Helping Preservice Teachers Understand the ELA CCSS: An Authentic and Student Centered Project Dr. Michelle R. Ciminelli

Background New teachers face a lengthy list of new initiatives and challenges Each of these measures brings with it a host of potential setbacks, challenges and uncertainties The CCSS is one such challenge

Purpose To present an example of an effective preservice teacher project – Student-centered – Understanding the ELA CCSS – Opportunity for aligning the ELA CCSS across content areas

Related Literature “All teachers need to be teachers of literacy” - CCSS, 2010 CCSS supports an interdisciplinary approach to literacy - CCSS, 2010 Language Arts should be integrated across the curriculum - Strickland, 2012

Theoretical Frameworks: Constructivist Theories Authentic Student-centered Involve critical thinking Problem solving (e.g.Vermette & Smith, 2004)

Theoretical Frameworks: Sociocultural Theories Learning is an interactive process Social experiences shape the ways of thinking and interpreting the world Beliefs and values are constructed through personal experiences (Vygotksy, 1979)

Methodology Context Undergraduate course EDU 376 Language Arts Birth-Grade 6 Mid-way through the initial teacher certification program in elementary education 5 th course in education program Second course in two course literacy sequence

Methodology Participants 33 full-time students All female Majority were juniors; some sophmores 31 Birth-6 majors; 2 TESOL majors

Methodology The Project Literacy Strategies Handbook Choose a content area topic Choose four literacy strategies List at least 3 CCSS addressed in each strategy

An Example - Frogs Strategy: Anticipation Guide Description: An anticipation guide is a strategy used before reading to activate students’ prior knowledge and create interest about a specific topic. Students either listen to or read several statements having to do with a specific topic and are required to circle whether they believe that statement is true or false, agree or disagree, or yes or no. 1. True / False Female frogs lay their eggs on land. 2. True / False Frogs have webbed feet. 3. True / False Frogs are amphibians. Common Core State Standards: Reading Standards for Informational Text K-5, Grade 2: Craft and Structure – 6. Identify the main purpose of a text, including what the author wants to answer, explain, or describe. Language Standards K-5, Grade 2: Vocabulary Acquisition and Use – 4. Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 2 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. Reading Standards: Foundational Skills (K-5), Grade 2: Fluency – 4. Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

Data Sources Professor’s field notes of student conversations Written student reflections about the project Survey: – Describe your process of finding the CCSS – What level of difficulty, if any, did you experience? – As a result of this project, how comfortable are using the CCSS? – Provide additional comments regarding using this project to help you understand how to incorporate the CCSS across content areas

Data Analysis Data coded using constant comparative method - Strauss & Corbin, 1990 Open, axial, and selective coding - Cresswell, % Interrater reliability

FINDINGS

Findings The Process of Finding the Standards Students chose a topic and then a literacy strategy for their topic Used the website (engageny.org) to locate standards Chose appropriate standards for their strategy

Findings The Process “I went through all the ELA CCSS for first grade and wrote down any that applied to my strategy. After that I narrowed them down to four standards that most closely supported my strategy” - Amanda “I went to the engageny website to find the CCSS. I just simply read through and picked standards that were appropriate” - Ashley “We found it very easy…there could be multiple standards that represent this strategy!” - Rachel

Findings Level of Difficulty “I did not find it very difficult. It just took some deeper reading.” - Sarah “I did not have a problem finding ELA CCSS that relate to my content area (math). I did, however, find a math CCSS that supported my example in addition to the ELA standards” - Amanda “I did not really have any difficulty…the website had all the information very well organized”- Mary

Findings BetterAbout the Same Worse 2580 Student Comfort Level Regarding Use of CCSS After the Project

Findings Additional Comments Overall, student comments were very positive For many, it was the first they were asked to explore the CCSS Many appreciated the opportunity to apply the CCSS to an authentic situation

Findings “This project was actually my first experience using CCSS.” - Donna “The common core was my favorite part of the project…I really liked using Common Core!” - Kathy “It was interesting to see how the ELA standards can be applied to different subjects.” - Sarah “I liked how it was required to look at the CCSS. I wouldn’t have looked if it wasn’t required.” - Taylor

Findings Application “Applying it [CCSS] to a topic made it much easier.” - Megan “It (the project) made me actually apply it [CCSS] to a subject.” - Lauren “I think using the CCSS for something other than a literacy lesson was helpful and expanded my horizons.” - Caitlyn

Conclusions Students were receptive to the CCSS Found the state website easy to navigate Found the standards “easy to understand” and easily connected

Implications Students are neutral – job security not tied to APPR/CCSS Therefore, they may offer a better barometer of the usefulness, organization of, and ease of connecting the standards to content areas Speaks to the importance of our role as teacher educators to thoughtfully and deliberately plan authentic experiences to face today’s educational challenges

Thank you!