster general access to education.
Internet connection is tremendously growing tremendously globally each year. People across the globe are increasingly integrated to what happens on in different parts of the world. This has brought forward huge opportunities and success to individuals. Just like the technology has changed the world, it is now changing the learning and teaching environment. Learning approaches embedded to the Information Communication Technology (ICT) ICT (must define it in full term first before using abbreviations) poli ...
This document discusses the implementation of Common Core standards in Mississippi public schools. It reviews literature on the challenges of Common Core implementation and the use of professional development to help teachers adapt. The document then analyzes test score data from 2014-2016 to see if Common Core improved student performance on standardized tests like PARCC, MCT2, MAP, and SATP2. The data shows initial struggles but eventual growth in test scores and graduation rates over time. Implementing Common Core was difficult for teachers but professional development training helped them embrace the new standards, leading students to perform at the level of their peers in other states.
This document summarizes a lecture on needs analysis and curriculum design. It discusses conducting a needs analysis to determine learners' needs, lacks, and wants to inform curriculum development. A needs analysis was conducted for a private security company in Rwanda to create an English course for employees. Data from needs analyses is used to prioritize learner needs and revise curricula. Curriculum designers must interpret needs analysis data and decide which needs to address in the curriculum. Standardized tests may also factor into curriculum design depending on a program's goals.
This document summarizes a study that investigated the impact of physical and academic environment on student and teacher attitudes towards teaching and learning English for communication in Pakistan. Surveys were conducted with 720 students and interviews with 12 teachers from a university and two affiliated colleges. The results showed significant differences in student attitudes based on environment, with university students demonstrating better attitudes than college students. University teachers' teaching strategies also aligned more closely with communicative language teaching approaches compared to college teachers. The document discusses relevant prior research and the methodology used in the study.
SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docxedgar6wallace88877
SIR
CD
Society for Reÿearch
n Child Development
sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 28, number 2
2014
I Social Policy Report
Common Core
Development and Substance
David T. Conley
University of Oregon
Abstract
his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core State
Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-
erenced in their development, the need for educationa[ standards
generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators
to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-
ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and the sources
used in its development. These inctude cortege and career readiness standards
developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards, and the con-
tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[ systems are widety
respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship between the
Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this report does offer
insight into the structure of the standards, most of the information presented
here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other interested parties
understand the effects on educationa[ practice.
Common Core
Development and Substance
'he Common Core State Standards burst upon
the scene in June 2010 and were quickly
adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as
of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been
followed by a period of reexamination in
some states. Although the idea of standards
that are consistent across states has become controver-
sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge
and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State
Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned
or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu-
cational governance and who should control curriculum
are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are
more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn-
thesis of college and career readiness standards already
developed, the expectations contained in the standards
of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys-
tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life
in the dynamically changing economic and social systems
of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez,
Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon-
zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State
School Officers Et National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
This Social Policy Report considers the Common
Core State Standards, where they came from, what they
are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa-
tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of
educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more
students who are college and career ready, and the role
of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this
goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL-
oped is described, followed by a consideration of the
facts about.
SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docxjennifer822
SIR
CD
Society for Reÿearch
n Child Development
sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 28, number 2
2014
I Social Policy Report
Common Core
Development and Substance
David T. Conley
University of Oregon
Abstract
his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core State
Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-
erenced in their development, the need for educationa[ standards
generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators
to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-
ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and the sources
used in its development. These inctude cortege and career readiness standards
developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards, and the con-
tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[ systems are widety
respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship between the
Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this report does offer
insight into the structure of the standards, most of the information presented
here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other interested parties
understand the effects on educationa[ practice.
Common Core
Development and Substance
'he Common Core State Standards burst upon
the scene in June 2010 and were quickly
adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as
of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been
followed by a period of reexamination in
some states. Although the idea of standards
that are consistent across states has become controver-
sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge
and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State
Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned
or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu-
cational governance and who should control curriculum
are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are
more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn-
thesis of college and career readiness standards already
developed, the expectations contained in the standards
of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys-
tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life
in the dynamically changing economic and social systems
of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez,
Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon-
zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State
School Officers Et National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
This Social Policy Report considers the Common
Core State Standards, where they came from, what they
are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa-
tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of
educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more
students who are college and career ready, and the role
of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this
goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL-
oped is described, followed by a consideration of the
facts about.
A Comparative Study Of Competency-Based Courses Demonstrating A Potential Mea...Sheila Sinclair
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a rubric for assessing competency-based course design and student success in an undergraduate program. The rubric was used to evaluate 12 new competency-based courses in the program. The results showed a correlation between high-scoring courses on the rubric and higher student assessment scores, suggesting the rubric is effective in evaluating course quality and predicting student success. The study recommends focusing on active student learning, increased mentor support and feedback, and opportunities to practice skills to improve course design.
10 Things You Should Know About the Common Corene atoday.o.docxpaynetawnya
10 Things You Should Know About the Common Core
ne atoday.org /2013/10/16/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-common-core/
October 16, 2013 by twalker
Filed under ,
By Tim Walker
An enormous effort to implement the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) is underway in more than 40 states and the
District of Columbia. Districts are training staff, field-testing
assessments, and evaluating technology requirements.
Teachers are rewriting curriculum and instruction to prepare
students for more rigorous coursework. Some states are further
ahead than others. And as the 2014 – 2015 implementation
deadline draws near, it’s likely that the road has been—and will
continue to be—a bit rocky. But schools are forging ahead with
the initiative—even as it faces opponents who are determined to
mislabel the effort as everything from “Obamacore” to a
“national curriculum.” The Common Core is a set of voluntary
K–12 standards in English language arts/literacy and
mathematics. The White House did not create the initiative, nor is it leading it. The standards were developed by
governors and state school officials, with input from a wide range of educators, content experts, national
organizations (including NEA), and community groups.
The challenges surrounding implementation, however, are formidable. Teachers are concerned about adapting
their classrooms to the rigorous new standards and receiving the proper training. Many are also wondering about
the role of new assessments. But they also recognize the enormous opportunity that lies ahead.
“Educators desperately want to reclaim the joy in teaching—which means creative lesson plans, meaningful
exploration of topics, and inspiring the joy of real learning in our students,” says NEA President Dennis Van Roekel.
“Common Core could help achieve that if the implementation is done correctly.”
To reach that goal, all stakeholders must work together and take a leadership role in educating each other and the
general public about the Common Core. It’s a complex subject. The following facts are intended to clarify key
points, allay concerns about what the Common Core isn’t, and—most importantly—highlight how the standards
can be the game -change r stude nts ne e d.
1. M ost NEA M e mbe rs Support the Common Core
Are many teachers anxious about the Common Core? Absolutely. Are some die-hard
critics? No doubt. But there is no massive groundswell of opposition to the Common
Core among NEA members. An NEA poll conducte d in July by Gre e nbe rg Quinlan
Rosne r Re se arch found that 75 percent of its members—teachers and education
support professionals —supported the standards outright or supported “with
reservations.” Whether it’s tighter content focus or opportunities for deeper critical
thinking, the majority of teachers see the new standards as something to get excited
about. Another poll released by the American Federation of Teachers revealed similar
levels of enthusiasm, again i ...
The document provides information about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) including:
1. The CCSS are an effort by states to define common standards in K-12 education to prepare students for college and careers regardless of which state they live in.
2. The standards were developed through collaboration between experts, teachers, and others and have been adopted by 45 states and territories.
3. Implementing the new standards will require changes to curriculum, assessments, teacher professional development, and may require additional funding for technology and other resources.
4. While the CCSS aim to increase rigor, consistency, and college and career readiness, some critics argue they may be difficult to implement effectively within schools facing budget
Challenges and Adjustments in the Curriculum and Instruction of the K+12 Prog...IJAEMSJORNAL
The Philippines adapted the K+12 program to uplift its educational standards in order to become comparable to those of other countries. RA 10533 was enacted and mandated that all schools both public and private must comply with its provisions/guidelines to better equip its citizens with the necessary knowledge and skills to meet the higher educational demands of life and work of the 21st century. This study assessed the curriculum, instruction, challenges, adjustments, and compliance to the standard of the K+12 program implementation of teachers together with their principal/school heads in the Laboratory High School of Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, during the academic year 2019-2020. The study utilized the descriptive method in order to describe the current status of the K+12 curriculum implementation in the said school. A total of 69 respondents were selected through purposive sampling coming from the four campuses of NEUST namely Gabaldon Campus, San Isidro Campus, Fort Magsaysay campus and General Tinio Campus. Weighted means were used to analyze their assessment of the curriculum, instructional-related factors and the challenges and adjustments encountered. The findings showed that the curriculum content, objectives and instructional-related factors are in conformity with the standards, policies or guidelines set by RA 10533, or otherwise known as “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013”, subject to some improvements due to the addition of elective subjects. Respondents consider their learners as the center of the educational process, use varied types of teaching strategies and techniques depending upon the learners need, and has individual, paired or group applications. Resource materials and facilities are available but they are not adequate, nonetheless, school environment is generally conducive to learning. No significant relationship exists on their assessments with respect to the challenges experienced and the adjustments made in the implementation of the K+12 curriculum.
The document provides information about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), including:
1) The CCSS are an effort by states to define common standards in K-12 education to prepare students for college and careers regardless of which state they live in.
2) The standards were developed through collaboration between experts, teachers, and others and have been adopted by 45 states and territories.
3) Implementing the CCSS will impact students with disabilities by holding them to the same high standards with supports like accommodations, assistive technologies, and teacher professional development on helping struggling students meet the standards.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982). Dr. Kritsonis has served as an elementary school teacher, elementary and middle school principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, professor, author, consultant, and journal editor. Dr. Kritsonis has considerable experience in chairing PhD dissertations and master thesis and has supervised practicums for teacher candidates, curriculum supervisors, central office personnel, principals, and superintendents. He also has experience in teaching in doctoral and masters programs in elementary and secondary education as well as educational leadership and supervision. He has earned the rank as professor at three universities in two states, including successful post-tenure reviews.
With the 2015 enactment of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, all states are required to adopt and implement college- and career-ready standards (CCRS) in English language arts and mathematics. Today, most states and the District of Columbia are implementing rigorous, comparable CCRS and assessing student proficiency in meeting those standards.
Despite this, significant challenges thwart the promise of CCRS as the foundation for grade-level proficiency and readiness for college and careers for all students. Chief among these is the limited availability of high-quality, aligned instructional materials and supports that educators need to effectively deliver CCRS-aligned curriculum. This PCG White Paper describes a multidimensional approach to address this challenge, focusing on the design and delivery of curriculum and instructional practices that align strongly with rigorous, comparable CCRS to maximize student engagement in standards-aligned content and skills.
To that end, PCG’s approach integrates 1) analysis of curriculum and instructional materials for evidence of alignment with college and career-ready standards, 2) guidance for the design of CCRS-aligned curriculum, and 3) guidance for the design and implementation of CCRS-aligned curriculum delivery.
This document summarizes a study that evaluated how teachers in seven North Carolina early college high schools applied their knowledge of technology standards (ISTE NETS) after being provided laptop computers for classroom instruction. Teacher interviews revealed that while technical skills varied, teachers were progressing in laptop use over time. Teachers expected laptops to reduce lectures and increase student-centered projects and research. Analysis of teacher responses showed understanding of how laptops could enhance monitoring, assessment of student work, and professional development, as well as address ethical and legal issues of technology use. The study provides a baseline for comparing teacher knowledge as laptop integration evolves over three years.
Using ISTE NETS Standards to frame teacher knowledge and application of one-to-one computing at implementation. The study evaluated a pilot program providing laptops to teachers and students in 7 early college high schools in North Carolina. Teacher interviews and focus groups explored teacher readiness and knowledge based on ISTE NETS standards. Findings showed that teachers had varying levels of technical skills but were progressing over time. Teachers projected laptops could reduce lectures and increase student-directed learning, research, and individualization. Teachers understood laptop monitoring software could help assessment but desired more training to implement effectively. Schools provided varying technology-related professional development to teachers.
This document provides an overview of the Common Core State Standards and the transition to Common Core-aligned assessments. It discusses how the Common Core requires higher standards that focus on deeper learning rather than superficial coverage of many topics. It also explains how assessments will change from primarily multiple choice to include more innovative item types like performance tasks and technology-enhanced questions to better measure skills like writing, problem-solving, and analytical thinking. The document provides resources and timelines to help educators understand what is required and plan their transition to meet Common Core requirements by the 2014-2015 deadline.
An evaluation of_the_conditions,_processes,_and_consequences_of_laptop_comput...Cathy Cavanaugh
This article examines how laptop computing technology, teacher professional
development, and systematic support resulted in changed teaching practices
and increased student achievement in 47 K-12 schools in 11 Florida school
districts. The overview of a large-scale study documents the type and
magnitude of change in student-centered teaching, technology tool-based
teaching, and student learning that were observed in 440 classrooms over
the course of a school year. By employing multiple observations in all
schools, document analysis, interviews, and teacher inquiry, an account of the
conditions, processes, and consequences (Hall, 1995) of laptop computing
was generated. Based on the analysis of data, laptop computing had a positive
impact across districts, particularly in regard to changes in teaching practices.
Increases in student achievement were also demonstrated across districts.
This study calls attention to systemic issues associated with successful laptop
implementation and provides implications for statewide laptop programs.
Conversations with the Mathematics Curriculum: Testing and Teacher DevelopmentSaide OER Africa
This paper addresses the question: how do mathematics teachers make meaning from curriculum statements in relation to their teaching practices. We report on a teacher development activity in which teachers mapped test items from an international test against the national curriculum statement in mathematics. About 50 mathematics teachers across Grades 3-9 worked in small groups with a graduate student or staff member as a group leader. Drawing on focus group interviews with the teachers and the group leaders we show that the activity focused the teachers on the relationships between the intended curriculum and their teaching, i.e. the enacted curriculum, in four areas: content coverage; cognitive challenge; developing meaning for the assessment standards; and sequence and progression. We argue that the activity illuminates ways in which international tests can provide a medium for teacher growth rather than teacher denigration and alienation.
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docxtoltonkendal
Running Head: Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 1
1
TARGET OF PROGRAM EVALUATION PLAN
6
Shamika Cockfield
Strayer University
Dr. Melanie Gallman
EDU571: Evaluating School Programs
January 19, 2017
Teacher Preparation Program
The evaluation of an education program is an evolving profession. The purpose of testing the efficiency of a program is to give the decision-makers substantial information to use in enhancing or improving the recommended program. For example, an institution, say a school, may use program evaluation to assist in making decisions regarding whether to establish a program (needs assessment), ways of developing a program (formative evaluation) and whether to revise or continue using the existing program (summative evaluation) (Faxon-Mills, Hamilton, Rudnick & Stecher, 2013). As such, the objective of this paper is to evaluate the efficiency of a teacher preparation program in enhancing the value of the teachers and the performance of the students.
Describe three (3) elements of a worthy object for program evaluation - its type, the department administrating it, and target population.
The program evaluation under perspective is the Teacher Preparation program. It is a program that the three levels of government, Federal, State and local government establishes to ascertain the efficiency of the teachers engaged in educational institutions at all the levels ranging from the Pre-school to the University Levels. As such, the program falls under or it’s rather administered by the Council for the Accreditation of Education Programs (CAEP). The target focuses mostly on the teacher candidates (Faxon-Mills, Hamilton, Rudnick & Stecher, 2013).
Describe the program's history, primary purpose(s), and / or expected outcomes.
Effective tutoring has always been significant and is recently a nationwide concern. The increased emphasis on effective tutoring can be attributed to a several factors, such as (a) long-lasting accomplishment gaps that endure in spite of the comprehensive transitions at both the national and State levels, (b) the poorer academic performance registered by the students on international examination compared to their counterparts living in other industrialized nations and lastly(c) the need of managing the expenditure by the government at the Federal, State and local positions. All these aspects have raised a major concern concerning the efficiency of the teachers in schools and the significance of preparing teachers adequately while in colleges and campuses. Furthermore, the emphasis on enhancing teacher education is as well triggered by the competition and assessment with the alternate certification programs and the fresh standards recommended by the Board mandated to accredit the education preparation programs.
The board requires these programs to illustrate that the approved candidates can impact strong positive impacts on the students learning. One key outcome of these developments is the level o ...
Examination of relevant syllabi and curriculum guidesleesha roberts
The document outlines Trinidad and Tobago's curriculum development process, which involves designing curricula through consultation with stakeholders, developing written curriculum documents, implementing curricula through teacher training, monitoring classroom practice, evaluating curricula effectiveness through data analysis, and reviewing curricula based on evaluation findings. Key aspects of the process include establishing philosophical underpinnings and goals, producing resource materials, providing technical support to schools, and identifying deficiencies to inform corrective actions.
Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the United States and world-wide. Some international travels include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Switzerland, Grand Cayman, Haiti, St. Maarten, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Freeport, Jamaica, Barbados, Martinique, Canada, Curacao, Costa Rico, Aruba, Venezuela, Panama, Bora Bora, Tahiti, Latvia, Spain, Honduras, and many more. He has been invited to lecture and serve as a guest professor at many universities across the nation and abroad.
Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the United States and world-wide. Some international travels include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Switzerland, Grand Cayman, Haiti, St. Maarten, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Freeport, Jamaica, Barbados, Martinique, Canada, Curacao, Costa Rico, Aruba, Venezuela, Panama, Bora Bora, Tahiti, Latvia, Spain, Honduras, and many more. He has been invited to lecture and serve as a guest professor at many universities across the nation and abroad.
This document discusses tools for assessing cognitive outcomes of service-learning programs. It begins by explaining the importance of assessing service-learning and then provides a review of available assessment tools. The tools are organized into three categories: research scales, written essays/protocols, and interviews/qualitative approaches. Several tools are described in detail, including the Cognitive Learning Scale, Problem-Solving Analysis Protocol, and Problem-Solving Interview Protocol. The conclusion emphasizes that systematic assessment can improve service-learning programs and better demonstrate their impact on student learning.
1) The document discusses assessment practices in colleges of education in Ghana and their impact on developing evaluative thinking skills in student teachers.
2) It finds that while formative assessment is used, feedback focuses more on correcting mistakes than engaging students in dialogue.
3) End of semester exams mainly assess lower-order thinking skills like knowledge and comprehension rather than higher-order skills like analysis and evaluation that are emphasized in the curriculum. This means student teachers may not be adequately prepared to foster evaluative thinking in pupils.
Optimizing Gradle Builds - Gradle DPE Tour Berlin 2024Sinan KOZAK
Sinan from the Delivery Hero mobile infrastructure engineering team shares a deep dive into performance acceleration with Gradle build cache optimizations. Sinan shares their journey into solving complex build-cache problems that affect Gradle builds. By understanding the challenges and solutions found in our journey, we aim to demonstrate the possibilities for faster builds. The case study reveals how overlapping outputs and cache misconfigurations led to significant increases in build times, especially as the project scaled up with numerous modules using Paparazzi tests. The journey from diagnosing to defeating cache issues offers invaluable lessons on maintaining cache integrity without sacrificing functionality.
More Related Content
Similar to A CLOSE READING AND ANALYSIS OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPUTER SCIENCE LEARNING STANDARDS
SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docxedgar6wallace88877
SIR
CD
Society for Reÿearch
n Child Development
sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 28, number 2
2014
I Social Policy Report
Common Core
Development and Substance
David T. Conley
University of Oregon
Abstract
his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core State
Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-
erenced in their development, the need for educationa[ standards
generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators
to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-
ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and the sources
used in its development. These inctude cortege and career readiness standards
developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards, and the con-
tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[ systems are widety
respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship between the
Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this report does offer
insight into the structure of the standards, most of the information presented
here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other interested parties
understand the effects on educationa[ practice.
Common Core
Development and Substance
'he Common Core State Standards burst upon
the scene in June 2010 and were quickly
adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as
of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been
followed by a period of reexamination in
some states. Although the idea of standards
that are consistent across states has become controver-
sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge
and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State
Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned
or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu-
cational governance and who should control curriculum
are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are
more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn-
thesis of college and career readiness standards already
developed, the expectations contained in the standards
of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys-
tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life
in the dynamically changing economic and social systems
of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez,
Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon-
zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State
School Officers Et National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
This Social Policy Report considers the Common
Core State Standards, where they came from, what they
are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa-
tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of
educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more
students who are college and career ready, and the role
of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this
goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL-
oped is described, followed by a consideration of the
facts about.
SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docxjennifer822
SIR
CD
Society for Reÿearch
n Child Development
sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 28, number 2
2014
I Social Policy Report
Common Core
Development and Substance
David T. Conley
University of Oregon
Abstract
his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core State
Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-
erenced in their development, the need for educationa[ standards
generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators
to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-
ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and the sources
used in its development. These inctude cortege and career readiness standards
developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards, and the con-
tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[ systems are widety
respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship between the
Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this report does offer
insight into the structure of the standards, most of the information presented
here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other interested parties
understand the effects on educationa[ practice.
Common Core
Development and Substance
'he Common Core State Standards burst upon
the scene in June 2010 and were quickly
adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as
of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been
followed by a period of reexamination in
some states. Although the idea of standards
that are consistent across states has become controver-
sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge
and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State
Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned
or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu-
cational governance and who should control curriculum
are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are
more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn-
thesis of college and career readiness standards already
developed, the expectations contained in the standards
of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys-
tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life
in the dynamically changing economic and social systems
of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez,
Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon-
zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State
School Officers Et National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
This Social Policy Report considers the Common
Core State Standards, where they came from, what they
are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa-
tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of
educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more
students who are college and career ready, and the role
of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this
goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL-
oped is described, followed by a consideration of the
facts about.
A Comparative Study Of Competency-Based Courses Demonstrating A Potential Mea...Sheila Sinclair
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a rubric for assessing competency-based course design and student success in an undergraduate program. The rubric was used to evaluate 12 new competency-based courses in the program. The results showed a correlation between high-scoring courses on the rubric and higher student assessment scores, suggesting the rubric is effective in evaluating course quality and predicting student success. The study recommends focusing on active student learning, increased mentor support and feedback, and opportunities to practice skills to improve course design.
10 Things You Should Know About the Common Corene atoday.o.docxpaynetawnya
10 Things You Should Know About the Common Core
ne atoday.org /2013/10/16/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-common-core/
October 16, 2013 by twalker
Filed under ,
By Tim Walker
An enormous effort to implement the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) is underway in more than 40 states and the
District of Columbia. Districts are training staff, field-testing
assessments, and evaluating technology requirements.
Teachers are rewriting curriculum and instruction to prepare
students for more rigorous coursework. Some states are further
ahead than others. And as the 2014 – 2015 implementation
deadline draws near, it’s likely that the road has been—and will
continue to be—a bit rocky. But schools are forging ahead with
the initiative—even as it faces opponents who are determined to
mislabel the effort as everything from “Obamacore” to a
“national curriculum.” The Common Core is a set of voluntary
K–12 standards in English language arts/literacy and
mathematics. The White House did not create the initiative, nor is it leading it. The standards were developed by
governors and state school officials, with input from a wide range of educators, content experts, national
organizations (including NEA), and community groups.
The challenges surrounding implementation, however, are formidable. Teachers are concerned about adapting
their classrooms to the rigorous new standards and receiving the proper training. Many are also wondering about
the role of new assessments. But they also recognize the enormous opportunity that lies ahead.
“Educators desperately want to reclaim the joy in teaching—which means creative lesson plans, meaningful
exploration of topics, and inspiring the joy of real learning in our students,” says NEA President Dennis Van Roekel.
“Common Core could help achieve that if the implementation is done correctly.”
To reach that goal, all stakeholders must work together and take a leadership role in educating each other and the
general public about the Common Core. It’s a complex subject. The following facts are intended to clarify key
points, allay concerns about what the Common Core isn’t, and—most importantly—highlight how the standards
can be the game -change r stude nts ne e d.
1. M ost NEA M e mbe rs Support the Common Core
Are many teachers anxious about the Common Core? Absolutely. Are some die-hard
critics? No doubt. But there is no massive groundswell of opposition to the Common
Core among NEA members. An NEA poll conducte d in July by Gre e nbe rg Quinlan
Rosne r Re se arch found that 75 percent of its members—teachers and education
support professionals —supported the standards outright or supported “with
reservations.” Whether it’s tighter content focus or opportunities for deeper critical
thinking, the majority of teachers see the new standards as something to get excited
about. Another poll released by the American Federation of Teachers revealed similar
levels of enthusiasm, again i ...
The document provides information about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) including:
1. The CCSS are an effort by states to define common standards in K-12 education to prepare students for college and careers regardless of which state they live in.
2. The standards were developed through collaboration between experts, teachers, and others and have been adopted by 45 states and territories.
3. Implementing the new standards will require changes to curriculum, assessments, teacher professional development, and may require additional funding for technology and other resources.
4. While the CCSS aim to increase rigor, consistency, and college and career readiness, some critics argue they may be difficult to implement effectively within schools facing budget
Challenges and Adjustments in the Curriculum and Instruction of the K+12 Prog...IJAEMSJORNAL
The Philippines adapted the K+12 program to uplift its educational standards in order to become comparable to those of other countries. RA 10533 was enacted and mandated that all schools both public and private must comply with its provisions/guidelines to better equip its citizens with the necessary knowledge and skills to meet the higher educational demands of life and work of the 21st century. This study assessed the curriculum, instruction, challenges, adjustments, and compliance to the standard of the K+12 program implementation of teachers together with their principal/school heads in the Laboratory High School of Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, during the academic year 2019-2020. The study utilized the descriptive method in order to describe the current status of the K+12 curriculum implementation in the said school. A total of 69 respondents were selected through purposive sampling coming from the four campuses of NEUST namely Gabaldon Campus, San Isidro Campus, Fort Magsaysay campus and General Tinio Campus. Weighted means were used to analyze their assessment of the curriculum, instructional-related factors and the challenges and adjustments encountered. The findings showed that the curriculum content, objectives and instructional-related factors are in conformity with the standards, policies or guidelines set by RA 10533, or otherwise known as “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013”, subject to some improvements due to the addition of elective subjects. Respondents consider their learners as the center of the educational process, use varied types of teaching strategies and techniques depending upon the learners need, and has individual, paired or group applications. Resource materials and facilities are available but they are not adequate, nonetheless, school environment is generally conducive to learning. No significant relationship exists on their assessments with respect to the challenges experienced and the adjustments made in the implementation of the K+12 curriculum.
The document provides information about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), including:
1) The CCSS are an effort by states to define common standards in K-12 education to prepare students for college and careers regardless of which state they live in.
2) The standards were developed through collaboration between experts, teachers, and others and have been adopted by 45 states and territories.
3) Implementing the CCSS will impact students with disabilities by holding them to the same high standards with supports like accommodations, assistive technologies, and teacher professional development on helping struggling students meet the standards.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982). Dr. Kritsonis has served as an elementary school teacher, elementary and middle school principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, professor, author, consultant, and journal editor. Dr. Kritsonis has considerable experience in chairing PhD dissertations and master thesis and has supervised practicums for teacher candidates, curriculum supervisors, central office personnel, principals, and superintendents. He also has experience in teaching in doctoral and masters programs in elementary and secondary education as well as educational leadership and supervision. He has earned the rank as professor at three universities in two states, including successful post-tenure reviews.
With the 2015 enactment of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, all states are required to adopt and implement college- and career-ready standards (CCRS) in English language arts and mathematics. Today, most states and the District of Columbia are implementing rigorous, comparable CCRS and assessing student proficiency in meeting those standards.
Despite this, significant challenges thwart the promise of CCRS as the foundation for grade-level proficiency and readiness for college and careers for all students. Chief among these is the limited availability of high-quality, aligned instructional materials and supports that educators need to effectively deliver CCRS-aligned curriculum. This PCG White Paper describes a multidimensional approach to address this challenge, focusing on the design and delivery of curriculum and instructional practices that align strongly with rigorous, comparable CCRS to maximize student engagement in standards-aligned content and skills.
To that end, PCG’s approach integrates 1) analysis of curriculum and instructional materials for evidence of alignment with college and career-ready standards, 2) guidance for the design of CCRS-aligned curriculum, and 3) guidance for the design and implementation of CCRS-aligned curriculum delivery.
This document summarizes a study that evaluated how teachers in seven North Carolina early college high schools applied their knowledge of technology standards (ISTE NETS) after being provided laptop computers for classroom instruction. Teacher interviews revealed that while technical skills varied, teachers were progressing in laptop use over time. Teachers expected laptops to reduce lectures and increase student-centered projects and research. Analysis of teacher responses showed understanding of how laptops could enhance monitoring, assessment of student work, and professional development, as well as address ethical and legal issues of technology use. The study provides a baseline for comparing teacher knowledge as laptop integration evolves over three years.
Using ISTE NETS Standards to frame teacher knowledge and application of one-to-one computing at implementation. The study evaluated a pilot program providing laptops to teachers and students in 7 early college high schools in North Carolina. Teacher interviews and focus groups explored teacher readiness and knowledge based on ISTE NETS standards. Findings showed that teachers had varying levels of technical skills but were progressing over time. Teachers projected laptops could reduce lectures and increase student-directed learning, research, and individualization. Teachers understood laptop monitoring software could help assessment but desired more training to implement effectively. Schools provided varying technology-related professional development to teachers.
This document provides an overview of the Common Core State Standards and the transition to Common Core-aligned assessments. It discusses how the Common Core requires higher standards that focus on deeper learning rather than superficial coverage of many topics. It also explains how assessments will change from primarily multiple choice to include more innovative item types like performance tasks and technology-enhanced questions to better measure skills like writing, problem-solving, and analytical thinking. The document provides resources and timelines to help educators understand what is required and plan their transition to meet Common Core requirements by the 2014-2015 deadline.
An evaluation of_the_conditions,_processes,_and_consequences_of_laptop_comput...Cathy Cavanaugh
This article examines how laptop computing technology, teacher professional
development, and systematic support resulted in changed teaching practices
and increased student achievement in 47 K-12 schools in 11 Florida school
districts. The overview of a large-scale study documents the type and
magnitude of change in student-centered teaching, technology tool-based
teaching, and student learning that were observed in 440 classrooms over
the course of a school year. By employing multiple observations in all
schools, document analysis, interviews, and teacher inquiry, an account of the
conditions, processes, and consequences (Hall, 1995) of laptop computing
was generated. Based on the analysis of data, laptop computing had a positive
impact across districts, particularly in regard to changes in teaching practices.
Increases in student achievement were also demonstrated across districts.
This study calls attention to systemic issues associated with successful laptop
implementation and provides implications for statewide laptop programs.
Conversations with the Mathematics Curriculum: Testing and Teacher DevelopmentSaide OER Africa
This paper addresses the question: how do mathematics teachers make meaning from curriculum statements in relation to their teaching practices. We report on a teacher development activity in which teachers mapped test items from an international test against the national curriculum statement in mathematics. About 50 mathematics teachers across Grades 3-9 worked in small groups with a graduate student or staff member as a group leader. Drawing on focus group interviews with the teachers and the group leaders we show that the activity focused the teachers on the relationships between the intended curriculum and their teaching, i.e. the enacted curriculum, in four areas: content coverage; cognitive challenge; developing meaning for the assessment standards; and sequence and progression. We argue that the activity illuminates ways in which international tests can provide a medium for teacher growth rather than teacher denigration and alienation.
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docxtoltonkendal
Running Head: Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 1
1
TARGET OF PROGRAM EVALUATION PLAN
6
Shamika Cockfield
Strayer University
Dr. Melanie Gallman
EDU571: Evaluating School Programs
January 19, 2017
Teacher Preparation Program
The evaluation of an education program is an evolving profession. The purpose of testing the efficiency of a program is to give the decision-makers substantial information to use in enhancing or improving the recommended program. For example, an institution, say a school, may use program evaluation to assist in making decisions regarding whether to establish a program (needs assessment), ways of developing a program (formative evaluation) and whether to revise or continue using the existing program (summative evaluation) (Faxon-Mills, Hamilton, Rudnick & Stecher, 2013). As such, the objective of this paper is to evaluate the efficiency of a teacher preparation program in enhancing the value of the teachers and the performance of the students.
Describe three (3) elements of a worthy object for program evaluation - its type, the department administrating it, and target population.
The program evaluation under perspective is the Teacher Preparation program. It is a program that the three levels of government, Federal, State and local government establishes to ascertain the efficiency of the teachers engaged in educational institutions at all the levels ranging from the Pre-school to the University Levels. As such, the program falls under or it’s rather administered by the Council for the Accreditation of Education Programs (CAEP). The target focuses mostly on the teacher candidates (Faxon-Mills, Hamilton, Rudnick & Stecher, 2013).
Describe the program's history, primary purpose(s), and / or expected outcomes.
Effective tutoring has always been significant and is recently a nationwide concern. The increased emphasis on effective tutoring can be attributed to a several factors, such as (a) long-lasting accomplishment gaps that endure in spite of the comprehensive transitions at both the national and State levels, (b) the poorer academic performance registered by the students on international examination compared to their counterparts living in other industrialized nations and lastly(c) the need of managing the expenditure by the government at the Federal, State and local positions. All these aspects have raised a major concern concerning the efficiency of the teachers in schools and the significance of preparing teachers adequately while in colleges and campuses. Furthermore, the emphasis on enhancing teacher education is as well triggered by the competition and assessment with the alternate certification programs and the fresh standards recommended by the Board mandated to accredit the education preparation programs.
The board requires these programs to illustrate that the approved candidates can impact strong positive impacts on the students learning. One key outcome of these developments is the level o ...
Examination of relevant syllabi and curriculum guidesleesha roberts
The document outlines Trinidad and Tobago's curriculum development process, which involves designing curricula through consultation with stakeholders, developing written curriculum documents, implementing curricula through teacher training, monitoring classroom practice, evaluating curricula effectiveness through data analysis, and reviewing curricula based on evaluation findings. Key aspects of the process include establishing philosophical underpinnings and goals, producing resource materials, providing technical support to schools, and identifying deficiencies to inform corrective actions.
Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the United States and world-wide. Some international travels include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Switzerland, Grand Cayman, Haiti, St. Maarten, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Freeport, Jamaica, Barbados, Martinique, Canada, Curacao, Costa Rico, Aruba, Venezuela, Panama, Bora Bora, Tahiti, Latvia, Spain, Honduras, and many more. He has been invited to lecture and serve as a guest professor at many universities across the nation and abroad.
Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the United States and world-wide. Some international travels include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Switzerland, Grand Cayman, Haiti, St. Maarten, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Freeport, Jamaica, Barbados, Martinique, Canada, Curacao, Costa Rico, Aruba, Venezuela, Panama, Bora Bora, Tahiti, Latvia, Spain, Honduras, and many more. He has been invited to lecture and serve as a guest professor at many universities across the nation and abroad.
This document discusses tools for assessing cognitive outcomes of service-learning programs. It begins by explaining the importance of assessing service-learning and then provides a review of available assessment tools. The tools are organized into three categories: research scales, written essays/protocols, and interviews/qualitative approaches. Several tools are described in detail, including the Cognitive Learning Scale, Problem-Solving Analysis Protocol, and Problem-Solving Interview Protocol. The conclusion emphasizes that systematic assessment can improve service-learning programs and better demonstrate their impact on student learning.
1) The document discusses assessment practices in colleges of education in Ghana and their impact on developing evaluative thinking skills in student teachers.
2) It finds that while formative assessment is used, feedback focuses more on correcting mistakes than engaging students in dialogue.
3) End of semester exams mainly assess lower-order thinking skills like knowledge and comprehension rather than higher-order skills like analysis and evaluation that are emphasized in the curriculum. This means student teachers may not be adequately prepared to foster evaluative thinking in pupils.
Similar to A CLOSE READING AND ANALYSIS OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPUTER SCIENCE LEARNING STANDARDS (20)
Optimizing Gradle Builds - Gradle DPE Tour Berlin 2024Sinan KOZAK
Sinan from the Delivery Hero mobile infrastructure engineering team shares a deep dive into performance acceleration with Gradle build cache optimizations. Sinan shares their journey into solving complex build-cache problems that affect Gradle builds. By understanding the challenges and solutions found in our journey, we aim to demonstrate the possibilities for faster builds. The case study reveals how overlapping outputs and cache misconfigurations led to significant increases in build times, especially as the project scaled up with numerous modules using Paparazzi tests. The journey from diagnosing to defeating cache issues offers invaluable lessons on maintaining cache integrity without sacrificing functionality.
ACEP Magazine edition 4th launched on 05.06.2024Rahul
This document provides information about the third edition of the magazine "Sthapatya" published by the Association of Civil Engineers (Practicing) Aurangabad. It includes messages from current and past presidents of ACEP, memories and photos from past ACEP events, information on life time achievement awards given by ACEP, and a technical article on concrete maintenance, repairs and strengthening. The document highlights activities of ACEP and provides a technical educational article for members.
A review on techniques and modelling methodologies used for checking electrom...nooriasukmaningtyas
The proper function of the integrated circuit (IC) in an inhibiting electromagnetic environment has always been a serious concern throughout the decades of revolution in the world of electronics, from disjunct devices to today’s integrated circuit technology, where billions of transistors are combined on a single chip. The automotive industry and smart vehicles in particular, are confronting design issues such as being prone to electromagnetic interference (EMI). Electronic control devices calculate incorrect outputs because of EMI and sensors give misleading values which can prove fatal in case of automotives. In this paper, the authors have non exhaustively tried to review research work concerned with the investigation of EMI in ICs and prediction of this EMI using various modelling methodologies and measurement setups.
CHINA’S GEO-ECONOMIC OUTREACH IN CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES AND FUTURE PROSPECTjpsjournal1
The rivalry between prominent international actors for dominance over Central Asia's hydrocarbon
reserves and the ancient silk trade route, along with China's diplomatic endeavours in the area, has been
referred to as the "New Great Game." This research centres on the power struggle, considering
geopolitical, geostrategic, and geoeconomic variables. Topics including trade, political hegemony, oil
politics, and conventional and nontraditional security are all explored and explained by the researcher.
Using Mackinder's Heartland, Spykman Rimland, and Hegemonic Stability theories, examines China's role
in Central Asia. This study adheres to the empirical epistemological method and has taken care of
objectivity. This study analyze primary and secondary research documents critically to elaborate role of
china’s geo economic outreach in central Asian countries and its future prospect. China is thriving in trade,
pipeline politics, and winning states, according to this study, thanks to important instruments like the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Belt and Road Economic Initiative. According to this study,
China is seeing significant success in commerce, pipeline politics, and gaining influence on other
governments. This success may be attributed to the effective utilisation of key tools such as the Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation and the Belt and Road Economic Initiative.
Introduction- e - waste – definition - sources of e-waste– hazardous substances in e-waste - effects of e-waste on environment and human health- need for e-waste management– e-waste handling rules - waste minimization techniques for managing e-waste – recycling of e-waste - disposal treatment methods of e- waste – mechanism of extraction of precious metal from leaching solution-global Scenario of E-waste – E-waste in India- case studies.
TIME DIVISION MULTIPLEXING TECHNIQUE FOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMHODECEDSIET
Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) is a method of transmitting multiple signals over a single communication channel by dividing the signal into many segments, each having a very short duration of time. These time slots are then allocated to different data streams, allowing multiple signals to share the same transmission medium efficiently. TDM is widely used in telecommunications and data communication systems.
### How TDM Works
1. **Time Slots Allocation**: The core principle of TDM is to assign distinct time slots to each signal. During each time slot, the respective signal is transmitted, and then the process repeats cyclically. For example, if there are four signals to be transmitted, the TDM cycle will divide time into four slots, each assigned to one signal.
2. **Synchronization**: Synchronization is crucial in TDM systems to ensure that the signals are correctly aligned with their respective time slots. Both the transmitter and receiver must be synchronized to avoid any overlap or loss of data. This synchronization is typically maintained by a clock signal that ensures time slots are accurately aligned.
3. **Frame Structure**: TDM data is organized into frames, where each frame consists of a set of time slots. Each frame is repeated at regular intervals, ensuring continuous transmission of data streams. The frame structure helps in managing the data streams and maintaining the synchronization between the transmitter and receiver.
4. **Multiplexer and Demultiplexer**: At the transmitting end, a multiplexer combines multiple input signals into a single composite signal by assigning each signal to a specific time slot. At the receiving end, a demultiplexer separates the composite signal back into individual signals based on their respective time slots.
### Types of TDM
1. **Synchronous TDM**: In synchronous TDM, time slots are pre-assigned to each signal, regardless of whether the signal has data to transmit or not. This can lead to inefficiencies if some time slots remain empty due to the absence of data.
2. **Asynchronous TDM (or Statistical TDM)**: Asynchronous TDM addresses the inefficiencies of synchronous TDM by allocating time slots dynamically based on the presence of data. Time slots are assigned only when there is data to transmit, which optimizes the use of the communication channel.
### Applications of TDM
- **Telecommunications**: TDM is extensively used in telecommunication systems, such as in T1 and E1 lines, where multiple telephone calls are transmitted over a single line by assigning each call to a specific time slot.
- **Digital Audio and Video Broadcasting**: TDM is used in broadcasting systems to transmit multiple audio or video streams over a single channel, ensuring efficient use of bandwidth.
- **Computer Networks**: TDM is used in network protocols and systems to manage the transmission of data from multiple sources over a single network medium.
### Advantages of TDM
- **Efficient Use of Bandwidth**: TDM all
Redefining brain tumor segmentation: a cutting-edge convolutional neural netw...IJECEIAES
Medical image analysis has witnessed significant advancements with deep learning techniques. In the domain of brain tumor segmentation, the ability to
precisely delineate tumor boundaries from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
scans holds profound implications for diagnosis. This study presents an ensemble convolutional neural network (CNN) with transfer learning, integrating
the state-of-the-art Deeplabv3+ architecture with the ResNet18 backbone. The
model is rigorously trained and evaluated, exhibiting remarkable performance
metrics, including an impressive global accuracy of 99.286%, a high-class accuracy of 82.191%, a mean intersection over union (IoU) of 79.900%, a weighted
IoU of 98.620%, and a Boundary F1 (BF) score of 83.303%. Notably, a detailed comparative analysis with existing methods showcases the superiority of
our proposed model. These findings underscore the model’s competence in precise brain tumor localization, underscoring its potential to revolutionize medical
image analysis and enhance healthcare outcomes. This research paves the way
for future exploration and optimization of advanced CNN models in medical
imaging, emphasizing addressing false positives and resource efficiency.
KuberTENes Birthday Bash Guadalajara - K8sGPT first impressionsVictor Morales
K8sGPT is a tool that analyzes and diagnoses Kubernetes clusters. This presentation was used to share the requirements and dependencies to deploy K8sGPT in a local environment.
Batteries -Introduction – Types of Batteries – discharging and charging of battery - characteristics of battery –battery rating- various tests on battery- – Primary battery: silver button cell- Secondary battery :Ni-Cd battery-modern battery: lithium ion battery-maintenance of batteries-choices of batteries for electric vehicle applications.
Fuel Cells: Introduction- importance and classification of fuel cells - description, principle, components, applications of fuel cells: H2-O2 fuel cell, alkaline fuel cell, molten carbonate fuel cell and direct methanol fuel cells.
Presentation of IEEE Slovenia CIS (Computational Intelligence Society) Chapte...University of Maribor
Slides from talk presenting:
Aleš Zamuda: Presentation of IEEE Slovenia CIS (Computational Intelligence Society) Chapter and Networking.
Presentation at IcETRAN 2024 session:
"Inter-Society Networking Panel GRSS/MTT-S/CIS
Panel Session: Promoting Connection and Cooperation"
IEEE Slovenia GRSS
IEEE Serbia and Montenegro MTT-S
IEEE Slovenia CIS
11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC AND COMPUTING ENGINEERING
3-6 June 2024, Niš, Serbia
Comparative analysis between traditional aquaponics and reconstructed aquapon...bijceesjournal
The aquaponic system of planting is a method that does not require soil usage. It is a method that only needs water, fish, lava rocks (a substitute for soil), and plants. Aquaponic systems are sustainable and environmentally friendly. Its use not only helps to plant in small spaces but also helps reduce artificial chemical use and minimizes excess water use, as aquaponics consumes 90% less water than soil-based gardening. The study applied a descriptive and experimental design to assess and compare conventional and reconstructed aquaponic methods for reproducing tomatoes. The researchers created an observation checklist to determine the significant factors of the study. The study aims to determine the significant difference between traditional aquaponics and reconstructed aquaponics systems propagating tomatoes in terms of height, weight, girth, and number of fruits. The reconstructed aquaponics system’s higher growth yield results in a much more nourished crop than the traditional aquaponics system. It is superior in its number of fruits, height, weight, and girth measurement. Moreover, the reconstructed aquaponics system is proven to eliminate all the hindrances present in the traditional aquaponics system, which are overcrowding of fish, algae growth, pest problems, contaminated water, and dead fish.
Comparative analysis between traditional aquaponics and reconstructed aquapon...
A CLOSE READING AND ANALYSIS OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPUTER SCIENCE LEARNING STANDARDS
1. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
DOI :10.5121/ijite.2022.11104 55
A CLOSE READING AND ANALYSIS OF THE
NEW YORK STATE COMPUTER SCIENCE
LEARNING STANDARDS
Gerald Ardito
1
School of Education, Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, USA
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we perform a close reading of the New York State Computer Science/Digital Fluency
Learning Standards document to determine its coherence and areas of incoherence and disconnection. This
investigation, which utilizes content/discourse and textual analysis tools and methods from the tidytext
tools developed for the R programming language, sought to understand the structure of the document itself,
as well as the types and patterns of the language used in this document by analyzing word frequencies and
networks of terms (engrams). The findings indicate a coherence across document in terms of its articulate
of key ideas and principles of computer science and digital fluency. The findings describe an
incoherence/disconnection between that the language used to articulate high level goals and objectives
articulated in the executive summary of the standards document, such as interdisciplinarity, addressing the
learning needs of all students, and equity of access, is mostly absent from the articulation of the standards
themselves. In addition, the language used in the standards heavily addressed Bloom’s lower level thinking
skills (such as identify, discuss, and explain) and less so Bloom’s high level thinking skills (such as design,
create, and analyze). Implications for teacher education and curriculum design are addressed.
Implications for teacher education and professional development in the development of rich curricular
experiences in computer science and digital fluency are discussed.
KEYWORDS
Computer science education; teacher education; learning standards; curriculum design.
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the onset of No Child Left Behind by the Bush administration and Obama’s Race to the
Top, a great emphasis has been placed on teacher and student accountability, and this emphasis
has led to the creation of learning standards in several content areas, such as Common Core
English and Mathematics learning standards (CCLS) and Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS), to name just a few. Typically coupled with these standards are mandatory high stakes
assessments, which are used to evaluate teachers, students, and school districts in ways that have
had both positive and negative outcomes [1, 2].
At the same time, there has been a large push for the teaching of computer science, along with
computational thinking, in public K-12 schools. Much of this prioritization has come from
organizations sponsored heavily by the tech industry, especially Code.org. These efforts have led
to the development of learning standards having been designed and adopted in each of the 50
United States. After almost ten years of the implementation of CCLS, with both intended and
unintended outcomes, many researchers and teachers have been critical about the role of
stakeholders from outside of education on what happens in public school classrooms [3].
Therefore, a detailed examination of these computer science learning standards documents is both
2. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
56
necessary and timely. This paper represents the first time that this type of close reading analysis
of computer science learning standards has been performed. This study has been conducted to
address the following research questions:
1. What do computer science learning standards documents articulate and imply about
the teaching of computer science to students in grades K-12?
2. What implications do these computer science learning standards document have for
computer science teacher education and computer science curriculum design?
2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE - THE IMPLICATIONS OF
LEARNING STANDARDS ADOPTION
In a process that began in the early 2000’s, 48 of the United States adopted the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) starting in 2010, making it “an unprecedented change in American
education” [2, p. 414]. The stated goal of this initiative is college and career readiness and the
development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills:
Today’s students are preparing to enter a world in which colleges and businesses are
demanding more than ever before. To ensure all students are ready for success after high
school, the Common Core State Standards establish clear, consistent guidelines for what
every student should know and be able to do in Math and English language arts from
kindergarten through 12th grade [2].
The standards were drafted by experts and teachers from across the country and designed to
ensure students are prepared for today’s entry-level careers, freshman-level college courses, and
workforce training programs. The Common Core focuses on developing the critical-thinking,
problem-solving, and analytical skills students will need to be successful [4].
However, the CCSS were also strongly focused on student and teacher accountability: “The new
standards also provide a way for teachers to measure student progress throughout the school year
and ensure that students are on the pathway to success in their academic careers” [4]. The Obama
administration’s Race to the Top initiative was instrumental in aggressively tying student
performance on Common Core tests to teacher evaluation metrics. This double-edged focus on
teacher and student accountability has perhaps become the most controversial aspect of the
implementation of the CCSS: “The CCSS and the assessments designed to measure student
achievement will be the primary vehicle for determining school effectiveness under federal
legislation. As such, the implementation of CCSS in states, districts, and schools has become an
urgent priority” [2, p. 415]. Whether these consequences were unintended or not, their effects
were real [3].
It is this focus on high stakes testing and teacher and school district accountability that has had
the biggest impact on teacher practice and thus, teacher education/teacher training and curriculum
development. For example, in response to the implementation of the Common Core Learning
Standards (CCLS) in New York State in 2011 for the 2012-2013 school year, the New York State
Education Department (NYSED) established a resource called EngageNY:
EngageNY.org is developed and maintained by the New York State Education
Department (NYSED) to support the implementation of key aspects of the New York
State Board of Regents Reform Agenda. This is the official web site for current materials
and resources related to the Regents Reform Agenda. The agenda includes the
implementation of the New York State P-12 Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS),
3. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
57
Teacher and Leader Effectiveness (TLE), and Data-Driven Instruction (DDI).
EngageNY.org is dedicated to providing educators across New York State with real-time,
professional learning tools and resources to support educators in reaching the State’s
vision for a college and career ready education for all students [5].
The curricular materials and resources developed by EngageNY defined the scope, sequence, as
well as day-to-day instructional goals and learning activities in the areas of mathematics and
English Language Arts (ELA) in grades pre-K to 12 [6]. This work was promoted by the New
York State Education Department (NYSED) as a service to teachers who had been charged with
implementing a brand new and extensive curriculum in the CCLS. Whether intentionally or not,
EngageNY, has had the practical effect of changing the role of teaching and teacher training in
curriculum design in meaningful ways. Instead of designing curriculum to meet the needs of their
very real students, a teacher can instead be reduced to implementing a curriculum and learning
activities which were designed by others and whether or not the associated learning objectives,
pacing calendars, and assumptions about students’ prior knowledge are accurate, appropriate, or
relevant. Some researchers have likened this situation to robots teaching little robots [1].
The adoption of high profile learning standards such as CCLS has had an immediate and telling
impact on teacher education and preparation [1,2,3]. Rather than preparing teachers to design
innovative curricula and learning activities that meet the needs and aspirations of their students
and the local communities, teacher candidates are instead trained to read these standard
documents, and then to use those documents to plan their teaching. Rather than merely serving as
resources, then, these standards documents become strong determinants of curriculum design. In
some cases, this has led to the development of scripted lessons and units, which essentially
remove the teacher from the equation [1,6]. Though room remains for skillful, creative and caring
teachers, in many places, the bounds within which teachers have been allowed to exercise their
craft have become very limited [2]. Additionally, some research has described variable levels of
coherence between learning standards as written and the assessments developed to evaluate
student learning outcomes related to those standards [7,8,9].
Webb’s framework for evaluating learning standards and their coherence (or lack thereof) with
associated assessments is a particularly good one for the work at hand in this study [9]. Webb’s
analysis compares learning standards to the associated assessments. In this study, we will be
comparing the coherence between the principles articulated in the learning standards document
and the coherence (or lack there) of these principles in the learning standards themselves.
Importantly, the development and adoption of the Common Core Learning standards was
influenced by a great deal of political and corporate agendas and other outside interests [10]. In
this way, the situation is analogous to the development and adoption of computer science learning
standards at least partially in response to influence from tech companies and their
owners/executive from organizations like Code.org, which describes membership from
Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, and other large and influential tech corporations [11]. We
are not asserting that this influence is in some way nefarious or that the promoters of an agenda
that includes a presence of computer science education in K-12 schools is somehow misguided.
Rather, the research thus far into the CCLS and its impact on teachers and teaching [6]
underscores the importance of close analysis and understanding of other learning standards, such
as those for computer science education.
4. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
58
3. METHODS
Textual analysis is a set of methods within social science and educational research for
investigating texts of various kinds [12,13]. This study employed methods of textual analysis in
order to interrogate the New York State Computer Science/Digital Fluency Learning Standards
(NYCSDFLS) document such as: determining word frequencies and relative word frequencies in
a whole document as well as its parts; and engrams, connections between sequences of words in a
text, in which word networks and connections between words were examined.
The NYCSDFLS document has two major sections. The first is untitled, and we will refer to it
here as the Executive Summary. The Executive Summary contains several subsections:
Introduction, which gives the background of the need for such learning standards; Background,
which describes the process of the design and refinement of the learning standards; Guiding
Principles, which outlines the four guiding principles used in the design of the learning standards
(Equity and Access, Interdisciplinary Connections, Coherence, and Relevance and Engagement);
Computer Science and Digital Fluency for All Students, which discusses the importance of both
digital equity and the need to include all learners in these standards; and Concept Areas, which
describes each of the Concept Areas included in the learning standards (Impacts of Computing,
Computational Thinking, Networks and Systems Design, Cybersecurity, and Digital Literacy).
The second section is an articulation of the learning standards themselves. This is in the form of a
table which identifies the grade band in blue across the top, CS/DF Concept and sub-concept
involved, the standards themselves, and a clarifying example for each standard. For example,
Figure 1 provides an example of this layout in the form of a screenshot. We consider the
formatting of this document to be an important part of its design. In this example, the Concept is
Impacts of Computing, the sub-concept is Society, and the standard and the clarifying examples
are articulated for each of the four grade bands.
Figure 1. Sample Learning Standards from New York State Computer Science/Digital Fluency Learning
Standards document
For this study, each of the two sections of the learning standards document was analyzed by
performing a close reading using a set of the tidytext tools in the R programming language. Then
some of the features in each were compared in order to identify trends and correlations. The
tidytext set of libraries written for the R programming language provide a very powerful set of
5. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
59
tools for this type of textual analysis [14,15]. These tools allow for the ordering, sorting, and
other types of manipulation of the textual data, such as determining word frequencies and relative
word frequencies, which are word frequencies normalized against total words in a segment of text
(dplyr); tokenizing text, meaning extracting meaningful segments of text for analysis, like words
or sentences or engrams (tidytext); analyzing networks for words (igraph); and creating
visualizations of these data in various ways (ggplot2). Each of these tools were utilized in this
study.
The data analysis tools employed in this study is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The data analysis tools employed in this study
4. FINDINGS
In this section, we will discuss the findings of our close reading of the New York State Computer
Science and Digital Fluency Learning Standards document. This presentation will start by an
examination of the relative word frequencies of each portion of the document, and will then
continue with an analysis of the networks of terms comprising each portion of the document and
how they compare to one another.
4.1. Relative Word Frequencies
For each portion of the learning standards document (executive summary and standards), both the
word frequencies (how often each word is used in each portion) and relative word frequencies
(the word frequencies relative to the number of words in each section) were calculated. These
analyses are visualized in Figures 3, 4, and 5.
6. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
60
Figure 3. Relative word frequencies for each section of the Executive Summary
Figure 3 depicts the most relatively frequent works in each section of the executive summary:
background, concept areas, computer science and digital fluency for all students, defining terms,
guiding principles, introduction, lenses, process, supplemental resources, and vision. These
graphs provide a sense of what is most important in each of these sections. For example, in the
guiding principles section, engagement, diversity, and relevance are clearly important, as
indicated by their relative word frequencies. The relative word frequencies of the Standard
portion of the learning standards document organized by Concept Area are depicted in Figure 4.
7. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
61
Figure 4. Relative word frequencies for the Standards organized by Concept Area
This analysis allows us to see which terms are the most important in each concept area, as
determined by their relative word frequencies. For example, the concept Digital Literacy is
comprised of online, tools, keyboard, search, etc., and the concept Networks and Systems Design
is comprised of computing, hardware, components, and troubleshooting, all of which is evident
from a plain reading of the learning standards.
The relative word frequencies of the Standard portion of the learning standards document
organized by Grade Band are depicted in Figure 4. Again, this type of analysis demonstrates
which terms are most important for at each grade level.
8. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
62
Figure 5. Relative word frequencies for the Standards organized by Grade Band
For example, the terms repeated, home, help, and classroom are among the most important in the
K-1 Grade Band, whereas, tradeoffs, individuals, design and search are among the most
important in the 7-8 Grade Band. Once again, this analysis is confirmed by a plain reading of the
learning standards themselves.
4.2. Verb Frequencies
The frequencies of verbs used in each of the standards were calculated and visualized by Concept
Area and Grade Band. These analyses are depicted in Figures 6 and 7.
9. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
63
Figure 6. Verb frequencies in the standards by Concept Area
The verb frequencies by concept area are shown in Figure 6. We can see that identify is the most
frequently used verb in the standards across each of the Concept Areas. In contrast, develop is
only found in Computational Thinking, typically in the appropriate context of develop a program
or develop an algorithm. Design, on the other hand, is found only in Networks and System
Design, for example, in the appropriate context of design a user interface.
The verb frequencies by Grade Band are show in Figure 7. We can see again identify is the most
commonly used verb across all Grade Bands. Describe is also frequently used in all Grade Bands,
except K-1. In contrast, design is only frequently used in the 7-8 and 9-12 Grade Bands, and
compare is found frequently only in the 7-8 Grade Band.
Figure 7. Verb frequencies in the standards by Grade Band
10. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
64
In both of these verb frequency analyses we observed a fairly flat cognitive or epistemic space
defined by these verbs, primarily defined by identify, explain, and describe, all consistent with
lower order thinking skills described in Bloom’s taxonomy [16]. Additionally, the verb used most
frequently with high order thinking skills described by Bloom, design, is only used in standards
addressed to the upper two grade bands (7-8, and 9-12). This suggests that students below grade 7
are only infrequently, if at all, asked by the standards to engage in higher order thinking skills.
4.3. Networks of Terms – Bigrams
In order to investigate the networks of words employed in both main sections of the learning
standards document, we also performed analyses of the standard section of the learning standards
document that involved bigrams, that is frequencies of two- word groupings. For example,
consider the learning standard: “Evaluate the impact of computing technologies on equity, access,
and influence in a global society”. This sentence can be broken down in a number of bigrams:
evaluate the, the impact, impact of, of computing, etc..
We used the tidytext tools in R to break each of the two main sections of the document (executive
summary and standards) into bigrams and then to determine the frequencies of each those
bigrams. Next, we generated a network analysis of these each of these sets of bigrams using the
igraph tool, which treats the bigrams as nodes in a network of terms as well as the connections
between these two-word terms. Finally, we visualized these networks using ggraph. Figure 8
depicts the visualization of the most common bigrams in the executive summary portion of the
document and Figure 9 depicts the visualization of the most common bigrams found in the
standards portion of the learning standards document.
In the bigram network visualized in Figure 8, we see a wide range of collections of terms. Some
of these collections of terms pertain to the content contained in the areas of computer science and
digital fluency, such as computing→system, computational>thinking, and digital>technologies.
Additionally, some of these collections of terms reflect the guiding principles, computer science
for all learners, and lenses described in the executive summary such as: digital>citizenship,
culturally>responsive, and multiple>expressions.
Figure 8. Network graph of bigrams identified in the executive summary section of the learning standards
document.
11. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
65
In the bigram network visualized in Figure 9 we can see several collections of terms. For
example, computer forms frequent connections with systems and science, and that software
application is a frequent bigram in this text. All of this makes sense, given the computer science
and digital fluency content addressed by these learning standards. It is also interesting to note
what is missing from this network, which are any terms related to cognition or understanding,
such as the verbs depicted in Figures 6 and 7. Given the frequency of these verbs in the learning
standards portion of the document, we might expect them as contributing to some of these bigram
networks, and yet they are completely missing. We believe that this suggests that the content
represented by the standards are more important to the document than the cognitive skills to be
employed by teachers and students.
Figure 9. Network graph of bigrams identified in the standards section of the learning standards document.
5. DISCUSSION
This study performed a close reading of the New York State Computer Science/Digital Fluency
learning standards document, in order to investigate these research questions:
1. What do computer science learning standards documents articulate and imply about
the teaching of computer science to students in grades K-12?
2. What implications do these computer science learning standards document have for
computer science teacher education and computer science curriculum design?
In this study, two types of textual analysis were performed on the two main portions of the
learning standards document, the executive summary and the learning standards themselves. The
first was an examination of the relative word frequency of the learning standards document and
its various sections, along with the verbs most frequently used in the standards portion of the
document. The second was an investigation of networks of two-word terms (bigrams) found in
each portion of the learning standards document.
This section of the paper discusses these findings and their implications.
12. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
66
5.1. Coherence
The first major finding of this study is that each of the two main portions (executive summary
and standards) of the learning standards document demonstrate a coherence within each of its
sections as evidenced by the terms with relatively high frequency. For example, the Executive
Summary section “Computer Science and Digital Fluency for All Students” contains exactly the
terms we would expect, such as disabilities, academic, students, and language (referring to
English Language Learners). We see the same coherence in the “Guiding Principles” section,
which contains engagement, diversity, and relevance.
The same trend can be found in the Standards portion of the document when we examine the
terms with the highest relative frequencies filtering for both Concept Area and Grade Band. In
the Concept Area of Computational Thinking, we find appropriate terms used most frequently,
such as task, program, and algorithms. In Cybersecurity, we find safeguards, secure, and
protected. An analysis of the terms with the highest relative frequencies across Grade Bands, we
see a progression from people, classroom, and home (K-1) to present, label, and instructions (2-
3) to role, model, and tasks (4-6) to tradeoffs, combines, and design (7-8) to utilizes, societal, and
implement (9-12). These terms move from more concrete terms to more abstract ones, as is
appropriate across the academic and cognitive development of children at these progressing grade
levels.
This coherence in the language across and within the learning standards document is consistent
with that called for by Webb’s descriptions of categorical coherence and DOK (Domains of
Knowledge) consistency [9]. We assert that this type of coherence represents both a consistent
point of view and consistent design within this learning standards document, which we believe to
be of critical value.
5.2. Incoherence/Disconnection
The second major finding of the study is an apparent disconnection between the two main
sections of the learning standards document. We see this disconnection as occurring in two ways.
The first involves the thinking skills as described by Bloom addressed in the learning standards
portion of the document. The second involves a disconnect in the networks of terms found in the
two main portions of this document.
The frequencies of verbs used in the learning standards portion of the document, as depicted in
Figures 6, which looks at these verb frequencies across Concept Area, and Figure 7, which looks
at these verb frequencies across Grade Band. In each, we see a prevalence of verbs associated
with Bloom’s lower order thinking skills, such as identify, discuss, and describe. This finding
indicates that most of the work called for in the standards are described is addressing only lower
level thinking skills. In practice, teachers can certainly design curricular materials and activities
that expand the practice of these standards to address higher order thinking skills, but we have
seen, in the case of the Common Core Learning Standards and their implementation by teachers
as restrictive and proscriptive [1,3].
The visualizations of the networks of bigrams in each section of the learning standards document
demonstrates an even larger area of incoherence between the executive summary and the learning
standards themselves. The network of bigrams from the executive summary (Figure 8) depicts a
very rich cognitive space, one that contains both key areas of computer science and digital
fluency concepts, such as computing→system, computational>thinking, and
digital>technologies. However, this network also contains the ideas represented in the more
13. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
67
philosophical portions of the document, the Guiding Principles, and Lenses, such as
digital>citizenship, culturally>responsive, and multiple>expressions.
In contrast, the bigram network for the learning standards themselves, as depicted in Figure 9,
describes a far narrower cognitive or epistemic space, and one focused primarily on learning
content, such as computing>technologies, digital>information, and software>applications. This
type of content is certainly expected in learning standards. However, what is missing from this
cognitive space are any bigrams that could be correlated to the bigger ideas described in the
Guiding Principles, Lenses, and Computer Science and Digital Fluency for All Students sub-
sections of the executive summary. There is certainly nothing in the document limiting teachers
from including those extremely important concepts and attitudes in their teaching and their
development of curricular plans and materials. As discussed above, it is all a matter of how these
computer science teachers perceive the degree of proscriptiveness in the standards document as
well as the actual levels or frequent or constraint that they experience in their schools and school
district as they engage in the development of their curriculum plans and activities
5.3. Implications for Teacher Education and Curriculum Design
Given these findings, we believe that key takeaway from this study is that much work is needed
to develop teachers and teacher candidates to be able to integrate/connect CS Learning Standards
into existing content areas: mathematics, ELA, history/social studies, science, art, and music.
Additionally, further work is necessary to investigate how CS practices, concepts, and skills can
be taught effectively to all students, regardless of any special needs or level of English language
fluency.
We also believe that the key factor in terms of the impact of this computer science/digital fluency
learning standards document is the assessments which will be used to assess student learning and,
ultimately, teacher effectiveness. As we have seen with the CCLS, the assessments associated
with them, and their high stakes nature, has had a large influence on both teaching and
curriculum design. There is, then, a causal relationship between testing/what is being tested and
the teaching/curriculum design produced. If, in the case of the these computer science and digital
fluency learning standards, the assessments address the entire document, including its Guiding
Principles and Lenses, as well as the richness of each of the Concept Areas, then teachers will be
empowered incentivized to design curriculum that addresses this richness. If, instead, the
assessments are more narrowly focused on the strict wording of the learning standards
themselves, then it is possible and perhaps likely that, in general, teaching and curriculum design
will become in turn also much more narrow.
Teacher preparation programs in Computer Science Education can mitigate this risk by
developing CS teachers who are immersed in the full richness described in this these learning
standards document. We have begun to follow this pathway, and work is currently underway to
design workshops for teachers and teacher candidates consistent with this approach. The work of
several key practitioners and researchers have informed these efforts, including foundational
work in understanding the possibilities of children and computers by Papert and Solomon [17];
the work by Weinstock and his colleagues on computational thinking and younger students [18-
20]; and research by Yadav and his colleagues on the development of teachers in the teaching of
computational thinking and computer science [21,22]. Additional work on the evolution of the
key documents influencing this learning standards document as well as others adopting by other
states, is also underway.
14. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
68
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge support by Dr. Tom Liam Lynch and Pamela Amendola.
REFERENCES
[1] Endacott, J. L., Wright, G. P., Goering, C. Z., Collet, V. S., Denny, G. S., & Davis, J. J. (2015).
Robots teaching other little robots: Neoliberalism, CCSS, and teacher professionalism, Review of
Education, pedagogy, and cultural studies, 37(5), pp. 414-437.
[2] Endacott, J. L., Collet, V., Goering, C. Z., Turner, R., Denny, G. S., Wright, G., & Jennings-Davis, J.
(2016). On the frontline of CCSS implementation: A national study of factors influencing teachers’
perceptions of teaching conditions and job satisfaction, Cogent Education, 3(1), 1162997.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1162997
[3] Matlock, K. L., Goering, C. Z., Endacott, J., Collet, V. S., Denny, G. S., Jennings-Davis, J., &
Wright, G. P. (2016). Teachers’ views of the common core state standards and its implementation.
Educational Review, 68(3), pp. 291-305.
[4] Common Core Learning Standards Initiative (n.d.). http://www.corestandards.org
[5] EngageNY (n.d.). Welcome to EngageNY. https://www.engageny.org
[6] Timberlake, M. T., Thomas, A. B., & Barrett, B. (2017). The allure of simplicity: Scripted curricula
and equity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, pp. 46-52.
[7] DeLuca, C., & Bellara, A. (2013). The current state of assessment education: Aligning policy,
standards, and teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), pp. 356-372.
[8] Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of
student achievement with state content standards?. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4),
pp. 965-995.
[9] Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments.
Applied measurement in education, 20(1), pp. 7-25.
[10] Chrystal, J. L. (2021). The relationship between external influences and state education policy
processes (doctoral dissertation, walden university).
[11] Code.org. (n.d.). Leadership. Code.org. https://code.org/about/leadership
[12] Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.
[13] Park, S., Griffin, A., & Gill, D. (2012). Working with words: exploring textual analysis in medical
education research. Medical education, 46(4), pp. 372-380.
[14] Silge, J., & Robinson, D. (2016). tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R.
Journal of Open Source Software, 1(3), p. 37.
[15] Silge, J., & Robinson, D. (2017). Text mining with R: A tidy approach. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
[16] Krathwohl DR (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory into practice, 41(4),
pp. 212-218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
[17] Papert, S., & Solomon, C. (1971). Twenty things to do with a computer. Artificial Intelligence Memo
Number 248.
[18] Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016).
Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of science
education and technology, 25(1), pp. 127-147.
[19] Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015, June). To block or not to block, that is the question: students'
perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on
interaction design and children, pp. 199-208.
[20] Lin, Y., & Weintrop, D. (2021). The landscape of block-based programming: Characteristics of
block-based environments and how they support the transition to text-based programming. Journal of
Computer Languages, 67, 101075.
[21] Yadav, A., Krist, C., Good, J., & Caeli, E. N. (2018). Computational thinking in elementary
classrooms: Measuring teacher understanding of computational ideas for teaching science. Computer
Science Education, 28(4), pp. 371-400.
[22] Rich, K. M., Yadav, A., & Larimore, R. A. (2020). Teacher implementation profiles for integrating
computational thinking into elementary mathematics and science instruction. Education and
Information Technologies, 25(4), pp. 3161-3188.
15. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.11, No.1, March 2022
69
AUTHOR
Dr. Gerald Ardito has been an educator for the past 20 years. For 8 years, he taught STEM topics for
middle school students in a the middle school of a New York City suburb. During that
time, he developed and implemented an entirely self directed 8th grade Biology course
for 8th graders. Since 2013, he has been a teacher educator, focused on Adolescent,
Science, and Computer Science/Computational Thinking education. Dr. Ardito's research
has focused on the development, implementation, and management of autonomy
supportive classrooms and the student learning networks that arise within. Dr. Ardito is
currently an Associate Professor of Computer Science Education at Manhattanville
College