Alternative archetypes of formal education provisionPaul Bacsich
This is the revised version of the earlier paper, updated in the light of input at EIF2012 during and after the workshop on the topic. Now awaiting further refinement at ALT-C
Ocwc2014 policies-bacsich final and refsPaul Bacsich
This presentation responds to the challenge of developing policies for OER uptake in the higher education sector of a given country, with particular reference to the smaller countries of the European Union (countries with no more than around 10 million people). It takes a case study approach, reviewing how the POERUP project (Policies for OER Uptake, part-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the EU) is developing policies for three smaller countries: Ireland (an EU member state) and Wales and Scotland (two semi-autonomous regions of the United Kingdom, fully autonomous in educational terms). The inclusion of Wales and Scotland also throws light on the challenge of developing policies for federal countries where higher education is developed to the province/state level.
Factors that seem to be of particular relevance to smaller states include:
1. less money for extensive research and policy analysis
2. more influence of regional and isolated areas
3. easier decision-making, at least in theory
4. issues of lack of economies of scale, in particular if the national language is state-specific
5. greater interest in collaboration with some nearby states on educational issues
6. a smaller set of institutions, causing issues with generating or maintaining institutional diversity of mission unless the process is managed
7. potentially greater danger of dominance by private sector interests
8. potentially large edge effects of student flows from nearby states, potentially made worse if funding and regulatory regimes are attractive to incomers.
The analysis includes studying the interplay between the recommendations produced by international policy work relating to OER and the national policy context (which in some cases makes no mention of OER, in others makes considerable mention but not always correlated with or aware of international issues).
The starting point within POERUP is the document "Policy advice for universities" of which release 1 is currently available, but which is being updated in the light of comments and incoming data. This reviews recent international policy (e.g. COL, UNESCO); EU policies (including Bologna, Europe 2020, Recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning, European higher education in the world, and most recently, Opening Up Education), relevant to OER and consolidated evidence from a variety of national contexts, to make a set of (currently) 18 recommendations designed not only to foster OER but also the changes in higher education that OER is foreseen as helping to foster - such as more flexible accreditation, encouragement of a wider community to take part in higher education, and a vision of higher education focussed more on competences and skills gained and less on duration of study. See Policies at EU-level for OER uptake in universities - http://www.scribd.com/doc/169430544/Policies-at-EU-level-for-OER-uptake-in-universities
The overall aim of POERUP is to carry out research to understand how governments can stimulate the uptake of OER by policy means, not excluding financial means but recognising that in the current economic situation in Europe the scope for government financial support for such activities is much less than it has been in some countries.
We do not want to formulate policies based on informal discussions. We want the policies to be evidence-based policies – and based on looking beyond – beyond one’s own country, region or continent, and beyond the educational sector that a ministry typically looks after.
One aspect of this is to foster the potential of new technologies for enhancing innovation and creativity, in particular by researching policies designed to foster a lifelong learner mindset in learners – leading to curiosity, creativity and a greater willingness to consume OER.
We also want to provide education authorities, the research community and OER initiative management with trustworthy and balanced research results, in which feedback from all stakeholder groups has been incorporated and which can be used as standard literature. A specific objective is to help readers in charge of OER initiatives to foresee hidden traps and to find ways of incorporating successful features of other initiatives. POERUP is about dispassionate analysis, not lobbying.
We aim to provide policymakers and education authorities above institutions, but also OER management and practitioners within institutions, with insight into what has been done in this area, plus a categorization of the different major initiatives and the diverse range of providers. Policy advice is needed explicitly to address Issues like critical thinking in the use of new technologies/media, risk awareness, and ethical/legal considerations. Our review will provide practical and concrete information in order to contribute towards a more informed approach in the future.
POERUP is doing this by:
• studying a range of countries in Europe and seen as relevant to Europe, in order to understand what OER is going on, and why it is going on (or might soon cease to be going on) – and taking account of reports from other agencies studying OER in other countries;
• researching case studies of various end-user–producer communities behind OER initiatives in order to refine and elaborate recommendations to formulate a set of action points that can be applied to ensuring the realisation of successful, lively and sustainable OER communities;
• developing informed ideas on policy formulation using evidence from our own and other studies, our own experience in related projects and ongoing advice from other experts in the field.
Finally, these results are being disseminated and maintained in a sustainable way.
The project has a web site http://www.poerup.info and a wiki http://poerup.referata.com for country reports and other outputs. This wiki will be sustained after the end of t
Policies for uptake of OER in the UK home nationsPaul Bacsich
This paper from POERUP provides a set of 16 or so recommendations designed to foster the use of open educational resources and open educational practices in the UK higher education sector, in particular England, Scotland and Wales.
The study method was to review the full range of OER activity in the UK HE sector in the last few years (such as the JISC/HEA OER Programme), take into account the policy environment in the home nations for HE in general and online learning in particular, and correlate these both with developments in over 30 other countries deemed to be of relevance to Europe and the emerging policy environment at EU level (to which the POERUP project contributed, as the author was both a member of the EU’s Open Education Experts Group and a contributor (Bacsich 2013a) to the Open Education 2030 workshop on higher education).
This paper focuses only on higher education in the UK but companion papers focus on further education and on schools.
In addition the project is also preparing policy papers on Ireland (by the same author), Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland and Canada. This set of studies and papers provides massive capability for cross-correlation and triangulation.
Our first EU HE OER policy paper (Bacsich 2013b) was made available publicly in September 2013, in advance of the EU’s Opening Up Education report (European Commission 2013). Ours has now been updated to take account of that and refine the EU’s recommendations for the HE sector. The first summary version of a UK HE policy paper has been produced for internal discussion in the POERUP project and then in the Advisory Committee.
Our UK HE presentation aims to take into account the different home nations’ HE systems and the different state of policy development in England and Wales (BIS 2013; HEW 2013) and working groups such as Open Scotland.
The POERUP project takes care not to focus on OER as an end in itself, but on the agendas that OER is said to be able to foster and on the wider agenda (called by the EU “opening up education”, but equally well called by others “open and distance learning”, “open educational practices”, or “flexible learning”) within which OER is embedded. Paradoxically perhaps, this makes it much easier to make recommendations and to ensure stability in the recommendations and consistency with other existing policies.
In its current draft form, the recommendations are formulated as 16 in a “home nation neutral” fashion, but the number of recommendations will no doubt change as the document splits into three versions. It is still felt to be valuable to produce a UK-wide synthesis, not least because several key agencies such as HEA and QAA have a UK-wide remit.
The project is willing to work with other home nations/regions/mission groups, Crown Dependencies and other EU countries to co-create similar documents. It already has some experience of this developed in the last few months.
OCWC POERUP external evaluation of FutureLearn communityPaul Bacsich
FutureLearn is a private company wholly owned by the UK Open University. It has partnered with over 20 leading UK universities to form the FutureLearn consortium. Since October 2013 this has offered a range of MOOCs focussed at informal learning on subjects typically taught at university level. FutureLearn has partnered also with three UK institutions with archives of cultural and educational material - the British Council, the British Library, and the British Museum - and with a few non-UK universities, so far the University of Auckland, Monash University and Trinity College Dublin.
This paper is a case study of FutureLearn. Unlike many case studies of such MOOC-based and OER initiatives, it is not from a member of the consortium. Indeed the case study will not use any privileged information. In evaluation terms it is carried out from an “external observer” standpoint, not from a “participant-observer” standpoint.
The key research question for this case study is to establish the strength and functions of the FutureLearn community - the community of staff at institutions who are engaged, increasingly collaboratively, in creating the FutureLearn courses, supporting the students, and co-developing the FutureLearn software systems and procedures.
The reason for this case study is to test one of the fundamental hypotheses of the POERUP project. POERUP, Policies for OER Uptake, is a study project funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, running from late 2011 until June 2014. Among the core tasks of POERUP are to produce seven in-depth case studies of OER and MOOC communities. In addition to FutureLearn these include OER university (global), Wikiwijs (Netherlands) and ALISON (Ireland).
The research methodology involves so far:
1. documentary analysis of the FutureLearn project, involving what it says about itself and what others say about it, and a preliminary set of informal discussions with stakeholders.
2. in-depth interviews, using an interview template, with key staff at FutureLearn partners.
There will be a final phase of documentary analysis in the May-June 2014, before the end of the POERUP project.
The communities in the POERUP case studies are being analysed using Social Network Analysis, to varying degrees of depth depending on the activity within the communities. Bieke Schreurs the co-author of the presentation is responsible for this aspect of the research (Schreurs et al 2013).
The evidence we have gathered in the POERUP project indicates that at least within the European Union the era of large state-funded OER content initiatives is almost over. Our hypothesis is that a development such as FutureLearn is much more the kind of partnership - public and private, ambitious but not unrealistically so, nationally based yet not nationally bounded - that will succeed - and we want to understand and document why this is so in order that others can learn from it.
Quality in e-learning - a view for ENQAPaul Bacsich
A view from a benchmarking e-learning perspective of how to initiate a synthesis of approaches to quality in e-learning for use Europe-wide within the ENQA Standards and Guidelines
Using OER and MOOCs for education and training - leadersPaul Bacsich
This presentation provides a 12-slide snapshot in March 2016 of the D-TRANSFORM project funded under Erasmus+ to develop leadership training in e-learning (digital learning) for senior leaders (Rectors, Vice-Rectors, Board Directors) in universities and other higher education institutions across Europe. It was presented virtually to the workshop "Open Education - concepts, tools, resources, practices" in Timisoara, Romania, on 11 March 2016 - which was also streamed
Institutional Open Education and OER Policies - a view from POERUPPaul Bacsich
This webinar will provide two perspectives on OER policies and seek to answer some of the key questions related to Open Education and OER policies. The questions below will drive the session delivered by the presenters and form the basis of the discussion which follows.
Why have a policy?
What are the problems in developing a policy?
How do you get your teaching staff on board?
Did it require extra staff (as with MOOCs in some cases)?
What are the main elements of your policy? For example, is there was a minimum/maximum amount of OER that could be used e.g. only 50% could be made up from OER.
Have you had feedback from students about the policy?
Has there been feedback (good/bad) from students as a result?
What have been the key benefits of developing and having a policy?
The first presenter is Paul Bacsich from POERUP.
POERUP elevator pitch: 26 countries in 26 minuteswitthaus
Presentation by POERUP team at OER13 in Nottingham - an overview of open educational resources policies worldwide, based on the POERUP project research (http://www.poerup.info)
This presentation describes the approach taken by an externally-funded series of analytic projects in OER, first POERUP and then the successor studies on SharedOER and Adult Education & OER, to “solve” the requirement, first posed by UNESCO in 2012 (D’Antoni, 2013), but later taken up by the Hewlett Foundation (2013), of geographic mapping of OER initiatives, policies and other related entities. There are of course several such “solutions”, all with their strengths and weaknesses, but the POERUP database is larger than most so far, more multi-sector (HE,VET and K-12) and more global in coverage – in part because it could leverage on a series of well-funded EU projects over several years, each unusually (for EU projects) taking a global viewpoint.
The presentation will consider the decisions taken by POERUP and its successor studies on technology, databases, mapping and user interface, looking both at the distribution and the collection aspects.
This higher education case study presentation was delivered by Rosemary Borup during the measuring employability workshop of the December 2015 Learning Networks event held in Cardiff.
Alternative archetypes of formal education provisionPaul Bacsich
This is the revised version of the earlier paper, updated in the light of input at EIF2012 during and after the workshop on the topic. Now awaiting further refinement at ALT-C
Ocwc2014 policies-bacsich final and refsPaul Bacsich
This presentation responds to the challenge of developing policies for OER uptake in the higher education sector of a given country, with particular reference to the smaller countries of the European Union (countries with no more than around 10 million people). It takes a case study approach, reviewing how the POERUP project (Policies for OER Uptake, part-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the EU) is developing policies for three smaller countries: Ireland (an EU member state) and Wales and Scotland (two semi-autonomous regions of the United Kingdom, fully autonomous in educational terms). The inclusion of Wales and Scotland also throws light on the challenge of developing policies for federal countries where higher education is developed to the province/state level.
Factors that seem to be of particular relevance to smaller states include:
1. less money for extensive research and policy analysis
2. more influence of regional and isolated areas
3. easier decision-making, at least in theory
4. issues of lack of economies of scale, in particular if the national language is state-specific
5. greater interest in collaboration with some nearby states on educational issues
6. a smaller set of institutions, causing issues with generating or maintaining institutional diversity of mission unless the process is managed
7. potentially greater danger of dominance by private sector interests
8. potentially large edge effects of student flows from nearby states, potentially made worse if funding and regulatory regimes are attractive to incomers.
The analysis includes studying the interplay between the recommendations produced by international policy work relating to OER and the national policy context (which in some cases makes no mention of OER, in others makes considerable mention but not always correlated with or aware of international issues).
The starting point within POERUP is the document "Policy advice for universities" of which release 1 is currently available, but which is being updated in the light of comments and incoming data. This reviews recent international policy (e.g. COL, UNESCO); EU policies (including Bologna, Europe 2020, Recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning, European higher education in the world, and most recently, Opening Up Education), relevant to OER and consolidated evidence from a variety of national contexts, to make a set of (currently) 18 recommendations designed not only to foster OER but also the changes in higher education that OER is foreseen as helping to foster - such as more flexible accreditation, encouragement of a wider community to take part in higher education, and a vision of higher education focussed more on competences and skills gained and less on duration of study. See Policies at EU-level for OER uptake in universities - http://www.scribd.com/doc/169430544/Policies-at-EU-level-for-OER-uptake-in-universities
The overall aim of POERUP is to carry out research to understand how governments can stimulate the uptake of OER by policy means, not excluding financial means but recognising that in the current economic situation in Europe the scope for government financial support for such activities is much less than it has been in some countries.
We do not want to formulate policies based on informal discussions. We want the policies to be evidence-based policies – and based on looking beyond – beyond one’s own country, region or continent, and beyond the educational sector that a ministry typically looks after.
One aspect of this is to foster the potential of new technologies for enhancing innovation and creativity, in particular by researching policies designed to foster a lifelong learner mindset in learners – leading to curiosity, creativity and a greater willingness to consume OER.
We also want to provide education authorities, the research community and OER initiative management with trustworthy and balanced research results, in which feedback from all stakeholder groups has been incorporated and which can be used as standard literature. A specific objective is to help readers in charge of OER initiatives to foresee hidden traps and to find ways of incorporating successful features of other initiatives. POERUP is about dispassionate analysis, not lobbying.
We aim to provide policymakers and education authorities above institutions, but also OER management and practitioners within institutions, with insight into what has been done in this area, plus a categorization of the different major initiatives and the diverse range of providers. Policy advice is needed explicitly to address Issues like critical thinking in the use of new technologies/media, risk awareness, and ethical/legal considerations. Our review will provide practical and concrete information in order to contribute towards a more informed approach in the future.
POERUP is doing this by:
• studying a range of countries in Europe and seen as relevant to Europe, in order to understand what OER is going on, and why it is going on (or might soon cease to be going on) – and taking account of reports from other agencies studying OER in other countries;
• researching case studies of various end-user–producer communities behind OER initiatives in order to refine and elaborate recommendations to formulate a set of action points that can be applied to ensuring the realisation of successful, lively and sustainable OER communities;
• developing informed ideas on policy formulation using evidence from our own and other studies, our own experience in related projects and ongoing advice from other experts in the field.
Finally, these results are being disseminated and maintained in a sustainable way.
The project has a web site http://www.poerup.info and a wiki http://poerup.referata.com for country reports and other outputs. This wiki will be sustained after the end of t
Policies for uptake of OER in the UK home nationsPaul Bacsich
This paper from POERUP provides a set of 16 or so recommendations designed to foster the use of open educational resources and open educational practices in the UK higher education sector, in particular England, Scotland and Wales.
The study method was to review the full range of OER activity in the UK HE sector in the last few years (such as the JISC/HEA OER Programme), take into account the policy environment in the home nations for HE in general and online learning in particular, and correlate these both with developments in over 30 other countries deemed to be of relevance to Europe and the emerging policy environment at EU level (to which the POERUP project contributed, as the author was both a member of the EU’s Open Education Experts Group and a contributor (Bacsich 2013a) to the Open Education 2030 workshop on higher education).
This paper focuses only on higher education in the UK but companion papers focus on further education and on schools.
In addition the project is also preparing policy papers on Ireland (by the same author), Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland and Canada. This set of studies and papers provides massive capability for cross-correlation and triangulation.
Our first EU HE OER policy paper (Bacsich 2013b) was made available publicly in September 2013, in advance of the EU’s Opening Up Education report (European Commission 2013). Ours has now been updated to take account of that and refine the EU’s recommendations for the HE sector. The first summary version of a UK HE policy paper has been produced for internal discussion in the POERUP project and then in the Advisory Committee.
Our UK HE presentation aims to take into account the different home nations’ HE systems and the different state of policy development in England and Wales (BIS 2013; HEW 2013) and working groups such as Open Scotland.
The POERUP project takes care not to focus on OER as an end in itself, but on the agendas that OER is said to be able to foster and on the wider agenda (called by the EU “opening up education”, but equally well called by others “open and distance learning”, “open educational practices”, or “flexible learning”) within which OER is embedded. Paradoxically perhaps, this makes it much easier to make recommendations and to ensure stability in the recommendations and consistency with other existing policies.
In its current draft form, the recommendations are formulated as 16 in a “home nation neutral” fashion, but the number of recommendations will no doubt change as the document splits into three versions. It is still felt to be valuable to produce a UK-wide synthesis, not least because several key agencies such as HEA and QAA have a UK-wide remit.
The project is willing to work with other home nations/regions/mission groups, Crown Dependencies and other EU countries to co-create similar documents. It already has some experience of this developed in the last few months.
OCWC POERUP external evaluation of FutureLearn communityPaul Bacsich
FutureLearn is a private company wholly owned by the UK Open University. It has partnered with over 20 leading UK universities to form the FutureLearn consortium. Since October 2013 this has offered a range of MOOCs focussed at informal learning on subjects typically taught at university level. FutureLearn has partnered also with three UK institutions with archives of cultural and educational material - the British Council, the British Library, and the British Museum - and with a few non-UK universities, so far the University of Auckland, Monash University and Trinity College Dublin.
This paper is a case study of FutureLearn. Unlike many case studies of such MOOC-based and OER initiatives, it is not from a member of the consortium. Indeed the case study will not use any privileged information. In evaluation terms it is carried out from an “external observer” standpoint, not from a “participant-observer” standpoint.
The key research question for this case study is to establish the strength and functions of the FutureLearn community - the community of staff at institutions who are engaged, increasingly collaboratively, in creating the FutureLearn courses, supporting the students, and co-developing the FutureLearn software systems and procedures.
The reason for this case study is to test one of the fundamental hypotheses of the POERUP project. POERUP, Policies for OER Uptake, is a study project funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, running from late 2011 until June 2014. Among the core tasks of POERUP are to produce seven in-depth case studies of OER and MOOC communities. In addition to FutureLearn these include OER university (global), Wikiwijs (Netherlands) and ALISON (Ireland).
The research methodology involves so far:
1. documentary analysis of the FutureLearn project, involving what it says about itself and what others say about it, and a preliminary set of informal discussions with stakeholders.
2. in-depth interviews, using an interview template, with key staff at FutureLearn partners.
There will be a final phase of documentary analysis in the May-June 2014, before the end of the POERUP project.
The communities in the POERUP case studies are being analysed using Social Network Analysis, to varying degrees of depth depending on the activity within the communities. Bieke Schreurs the co-author of the presentation is responsible for this aspect of the research (Schreurs et al 2013).
The evidence we have gathered in the POERUP project indicates that at least within the European Union the era of large state-funded OER content initiatives is almost over. Our hypothesis is that a development such as FutureLearn is much more the kind of partnership - public and private, ambitious but not unrealistically so, nationally based yet not nationally bounded - that will succeed - and we want to understand and document why this is so in order that others can learn from it.
Quality in e-learning - a view for ENQAPaul Bacsich
A view from a benchmarking e-learning perspective of how to initiate a synthesis of approaches to quality in e-learning for use Europe-wide within the ENQA Standards and Guidelines
Using OER and MOOCs for education and training - leadersPaul Bacsich
This presentation provides a 12-slide snapshot in March 2016 of the D-TRANSFORM project funded under Erasmus+ to develop leadership training in e-learning (digital learning) for senior leaders (Rectors, Vice-Rectors, Board Directors) in universities and other higher education institutions across Europe. It was presented virtually to the workshop "Open Education - concepts, tools, resources, practices" in Timisoara, Romania, on 11 March 2016 - which was also streamed
Institutional Open Education and OER Policies - a view from POERUPPaul Bacsich
This webinar will provide two perspectives on OER policies and seek to answer some of the key questions related to Open Education and OER policies. The questions below will drive the session delivered by the presenters and form the basis of the discussion which follows.
Why have a policy?
What are the problems in developing a policy?
How do you get your teaching staff on board?
Did it require extra staff (as with MOOCs in some cases)?
What are the main elements of your policy? For example, is there was a minimum/maximum amount of OER that could be used e.g. only 50% could be made up from OER.
Have you had feedback from students about the policy?
Has there been feedback (good/bad) from students as a result?
What have been the key benefits of developing and having a policy?
The first presenter is Paul Bacsich from POERUP.
POERUP elevator pitch: 26 countries in 26 minuteswitthaus
Presentation by POERUP team at OER13 in Nottingham - an overview of open educational resources policies worldwide, based on the POERUP project research (http://www.poerup.info)
This presentation describes the approach taken by an externally-funded series of analytic projects in OER, first POERUP and then the successor studies on SharedOER and Adult Education & OER, to “solve” the requirement, first posed by UNESCO in 2012 (D’Antoni, 2013), but later taken up by the Hewlett Foundation (2013), of geographic mapping of OER initiatives, policies and other related entities. There are of course several such “solutions”, all with their strengths and weaknesses, but the POERUP database is larger than most so far, more multi-sector (HE,VET and K-12) and more global in coverage – in part because it could leverage on a series of well-funded EU projects over several years, each unusually (for EU projects) taking a global viewpoint.
The presentation will consider the decisions taken by POERUP and its successor studies on technology, databases, mapping and user interface, looking both at the distribution and the collection aspects.
This higher education case study presentation was delivered by Rosemary Borup during the measuring employability workshop of the December 2015 Learning Networks event held in Cardiff.
A results-driven Engineering and Information Science, Mathematics, Physics, and Science Teacher with a unique real-world background as an accomplished electrical / biomedical / software engineer, change agent, and trainer working across national and cultural boundaries.
New P.G. Course In Accounting, Finance And Decision MakingAshok Bohra
Newly developed course aimed at fulfilling the needs of the Business World. You will be made an efficient and effective Accounting pesonnel to manage the business successfuly. Employment or Entrepreneurship will be your choice; both will be waiting for you before completing the course. You will be converted from a graduate to an specialist of Decision Accounting backed by the in-depth knowledge of Accounting, Finance and management.
Chapter 5Understanding the Standards And I’m calling.docxjoyjonna282
Chapter 5
Understanding the Standards
And I’m calling
on our nation’s
governors and state
education chiefs to
develop standards
and assessments
that don’t simply
measure whether
students can fill
in a bubble on a
test, but whether
they possess 21st
century skills like
problem solving and
critical thinking and
entrepreneurship
and creativity.
—Barack Obama,
March 1, 2009
Learning Outcomes
By the end of the chapter, you will be able to:
• Explain the development of the Common Core standards movement.
•Describe the basic elements of the Common Core English language arts standards.
•Discuss the basic elements of the Common Core mathematics standards.
•Recall the basic elements of the Next Generation Science Standards and the National
Educational Technology Standards.
•Analyze how differentiated instruction applies to the newly emerging standards and the
technology standards for students.
5
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Pre-Test Chapter 5
Introduction
Differentiated instruction is built on a foundation of effective teaching practices. Quality cur-
riculum is one of these defining principles, as what is taught serves as the basis for how it is
taught. Quality curriculum has its basis in standards, or descriptions of student outcomes in
content areas. The standards in the United States are undergoing major changes with the adop-
tion of the Common Core State Standards and new standards in science and social studies.
Initially developed by a consortium of state governors and state superintendents of instruction,
they have been vetted by professional groups, state and local education representatives, and
parents within each state.
These standards mark a departure from past practices, which is good news for differentiated
instruction. States had previously been responsible for developing their own standards, and
the creation of assessment systems based on those standards immediately followed. While this
approach assured an articulation between standards and assessment, there were unintended
consequences. The effect was a narrowing of the curriculum. In practice, the assessment sys-
tems began to drive the curriculum and often resulted in teaching methods that were drill
based, had low cognitive demand, used bubble-in-the-answer assessments, and relied on a
stand-and-deliver means of presenting content. (Kendall, 2011). The new standards aim to rec-
tify that approach. They describe student outcomes in terms of college and career readiness,
and encourage increasingly complex cognitive tasks throughout the K-12 experience. Moreover,
the manner in which they were written and adopted has encouraged districts and teachers to
develop curriculum first, rather than waiting until an assessment system is in place (Kendall,
2011). Since their release, the authors of the standards have vetted a number of resources that
assist teachers, parents, and community members in understanding and planning for imple-
mentation ...
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 ...
Overview of the Common Core State Standards Initiatives for EL.docxgerardkortney
Overview of the Common Core State Standards Initiatives for ELLs
A TESOL Issue Brief
March 2013
Overview of the
Common Core State
Standards Initiatives for ELLs
Overview of the Common Core State Standards Initiatives for ELLs
A new chapter in the era of standards-based education in the United States began with the creation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative in 2009. Although states
have been required by law to have content-area standards for education since the 1990s, the
CCSS initiative will create more commonality among content-area standards for those states
that have agreed to adopt the CCSS.
At the time of their initial publication, the CCSS did not include a correlating set of English
language proficiency development (ELPD) standards for students learning English. Since then,
several related initiatives that address the role of English language proficiency have been
started. The purpose of this issue brief is to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies
behind the CCSS and to outline some of the initiatives now in place to address the needs of
English language learners (ELLs) in relation to the CCSS.
The 1983 report “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” ushered in
the standards movement in education in the United States. Written by the Commission
on Excellence in Education, the report decried a steady decline in student performance.
Recognizing that the education system represented a patchwork of expectations for
students, proponents of the standards movement pushed for more coherent policies.
For the first time, the federal government lent its support to standards-based reform in
education. A wave of reforms followed, incorporating their way into reauthorizations of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1994 (the Improving America’s Schools
Act) and in 2001 (the No Child Left Behind Act or NCLB). Although NCLB is credited with
unveiling large disparities in educational outcomes among and within states, the law as
written did not produce the results it intended, namely to raise proficiency levels for all.
Also, beginning in 1997 the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) developed and administered international tests allowing countries to compare the
performance of their students against an international benchmark. Although the best students
in the United States have consistently scored among the highest performing international
students, those experiencing difficulty in school and living in poverty have scored consistently
lower than their international peers, keeping the overall performance of the United States
at or below average among countries participating in those assessments. This persistent
achievement gap within U.S. schools has also motivated proponents of standards-based
education.
Many argue that for the United States to be competitive in today’s global economy, students
in U.S. schools must lead in educational.
Presentation made at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, 2015. Explains why and how college faculty should align with the Common Core and NGSS.
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. See: www.nationalforum.com
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
Delivering Micro-Credentials in Technical and Vocational Education and TrainingAG2 Design
Explore how micro-credentials are transforming Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) with this comprehensive slide deck. Discover what micro-credentials are, their importance in TVET, the advantages they offer, and the insights from industry experts. Additionally, learn about the top software applications available for creating and managing micro-credentials. This presentation also includes valuable resources and a discussion on the future of these specialised certifications.
For more detailed information on delivering micro-credentials in TVET, visit this https://tvettrainer.com/delivering-micro-credentials-in-tvet/
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Group Presentation 2 Economics.Ariana Buscigliopptx
Common core and common ground
1. Common Core and Common Ground: New
Standards as Driver for Open Educational
Resources and Practice in American Schools – with
some reflections on the implications for Europe
Sara Frank Bristow (Salient Research), with Giles
Pepler (Sero Consulting)
OER15
Caerdydd, Cymru
15 April 2015
2. Outline of presentation
• SharedOER
• Common Core State Standards (CCSS) – case
study
• Implications for Europe
3. SharedOER
• The Common Core case study was part of a research project “SharedOER” undertaken for
IPTS by Sero Consulting over the period June-December 2014. The aim of this study was to
make an inventory of the existing cases within the context of formal education (school
sector, vocational education and higher education) where a curriculum or syllabus is shared
across borders (e.g. state, national, linguistic and cultural) and consider in particular the
OER aspects, existing or prospective.
• The study was in three parts. The first (Deliverable 1) involved scoping and classifying
cross-border syllabi/curriculum initiatives and their drivers (Jeans, Pepler & Bacsich, 2014).
It was followed by a detailed case study (Deliverable 2) of the US Common Core State
Standards Initiative and its impact on OER (Bristow, 2014), with both these elements
brought together in Deliverable 3 (the final report,). This final report is due for publication
by IPTS shortly. It discusses the research findings and the issues they raise and identifies
potential areas for further investigation on synergies between cross-border
syllabi/curriculum and OER in the context of formal education in the EU.
• In this study, the term cross-border use is extended to any curriculum, or syllabi, when it is
used in above described situations, including between states in federal countries such as
the US or Germany. By curriculum we broadly refer to a specifically planned sequence of
instruction incorporating (or not) the specific content and resources.
4. What are CCSS?
• The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are designed to ensure that students
graduating from high school are prepared to begin two- or four-year post-
secondary programmes or enter the workforce. The standards identify specific
goals for language and literacy, as well as for Mathematics, that students should
acquire at each grade level.
• The CCSS Initiative was first formed in 2009, and the standards for kindergarten
through grade 12 (K-12) were made available in 2010.
• The standards focus on core concepts and procedures starting in the early grades,
which “gives teachers the time needed to teach them and gives students the time
needed to master them”.
• For kindergarten through grade 8 (K-8), these are grade-by-grade; at high school
level, the standards are grouped into bands for grades 9-10 and grades 11-12.
Bands are intended to allow schools, districts, and states flexibility in course
design.
5. US Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
Initiative and its impact on OER: Backdrop
• US law prohibits the federal education department from
controlling state or local districts’ academic standards or
curriculum
• Educational system is fully devolved to the states
• Major policy decisions made by state legislative bodies
(state senate, house of representatives)
– …while local governing bodies are charged with establishing
their own curriculum (learning materials), professional
development, etc.
• Under No Child Left Behind (2001), each state adopts its
own rigorous standards and definition of adequate yearly
progress (AYP)
• States not showing AYP lose critical federal funding
6. Where did the CCSS Initiative come from?
• Development spurred by National Governors Association (NGA)
and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), with Achieve,
Inc. (nonprofit) – support from philanthropy and many educator
groups
• Designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are
prepared to begin two- or four-year post-secondary programmes
or enter the workforce
• Adoption allows states to meet federal No Child Left Behind
targets
• In 2009, 48 out of 50 US states signed a memorandum of
agreement committing to the initiative
• Actual standards made available in 2010 for optional adoption –
not from federal government, but by these independent groups.
States may develop their own standards, but choose to adopt
CCSS
7. What are the CCSS?
• Terminology check:
– Standards set goals for what students should know and be
able to do while learning academic content.
– Curricula provide educators with an outline of what should be
taught in classrooms.
– Assessments determine how much a student has learned and
whether he or she has performed to a level of proficiency set
by academic standards.
• Identify specific goals for language and literacy, as well as
for mathematics, that students should acquire at each
grade level (K-8, 9-10, 11-12)
• “Accompanying model course descriptions, or pathways,
are not intended to be prescriptive for curriculum or
pedagogy” – that is, no learning materials are provided
8. What’s happening now?
• By October 2014, 43 US states working to implement CCSS
(multiyear process)
• Survey (2013) by Center for Education Policy found most
states unprepared for the transition
• Challenges:
– Curricular – We need new textbooks!
– Technology – The assessment are all online!
– Professional development – We have to do what?
– Cost – Estimated at $8 billion to implement nationwide!
– Political – Many, but momentum keep CCSS moving
forward.
9. “The standards are not curricula and do not
mandate the use of any particular curriculum.
Teachers are able to develop their own lesson plans
and choose materials, as they have always done.
States that have adopted the standards may choose
to work together to develop instructional materials
and curricula. As states work individually to
implement their new standards, publishers of
instructional materials and experienced educators
will develop new resources around these shared
standards.” – CCSS web site
10. Enter the K-12 OER Collaborative
• OER emerge as a viable and potentially cost-saving option, but
previous efforts are disjointed (districts, states, companies)
• Formal launch November 2014: 12 states of 50 have signed on so
far
• Led by those with most visible OER policies, players and
commitments (Washington State, Utah, Minnesota )
• RFP issued to create a comprehensive, openly licensed curriculum
aligned to Common Core State Standards
• Early efforts date to 2012 (Achieve Inc.); Hewlett funding awarded
2015; supporters include iNACOL and national member
organisations
• In March 2015, three-month rapid prototype sample units now
being developed (all materials will be CC-BY)
11. The Collaborative approach
• Needs assessment survey across 3 leading states; several
thousand educators selected “comprehensive curriculum”
approach
• Adaptable materials developed for online learning (no “static
PDFs”); easy to update/maintain
• RFP used “the free market to get the best solution at the best
price”; content proposals reviewed by educators in 9 states
• Each unit will be evaluated against same criteria (EQUIP rubric),
reviewed by nominated “expert educators” and applicant
“teachers reviewers”
• Later phase will invite applications from reviewers from all 50
states
• Materials to be available across multiple formats/ platforms
• OER curriculum to be truly cross-border, available for adoption by
all
12. Why might CCSS be interesting to Europe in an OER
context?
• CCSS was a states-led effort, not a federal one.
• Each of the 50 states bears full responsibility for the
education of its children. Most states then devolve further
curricular decision- making to the local level, a state of
governance described as ‘local control’. Depending on the
state, responsibility for ensuring a high-quality education
may be shifted to regional school boards, city (municipal)
school boards, school unions, or in some cases schools
themselves (e.g. charter schools). As a result, the nature and
quality of education provided across the United States can
vary dramatically, not just from state to state, but from
district to district (and even school to school).
• There are parallel patterns in many EU countries.
13. Europe – existing cross-border
curricula and content
Curricula:
International Baccalaureate, iGCSE etc.
IT vendor qualifications – Cisco, Java,
Microsoft
ECDL
Content
STEM subjects and languages
But how portable are the experiences of CCSS?
14. If the goal is cross-border adoption of common
standards, as in the US
• Look beyond the public education sphere for partners, funding and
thought leadership. Foundations and commercial entities, for example,
have been great supporters of the Common Core State Standards
Initiative, as have non-profit education organisations.
• In Europe, it will be up to each state whether it adopts − and how it
executes – the common standards.
• Cross-border regulation should make it financially desirable, but not
strictly necessary, to adopt the standards.
• Act swiftly, as there may be widespread criticism/backlash. Solicit public
feedback swiftly and efficiently through supporting consortia members.
• Ensure adequate technological capability at school/school district/state
level if technology is to feature prominently in measuring achievement.
• Prepare states for reform of curricular content, professional
development, and assessment systems after introduction of new
standards.
15. If the goal is to spur development and uptake
of OER in particular
– As above, seek funding/guidance from non-governmental
entities, e.g. foundations and private partners.
– Look to those states with the most OER experience at the
state policy level for sample implementation models.
– Encourage cross-border meetings, partnerships and
consortia – states will have many completely different
concerns, but will have at least one critical common
driver: saving money.
– Take advantage of any/all links to higher education
partners.
– Seek out/designate OER Champions in each state to lead
the way and, hopefully, work together through
development/implementation hurdles.
16. Ways forward?
– how might key current collaborative initiatives might
be further developed?
– explore the potential for extended collaborative
initiatives in particular subject and content areas,
specifically STEM and languages;
– seek collaboration between commercial and non-
profit actors;
– further research into the potential economic benefits
of shared OER and cross-border curricula;
– explore the potential for upscaling ‘seed corn’ and
bottom-up initiatives;
– explore the transferability of current government-
level initiatives;
– Further develop validation of informal learning.
17. Thank you for listening
Links
– Parts 1 and 2 of this study are now available at
http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/SharedOER; Final
Report is forthcoming
– Study commissioned by IPTS-JRC,
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/about/ipts
– Report by Sero Consulting Ltd, http://www.sero.co.uk/
– More info on CCSS at http://www.corestandards.org/
Contact
– Giles Pepler, giles.pepler@sero.co.uk
– Sara Frank Bristow, sara@salientresearch.net