The key points of this article are the concentration on focus, coherence, and rigor of the new Common Core, in addition to the fact that these standards themselves cannot improve students' knowledge but teachers must help students to raise their achievement levels. The focus aspect of the Common Core is to escape from a “mile-wide, inch-deep” world and move toward narrowing the content so students have a better depth of understanding. Coherence is important in the Common Core because it emphasizes understanding of the topics instead of rote memorization. When students memorize, the information stays with them for a very short period of time. Student understanding is when the material becomes long-lasting information. The comparison on page 20 represents the importance of coherence with the story of an urn getting mailed in shattered pieces. Mathematical standards must be taught as a flow of ideas that overlap instead of as isolated, single pieces of information which don't have any relevance to each other. Rigor has 3 components titled conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application. Since each of these topics are equally important, they must all be stressed. Focus, coherence, and rigor are important to stress in the Common Core because without including these factors, many states had different standards which made it difficult to achieve progress in mathematics. Lastly, it is important for educators to not take advantage of these new standards, thinking the standards alone will improve students' grades and understanding. Teachers are the ones who must put the work in and incorporate the topics in this article into their lesson plans. They must work to increase the focus and coherence of the curriculum to create consistent progressions and make sure students are relating prior knowledge. This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it included numerous ways to use focus, coherence, and rigor as main themes in the classroom. When learning through inquiry, there must be many opportunities to have students interact with the subject matter. Some ways include manipulatives, applications, and mathematical models. There must also be a variety of ways to test students in their understanding, whether it be diagrams, models, explanations, or arguments.
Jacqueline...how do you define coherence. It is essential to have a flow? When you present your prezi you will see "the story" being told has coherence. You may have even designed it to tell a story. As for our interaction with your story, although this may not provide us an opportunity now, you nailed it when you said inquiry must have ways for students to interact, as should all lessons!
The key points of this article are how the common core state standards will be changing the level of focus throughout the curriculum, the connection of curriculum throughout all grades, and the three aspects of rigor. The article points out that the ccss has placed a level of importance on the array of mathematic curriculum to make sure teachers are putting more emphasis on the "major" concepts rather than taking small bits of time to cover a bulk of the material. The goal of this focus throughout the curriculum is to help the students obtain a "greater achievement at college- and career-ready level, greater depth of understanding of mathematics, and a rich classroom environment in which reasoning, sense-making, applications, and a range of mathematical practices all thrive."
Making the math make sense all throughout a students schooling is one of the most important connections we as educators can give them. To intertwine the course material from year to year can help the students pick up from where they left off the year before without any questions.The article states that "focus and coherence are the two major evidence-based design principles for mathematics." What that means is the material you focus on along with how you tie it all together in the end is an important tool as a math educator.
Rigor, consisting of conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency and the ability to apply mathematics to solve problems, is the third component to the new common core state standards. This is used to measure exactly how well the students are grasping and understanding the course material. The standards and our lessons can be great but if we as educators aren't making sure that every student is fully understanding the material than we are failing them as teachers. We must make sure that by the end of the school year every student is equipped with the concepts and skills they are going to need to apply and succeed in the following year.
This article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it has given me insight on exactly how the common core is not only going to be making it easier for students to transfer schools, but it is also making it easier for students to go from grade to grade and not get lost in the material. It is also giving teachers more time to dwell on more important subject matter, where they can then be even more creative in their lessons. This being said, the students in return will be able to learn more overall by the end of the school year and be prepared to start their next mathematic journey.
Rob, to admit that we may be failing our students is a powerful statement. Many would disagree tha tthere are too many variables that we cannot be expected to control for. Can you list some. What would you say to your evaluator who feels you are not reaching all kids because of an "understanding that not all students can do well." Sadly those peopledo exist...can we expect rigor then?
Prof. Hepworth, I do believe that every student can do well, though many students do show a tough exterior, I do think that every student has a soft spot or something that they are interested in enough that if I were to bring it into the classroom they would connect. Upon that connection I truly believe they will she some of that tough exterior and reveal the best way to teach this student. I do understand that outside variables can change the way a student may learn and with that our job as teachers is to connect with these students by getting to know them not only as a student but as a person so we can make accommodations if needed.
The key points of this article are that the CCSSM are structured through focus, coherence, and rigor. Focus is correlated with how teachers spend too much time teaching and not enough time learning. They worry too much about getting a lesson done, but do they know if they properly taught their students something? The article states that too many schools don’t focus on the most important standards. With coherence, the CCSSM wants to use prior math standards that students have been taught and link them in later grades. I see this as a huge problem because there tends to be a lot of time always reviewing before introducing a new topic. Linking topics in each grade is a great resource to show students the similarities and differences in mathematics topics. Lastly, rigor has three aspects in major topics. The three are conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and applications. Some curriculum focuses on these aspects, but thinks of them in a different way of learning. For example, some curriculum suggests pure mathematics and problems, but do not acknowledge that applications can be motivating for students to want to learn something new.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it is more focused on getting the most out of each of the standards. One of the criteria on the rubric of this article states using more 2 or more clusters in an activity. This really emphasizes the use of standards that students have already learned, but now incorporating them and showing how it extends to new math situations and content. In the beginning of the article it states, “Mathematics education in the United States is a mile wide and an inch deep.” Our mathematical education is not up to par with other countries. These standards can reach those goals and become disciplined to have a greater focus, coherence and rigor in math education.
Lucia, How can a teacher know if their students are actually learning? When we discuss assessments, especially formative and summative, you let me know which one is more valuable to answering that question.
The key points of this article are that the Common Core State Standards for mathematics have three major ideas: focus, coherence, and rigor. The CCSS is an attempt to "focus" the curriculum on less content, but a more deeper understanding of the content being presented. The phrase "quality over quantity" comes to mind when thinking of the focus aspect of the CCSS. The CCSS challenges teachers to create deeper lessons by "focusing" on a narrower range of topics, but providing the students with the opportunity to have a much more conceptual knowledge of the topics being covered.
Coherence deals with the idea that mathematics should be taught in a way that makes sense. Coherence is about making meaningful connections within the curriculum. While it is important to make these connections in a single grade level, it is just as important, or perhaps even more important, to make meaningful connections from grade to grade. The CCSS was designed to make these meaningful connections, which will ultimately allow teachers to present the material in a way which makes sense to students.
In the past, mathematics was not taught with much rigor. Math teachers taught students steps and procedures, but often neglected conceptual understanding. Sure, students knew the algorithmic steps to solving a problem, but did they get the true underlying concepts of a problem? The CCSS places more emphasis on well rounded instruction, one that promotes rigor through conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and applications. Each of those three areas are equally important when teaching mathematics, and should be taught with that same equal emphasis.
A fourth area of this article that jumped out at me was around page 17 where the article talks about indicators of quality in instructional materials and tools for mathematics. I believe these indicators can really allow for teachers to focus on the three areas of the CCSS mentioned above. For example, when designing good problems using the guidelines in the article, teachers can allow for students to explore the three aspects of rigor. Also, this section of the article outlines ways teachers can use variety in the way they ask their students to produce answers. This encourages students to find ways to express the same mathematical idea in different forms.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it outlines the way the CCSS can allow students to tap into prior learning to discover new concepts and ideas on their own. The CCSS is big on promoting prior knowledge in order to learn something new. Furthermore, this article helps me understand how the CCSS strives to provoke different levels of thinking and reasoning in students. Mathematics is much more than just rote memorization, and the CCSS promotes the other ways mathematics needs to be both learned and taught.
Kevin, quality over quantity...head of the dog or tal the lion. Which one should it be... can yu justify both options. I am sure others may disagree with you, even though I havent stated which answer you would choose!
The key points of this reading are the concentration on focus, coherence and the three aspects of rigor in the new Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, which is a shift from current, individual state standards into much more connected and unified. The CCSS plans to make mathematics “lose a few pounds,” stating that current mathematics education is a “mile wide and an inch thick.” The new plan is to concentrate on fewer topics, but to take the content deeper and provide an opportunity for a much more profound understanding of the material. With a new stress on focus, we should be able to help students achieve more at the college and career levels and also form a classroom atmosphere made of reasoning, application, and sense making.
Coherence is another great component of the CCSS since it shows how important order and structure are. We must make mathematics make sense and put it in a strategic order that builds off previous knowledge allowing the students to grow. The main goal is to look across grades and look at the progressions in standards to see how major content develops with time. It calls for us to move away from rote memorization and allow for students to develop a true understanding.
Rigor was broken up into three main parts itself, conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application. Each of these components of rigor is just as important as the last and an equal amount of emphasis should be placed on them. Rigor allows us, as educators, to gauge student understanding. Applications are very often left out, but they can be quite beneficial since they have the potential to be very motivating for students and they allow students to be prepared for the real world instead of just the next grade.
This article helps me better understand learning through inquiry because it gave me a much greater understanding of what the CCSS actually is. It was a much better article than previous ones addressing the CCSS. I also think it allows teachers not to stress about covering everything. So often teachers are afraid of not having enough time to cover everything on a standardized test, so they are sticking to a schedule and only teaching to the test. But with a focus on “less is more” it can allow teachers to fully shine, and become more creative with the material, which could greatly improve student participation and interest.
Steve, it is important that you internalize those two quotes you captured as being important regarding a pounds and depth becuase you will hear a lot more about that in the future. When we address this in the class please be sure to ask me more about it. Additionally the removal from rote memorization can only occur through the teacher, that is why I am asking you to read the mathematicians lament in your free time. Lastly, I will say rigor, expect rigor, and demand rigor from all my students. One of the most important issues facing education is the lack of true rigor. How do you define rigor?
The key points of this article are the five specific criteria the Common Core Standards focuses on for ELA. These areas include text selection, questions and tasks, academic vocabulary, writing to sources and research, reading writing listening and speaking. These five areas are meant to help the teacher focus literacy instruction on a more precise examination of every text chosen for the classroom.
Text selection is very important. It requires the teacher to know what level her students are at and the types of books that may be used that will be a challenge to the students, but at the same time allow for comprehension and understandability. A point under this category that I found very important and I think relates to social studies is when the article mentioned shorter, more challenging texts being provided at every grade level. In order for students to succeed in a history classroom they need to be able to decode primary sources, many of which are short but are more challenging to understand.
Questions and tasks that go along with the literature are very important and must be implemented in a meaningful way so that the students are fully benefiting from the text. It is important to place a high emphasis on students questioning and gaining knowledge from what they read. However, at the same time when asking questions of the text it is important to make them specific to that text and not general, so that students must read and understand in order to answer the questions. When assigning tasks that go along with texts it is also important to make sure that they are being assigned a wide variety of large group, small group and independent activities, so at times they are learning from and questioning one another, while other times they are doing research and careful examinations.
Academic vocabulary is very important and many times not seen as a big part of a classroom. As teachers we need to be aware of the complexity of the “Tier 2” words that are many times in the texts that we assign and help our students in understanding the meanings and help them in gathering information about the different words that they may not understand.
Writing to sources and research is important in an humanities classroom because students must be able to not only get an idea out in a coherent way they need to know how to present and formulate an argument. Many times when doing so they also need to know how to research and use proper sources to help them make that argument. So students need extensive time in each grade level that is focused on writing and research, even if they are more frequent smaller projects.
The last main area that the CCSS in ELA focuses on Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, and English Language Learners. Teachers need to provide students with materials that they can read with fluency and comprehend, make plans for substantive, significant discussion, use technology for further forms of research and factual based evidence in writing and place instructional focus on language and grammar.
This article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it outlines the way the CCSS can help teachers use the many areas of literacy that are so necessary in schools so that students can reap the benefits and become more literate. It provides examples and ideas for humanities teachers to use to help their students become more inquisitive, evaluate texts and question both the text and the other students in the class. It also helps in giving ways to bring every student in the class up to the same reading level. I think that the CCSS in ELA will be very helpful in promoting inquiry based thinking in classrooms.
The key points of this article are presented in order to explain and justify the CCSS in Mathematics. The points revolve around the fact that Mathematics Education in America has been criticized as having a huge scope but very little depth. The CCSS calls for focus, coherence, and rigor; as well as specific criteria for materials that align with the standards.
Focus, coherence, and rigor, basically revolve around quality over quantity in mathematics curricula, but with very specific criteria. Focus emphasizes reducing the number of standards, coherence emphasizes making the standards connect with each other understandably, especially between grades, and rigor emphasizes the necessary balance between specifies conceptual understanding, procedural skill, and fluency, all while specifying what each of these things means.
One of the biggest points emphasized in the second and third parts is that each individual standard is not a discrete, isolated "grain" of knowledge; rather, mathematical concepts exist in relation to other mathematical concepts and should be connected accordingly.
The second part specifically applies to materials (such as textbooks) used in the classroom. Among other things, the material must have the proper focus (both having the important concepts for each grade and under-emphasizing the less important concepts for each grade), acknowledging a need for fluency and different ways to teach this fluency (such as repetition or reasoning), finding meaningful problems that connect more than one standard and fulfill the full standards, and a standardization of language for the sake of ELLS.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because the standards themselves were meant to foster IBL. The article also acknowledges the continuous nature of mathematics and the CCSS, which is very important to fostering organic discovery in a mathematics classroom. When teaching a new concept through inquiry, having a student's past knowledge as a tool is essential, and if the investigation leads to new tools that were not necessarily part of the lesson, this should not be invalidated or brushed to the side, since tangential concepts of mathematics (no pun intended) that can be uncovered through IBL are very valid in the CCSS.
One of the key points of this article was, the importance of actually focusing on the material. Students don’t actually get the opportunity to master a subject because teachers are in a rush to teach everything on the state exams. This results in teachers giving students a trick or a formula without actually explain its origin or why it is used. Students are disconnected with what is being taught which results in them retaining nothing and leaving with no skills for the future. When students do their work with rigor, there will actually be a purpose for the effort put into the class. However when students just need to pass a test and not acquire skills for the real world one should question the importance of teaching it at all. In the end it should benefit the student with a better future not the district with better test scores. By focusing on major topics for longer periods of time so that students actually understand the major lessons will result in the student actually being able to use what they have learned when the time comes outside the classroom. Another major point addressed was making sure the curriculum actually makes sense. Students should be able to constantly use recalled lessons to apply to new ones so students see how math is interconnected and constantly growing and branching out. This allows them to use skills they may have previously used to future math topic areas. This article helps me to teaching and learning through inquiry because it explains they importance students actually being engaged in what is being taught. Inquiry based lessons allow students to discover math in a meaningful way. One example is by using giving students manipulatives and having the students do tasks that will lead to discovery. Even if this takes longer than traditional methods it is more important for students to actually understand what they are learning. This will allow them to use the skills in the future. “Less topic coverage can be associated with higher scores on those topics covered because students have more time to master the content that is taught.”
The key points of this article are, quite explicitly, focus, coherence, and rigor. In fact, in that order. Of course, the implication of these three words is much deeper than one may imagine. I really feel like the point of the article, aside from explaining the new way things will be assessed and generally taught, is to sort of persuade some of the older, more stubborn perhaps, teachers that there is actually a problem that's finally being addressed. I sympathize deeply with the need of this change, mainly because I've had those very teachers who just won't let up. The ones with their eyes closed and cheeks turned to need and change. This implementation of fluency and conceptual understanding across the grades and curriculum is an obvious one that has been screaming for help to become reality for years now. Don't get me wrong, I had wonderful schooling, but my mind also works in a very connective and socratic way. Without my outside the box reasoning and skepticism, I'm doubtful I'd be where I am today.
While the focus on change was prominent in this article, the pinpointing of just that, pinpointing and focus, may be greater, or should I say more profound. The idea that we have to focus our instruction rather than vomiting mathematical ideas all over these students and expecting them to clean it all up for themselves is immense. For years I've been tutoring students simply because the teachers they deal with breeze over something and expect the students to master it after only one brief exposure to it. We absolutely need to take what the old standards wanted to cover and condense it into something not only coherent, but worthwhile. How often does a student say, "but when will I ever use this?" or, "but why does this even matter?". Too often is the answer there. We have to take the passion and love we have of our subject, and transform it to a passion and yearn for our kids to feel the same way, or at least find value in it. Because really, we have to remember we are NOT teaching subjects, we are teaching people the essence of our subjects. If you love mathematics but hate children, leave. I think a monstrous part of focus has to do with care. In fact, I think care has to do with coherence and rigor as well. Hell, if we don't care, why teach to begin with?!
Now coherence and rigor really get me going, and let me tell you why. Teachers throughout my schooling have almost made it seem as though they were filling some sort of quota. Like they had to do what they had to do, regardless of the bodies in the room. I think coherence and rigor almost become sort of personal attributes. If I have a classroom full of students who care and are excited about whatever we're doing, rigor and coherence may both come easily. Contrarily, it may be a tad more difficult if the students would rather be watching paint dry than be in my class. That said, we need to focus our teaching on rigor so as not to ruin a topic we hold so dear and that is so crucial to an educated life, regardless of the students "liking" it or not. Of course i think that the main ideas of focus, coherence, and rigor will help students to see value in schooling, even if they don't like the subject, because the less they struggle, the more tolerance for classes they may not "like".
This article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because while it's already what I intend to do, I enjoy the confirmation that majority of teachers will be trying to do the same thing. The coherence is the biggest thing for me, because as inquiry leads to greater conceptual understanding, it's inevitable that coherence rises from it. I'm a huge believer in teaching the "why", not the "how", and prompting the student to investigate, rather than coming to me for the be all end all answer. I really just think that teaching and learning through inquiry will be the best way to make these new standards the norm in classrooms across America.
This article sets out to justify the Common Core State Standards by explaining exactly what educators hope to accomplish by implementing them. The Common Core Standards main focus in mathematics is to create a nationwide curriculum which removes much of the bloating that is present in today’s mathematics classroom. It seeks to remove a course of study which is a “mile-wide, [but an] inch-deep.” The Common Core stresses a deeper understanding of core concepts in tandem with a removal of the fluff that is present in the edges of the curriculum. Everything should be relatable to these core ideas. The Common Core hopes to accomplish these goals by creating a curriculum which is focused, coherent, and rigorous.
Focus the one of the major goals of the Common Core, as it is the one which will pair out all of the unnecessary material that is currently in state curriculums. This focus will also give students a better understanding of the topics at hand by allowing them to become immersed in the materials and preventing them by having to learn something by rote memorization. It takes a topic past the “how” it works stage to the “why” it works stage, which is very important for understanding.
A Coherent Curriculum is one in which all topics are interrelated. From first grade through graduate school, all mathematics builds on itself in a way that if you did not know anything from third grade, for example, much of high school and college math would be indecipherable. Because of this fact, it makes sense that the entire math curriculum should be related in a way which early years are referenced by later years, and all topics are relatable to others.
A rigorous curriculum is one in which all topics are treated as equals and all assessments are demanding yet fair. By going deeper into topics, students understanding should grow. Educators should be rigorous in three areas: conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application. More often than not in schools, procedural skill is valued above all others, but conceptual understanding and application should at least be given equal footing. All the procedural skill in the world will do no good if one does not know when to use it.
This article helped me understand more about inquiry based instruction because of two reasons: the points it made about why the Common Core is necessary were very strong and the three main points of the common core are practically screaming for the use of inquiry based tasks. By eliminating frivolous mathematics, teachers would have the time to create and implement tasks which would deepen students understanding, inquiry tasks and projects are incredible ways to bring many branches of mathematics together and stress the interrelatedness of the subject, and a well-designed task can easily assess the 3 main points on which to be rigorous about.
The articles key point was how the common core state standards are going to change the math curriculum in the form of focus, rigor and coherence. The article states that focus will help teachers and schools see what topics are necessary or major concepts that students will need to know and understand. A quote from the article said it best, "teaching less and learning more." Students are drowning in material that are just preparing them for the state exam, not helping them to be college and career ready. With the new common core students will focus more on larger topics and use skills such as problem solving, collaboration, reasoning, applications and more, which will help students become college and career ready. In the article coherence is explained by teaching the topics that will bridge together past material that was learned. Students will be able to build off of skills that they learned in previous years helping them see that topics are linked together. I feel this is a great way for students to be encouraged to understand concepts better rather than just memorize material to get them through the test. Lastly the article talks about the three different aspects of rigor, which are applications and fluency procedural skills, and conceptual understanding.
This article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it promotes more active learning. To me inquiry learning is always been about doing. Having the students discover the method or discover the material with their own processes. Students are going to be more engaged in the learning because the common core shows has us link material to past classes. Building on what the student show have already discovered and making that connection or click can really help the student understand how concepts work together. The article stated that the math curriculum, " is a mile wide and an inch deep." The common core has helped us choose the big topics that need to be explained so we can use our time in the classroom more appropriately. Taking the time to do more inquiry based learning.
The major ideas of this articles was that emphasis must be placed on focus, coherency, and rigor to elicit the goal of the common core standards. The author went into great depth about what each of these meant and explained their importance while using materials. The first idea was focus which is making sure the students understand what they're going over. Having the students actively engaged in the topic and really getting them to think critically about it allows them to own the material. Focus has to be applied throughout the uses of examples and materials used to efficiently discuss a topic. Coherency of topics is also an idea of great emphasis in the Common Core. that is ensuring the major topics connect fluently throughout the year and more importantly to the next grade. I feel this is important especially in mathematics since all the ideas are connected in different ways, it really allows math to explain itself. I believe that math, if not taught in a coherent manner, will expose students abandoning the subject matter. Rigor is the final element of emphasis in the standards and is broken down into 3 major ideas in which i will,not touch upon. What I will mention about rigor that i found most intersting is that it is avery malleable term. The standards places a strict emphasis on conceptual learning and hence rigor can be used in both conceptual and procedural aspects. Sometimes you can look at dozens of problems and assess whether the students can understand the procedure and see if they can apply it to different situations. That falls under rigor concerning procedural learning. However, taking time to get the students to truly learn a concept that stems into a wide variety of learning is also very important. The bottom line is rigor must have balance to ensure student success
Focus, which was described primarily through "trimming the fat" of the previous set of math standards. The design of the previous standards was so broad that it was hard to keep the real goals in mind, preparing students for careers and for college.
Coherence is the idea that all topics learned in the classroom should be relevant to another topic, and should build the framework for the work to be done in later grades. Without coherence, we're just teaching students to memorize lots of facts about individual topics instead of following the methods of Euclid and building new knowledge with the help of old knowledge.
Rigor in the new Common Core is described as a focus on equal balance between conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and applications.
The rest of the article was about applying these three main ideas to the acquisition of teaching materials, which didn't feel particularly relevant to me since I'd never had to get teaching materials before. I will keep the article in mind for when that time comes, of course.
This article helped me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because the new standards support true understanding. The author kept reiterating the term "a mile wide and an inch deep" to describe the current curriculum, and I completely agree with the sentiment. The current math curriculum, and the one that I was a part of back in high school, felt far too spread out. I entered college with no idea of what kind of in-depth knowledge and understanding math allows. Encouraging children in the classroom to ask questions, and posing questions as a basis for the lesson in your classroom facilitates much deeper learning than the average lesson plan. Focus is the main idea that fits inquiry based learning best, in my opinion, but it can be used as a tool to fulfill all three magnificently. Helping students build their mathematical knowledge "from the ground up" rather than having them memorize topics naturally fits with the concept of coherence, and the specific applications based upon the teacher can address the issue of rigor.
The key points of this article are: - The common core standards are to ensure that all students are career and college ready in literacy by the time they finish high school. - The standards are research and evidence based, internationally benchmarked, rigorous, and aligned with college and work expectations. - They are not meant to replace content standards but to supplement content areas. - The standards do not state how these goals should be met, they just establish what the intended goals are. - Literacy is a main component of the standards. They require that reading, writing, listening, and speaking are not taught and refined only in English classes but across the curriculum. - The Common core claims a student who is college ready will be independent, value evidence, have a strong content knowledge, respond to various demands, comprehend and critique, use technology, and understand other cultures and perspectives. - Each subject has grade specific standards, which are outlined in the common core. - These include the reading, writing, language, speaking and listening requirements for each subject within each grade as well.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because as a teacher I will need to infuse these common core standards into my curriculum and a great way to do this is through inquiry learning. Inquiry learning promotes critical thinking, using evidence to understand concepts and has the students essentially solving problems. In life, in college, and in the workplace people solve problems. For example, your boss gives you a task. You will then have to figure out what to do in order to finish the project. Teaching through inquiry will allow students to practice these problem solving skills early on. Making their later years in life easier because they have developed the skill set to problem solve through inquiry learning.
The key points of this article are the concentration on focus, coherence, and rigor of the new Common Core, in addition to the fact that these standards themselves cannot improve students' knowledge but teachers must help students to raise their achievement levels. The focus aspect of the Common Core is to escape from a “mile-wide, inch-deep” world and move toward narrowing the content so students have a better depth of understanding.
ReplyDeleteCoherence is important in the Common Core because it emphasizes understanding of the topics instead of rote memorization. When students memorize, the information stays with them for a very short period of time. Student understanding is when the material becomes long-lasting information. The comparison on page 20 represents the importance of coherence with the story of an urn getting mailed in shattered pieces. Mathematical standards must be taught as a flow of ideas that overlap instead of as isolated, single pieces of information which don't have any relevance to each other.
Rigor has 3 components titled conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application. Since each of these topics are equally important, they must all be stressed. Focus, coherence, and rigor are important to stress in the Common Core because without including these factors, many states had different standards which made it difficult to achieve progress in mathematics.
Lastly, it is important for educators to not take advantage of these new standards, thinking the standards alone will improve students' grades and understanding. Teachers are the ones who must put the work in and incorporate the topics in this article into their lesson plans. They must work to increase the focus and coherence of the curriculum to create consistent progressions and make sure students are relating prior knowledge.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it included numerous ways to use focus, coherence, and rigor as main themes in the classroom. When learning through inquiry, there must be many opportunities to have students interact with the subject matter. Some ways include manipulatives, applications, and mathematical models. There must also be a variety of ways to test students in their understanding, whether it be diagrams, models, explanations, or arguments.
Jacqueline...how do you define coherence. It is essential to have a flow? When you present your prezi you will see "the story" being told has coherence. You may have even designed it to tell a story. As for our interaction with your story, although this may not provide us an opportunity now, you nailed it when you said inquiry must have ways for students to interact, as should all lessons!
DeleteThe key points of this article are how the common core state standards will be changing the level of focus throughout the curriculum, the connection of curriculum throughout all grades, and the three aspects of rigor. The article points out that the ccss has placed a level of importance on the array of mathematic curriculum to make sure teachers are putting more emphasis on the "major" concepts rather than taking small bits of time to cover a bulk of the material. The goal of this focus throughout the curriculum is to help the students obtain a "greater achievement at college- and career-ready level, greater depth of understanding of mathematics, and a rich classroom environment in which reasoning, sense-making, applications, and a range of mathematical practices all thrive."
ReplyDeleteMaking the math make sense all throughout a students schooling is one of the most important connections we as educators can give them. To intertwine the course material from year to year can help the students pick up from where they left off the year before without any questions.The article states that "focus and coherence are the two major evidence-based design principles for mathematics." What that means is the material you focus on along with how you tie it all together in the end is an important tool as a math educator.
Rigor, consisting of conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency and the ability to apply mathematics to solve problems, is the third component to the new common core state standards. This is used to measure exactly how well the students are grasping and understanding the course material. The standards and our lessons can be great but if we as educators aren't making sure that every student is fully understanding the material than we are failing them as teachers. We must make sure that by the end of the school year every student is equipped with the concepts and skills they are going to need to apply and succeed in the following year.
This article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it has given me insight on exactly how the common core is not only going to be making it easier for students to transfer schools, but it is also making it easier for students to go from grade to grade and not get lost in the material. It is also giving teachers more time to dwell on more important subject matter, where they can then be even more creative in their lessons. This being said, the students in return will be able to learn more overall by the end of the school year and be prepared to start their next mathematic journey.
Rob, to admit that we may be failing our students is a powerful statement. Many would disagree tha tthere are too many variables that we cannot be expected to control for. Can you list some. What would you say to your evaluator who feels you are not reaching all kids because of an "understanding that not all students can do well." Sadly those peopledo exist...can we expect rigor then?
DeleteProf. Hepworth, I do believe that every student can do well, though many students do show a tough exterior, I do think that every student has a soft spot or something that they are interested in enough that if I were to bring it into the classroom they would connect. Upon that connection I truly believe they will she some of that tough exterior and reveal the best way to teach this student. I do understand that outside variables can change the way a student may learn and with that our job as teachers is to connect with these students by getting to know them not only as a student but as a person so we can make accommodations if needed.
DeleteThe key points of this article are that the CCSSM are structured through focus, coherence, and rigor. Focus is correlated with how teachers spend too much time teaching and not enough time learning. They worry too much about getting a lesson done, but do they know if they properly taught their students something? The article states that too many schools don’t focus on the most important standards. With coherence, the CCSSM wants to use prior math standards that students have been taught and link them in later grades. I see this as a huge problem because there tends to be a lot of time always reviewing before introducing a new topic. Linking topics in each grade is a great resource to show students the similarities and differences in mathematics topics. Lastly, rigor has three aspects in major topics. The three are conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and applications. Some curriculum focuses on these aspects, but thinks of them in a different way of learning. For example, some curriculum suggests pure mathematics and problems, but do not acknowledge that applications can be motivating for students to want to learn something new.
ReplyDeleteThis article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it is more focused on getting the most out of each of the standards. One of the criteria on the rubric of this article states using more 2 or more clusters in an activity. This really emphasizes the use of standards that students have already learned, but now incorporating them and showing how it extends to new math situations and content. In the beginning of the article it states, “Mathematics education in the United States is a mile wide and an inch deep.” Our mathematical education is not up to par with other countries. These standards can reach those goals and become disciplined to have a greater focus, coherence and rigor in math education.
Lucia, How can a teacher know if their students are actually learning? When we discuss assessments, especially formative and summative, you let me know which one is more valuable to answering that question.
DeleteThe key points of this article are that the Common Core State Standards for mathematics have three major ideas: focus, coherence, and rigor. The CCSS is an attempt to "focus" the curriculum on less content, but a more deeper understanding of the content being presented. The phrase "quality over quantity" comes to mind when thinking of the focus aspect of the CCSS. The CCSS challenges teachers to create deeper lessons by "focusing" on a narrower range of topics, but providing the students with the opportunity to have a much more conceptual knowledge of the topics being covered.
ReplyDeleteCoherence deals with the idea that mathematics should be taught in a way that makes sense. Coherence is about making meaningful connections within the curriculum. While it is important to make these connections in a single grade level, it is just as important, or perhaps even more important, to make meaningful connections from grade to grade. The CCSS was designed to make these meaningful connections, which will ultimately allow teachers to present the material in a way which makes sense to students.
In the past, mathematics was not taught with much rigor. Math teachers taught students steps and procedures, but often neglected conceptual understanding. Sure, students knew the algorithmic steps to solving a problem, but did they get the true underlying concepts of a problem? The CCSS places more emphasis on well rounded instruction, one that promotes rigor through conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and applications. Each of those three areas are equally important when teaching mathematics, and should be taught with that same equal emphasis.
A fourth area of this article that jumped out at me was around page 17 where the article talks about indicators of quality in instructional materials and tools for mathematics. I believe these indicators can really allow for teachers to focus on the three areas of the CCSS mentioned above. For example, when designing good problems using the guidelines in the article, teachers can allow for students to explore the three aspects of rigor. Also, this section of the article outlines ways teachers can use variety in the way they ask their students to produce answers. This encourages students to find ways to express the same mathematical idea in different forms.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it outlines the way the CCSS can allow students to tap into prior learning to discover new concepts and ideas on their own. The CCSS is big on promoting prior knowledge in order to learn something new. Furthermore, this article helps me understand how the CCSS strives to provoke different levels of thinking and reasoning in students. Mathematics is much more than just rote memorization, and the CCSS promotes the other ways mathematics needs to be both learned and taught.
Kevin, quality over quantity...head of the dog or tal the lion. Which one should it be... can yu justify both options. I am sure others may disagree with you, even though I havent stated which answer you would choose!
DeleteThe key points of this reading are the concentration on focus, coherence and the three aspects of rigor in the new Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, which is a shift from current, individual state standards into much more connected and unified. The CCSS plans to make mathematics “lose a few pounds,” stating that current mathematics education is a “mile wide and an inch thick.” The new plan is to concentrate on fewer topics, but to take the content deeper and provide an opportunity for a much more profound understanding of the material. With a new stress on focus, we should be able to help students achieve more at the college and career levels and also form a classroom atmosphere made of reasoning, application, and sense making.
ReplyDeleteCoherence is another great component of the CCSS since it shows how important order and structure are. We must make mathematics make sense and put it in a strategic order that builds off previous knowledge allowing the students to grow. The main goal is to look across grades and look at the progressions in standards to see how major content develops with time. It calls for us to move away from rote memorization and allow for students to develop a true understanding.
Rigor was broken up into three main parts itself, conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application. Each of these components of rigor is just as important as the last and an equal amount of emphasis should be placed on them. Rigor allows us, as educators, to gauge student understanding. Applications are very often left out, but they can be quite beneficial since they have the potential to be very motivating for students and they allow students to be prepared for the real world instead of just the next grade.
This article helps me better understand learning through inquiry because it gave me a much greater understanding of what the CCSS actually is. It was a much better article than previous ones addressing the CCSS. I also think it allows teachers not to stress about covering everything. So often teachers are afraid of not having enough time to cover everything on a standardized test, so they are sticking to a schedule and only teaching to the test. But with a focus on “less is more” it can allow teachers to fully shine, and become more creative with the material, which could greatly improve student participation and interest.
Steve, it is important that you internalize those two quotes you captured as being important regarding a pounds and depth becuase you will hear a lot more about that in the future. When we address this in the class please be sure to ask me more about it. Additionally the removal from rote memorization can only occur through the teacher, that is why I am asking you to read the mathematicians lament in your free time. Lastly, I will say rigor, expect rigor, and demand rigor from all my students. One of the most important issues facing education is the lack of true rigor. How do you define rigor?
ReplyDeleteThe key points of this article are the five specific criteria the Common Core Standards focuses on for ELA. These areas include text selection, questions and tasks, academic vocabulary, writing to sources and research, reading writing listening and speaking. These five areas are meant to help the teacher focus literacy instruction on a more precise examination of every text chosen for the classroom.
ReplyDeleteText selection is very important. It requires the teacher to know what level her students are at and the types of books that may be used that will be a challenge to the students, but at the same time allow for comprehension and understandability. A point under this category that I found very important and I think relates to social studies is when the article mentioned shorter, more challenging texts being provided at every grade level. In order for students to succeed in a history classroom they need to be able to decode primary sources, many of which are short but are more challenging to understand.
Questions and tasks that go along with the literature are very important and must be implemented in a meaningful way so that the students are fully benefiting from the text. It is important to place a high emphasis on students questioning and gaining knowledge from what they read. However, at the same time when asking questions of the text it is important to make them specific to that text and not general, so that students must read and understand in order to answer the questions. When assigning tasks that go along with texts it is also important to make sure that they are being assigned a wide variety of large group, small group and independent activities, so at times they are learning from and questioning one another, while other times they are doing research and careful examinations.
Academic vocabulary is very important and many times not seen as a big part of a classroom. As teachers we need to be aware of the complexity of the “Tier 2” words that are many times in the texts that we assign and help our students in understanding the meanings and help them in gathering information about the different words that they may not understand.
Writing to sources and research is important in an humanities classroom because students must be able to not only get an idea out in a coherent way they need to know how to present and formulate an argument. Many times when doing so they also need to know how to research and use proper sources to help them make that argument. So students need extensive time in each grade level that is focused on writing and research, even if they are more frequent smaller projects.
The last main area that the CCSS in ELA focuses on Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, and English Language Learners. Teachers need to provide students with materials that they can read with fluency and comprehend, make plans for substantive, significant discussion, use technology for further forms of research and factual based evidence in writing and place instructional focus on language and grammar.
This article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it outlines the way the CCSS can help teachers use the many areas of literacy that are so necessary in schools so that students can reap the benefits and become more literate. It provides examples and ideas for humanities teachers to use to help their students become more inquisitive, evaluate texts and question both the text and the other students in the class. It also helps in giving ways to bring every student in the class up to the same reading level. I think that the CCSS in ELA will be very helpful in promoting inquiry based thinking in classrooms.
The key points of this article are presented in order to explain and justify the CCSS in Mathematics. The points revolve around the fact that Mathematics Education in America has been criticized as having a huge scope but very little depth. The CCSS calls for focus, coherence, and rigor; as well as specific criteria for materials that align with the standards.
ReplyDeleteFocus, coherence, and rigor, basically revolve around quality over quantity in mathematics curricula, but with very specific criteria. Focus emphasizes reducing the number of standards, coherence emphasizes making the standards connect with each other understandably, especially between grades, and rigor emphasizes the necessary balance between specifies conceptual understanding, procedural skill, and fluency, all while specifying what each of these things means.
One of the biggest points emphasized in the second and third parts is that each individual standard is not a discrete, isolated "grain" of knowledge; rather, mathematical concepts exist in relation to other mathematical concepts and should be connected accordingly.
The second part specifically applies to materials (such as textbooks) used in the classroom. Among other things, the material must have the proper focus (both having the important concepts for each grade and under-emphasizing the less important concepts for each grade), acknowledging a need for fluency and different ways to teach this fluency (such as repetition or reasoning), finding meaningful problems that connect more than one standard and fulfill the full standards, and a standardization of language for the sake of ELLS.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because the standards themselves were meant to foster IBL. The article also acknowledges the continuous nature of mathematics and the CCSS, which is very important to fostering organic discovery in a mathematics classroom. When teaching a new concept through inquiry, having a student's past knowledge as a tool is essential, and if the investigation leads to new tools that were not necessarily part of the lesson, this should not be invalidated or brushed to the side, since tangential concepts of mathematics (no pun intended) that can be uncovered through IBL are very valid in the CCSS.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the key points of this article was, the importance of actually focusing on the material. Students don’t actually get the opportunity to master a subject because teachers are in a rush to teach everything on the state exams. This results in teachers giving students a trick or a formula without actually explain its origin or why it is used. Students are disconnected with what is being taught which results in them retaining nothing and leaving with no skills for the future. When students do their work with rigor, there will actually be a purpose for the effort put into the class. However when students just need to pass a test and not acquire skills for the real world one should question the importance of teaching it at all. In the end it should benefit the student with a better future not the district with better test scores. By focusing on major topics for longer periods of time so that students actually understand the major lessons will result in the student actually being able to use what they have learned when the time comes outside the classroom. Another major point addressed was making sure the curriculum actually makes sense. Students should be able to constantly use recalled lessons to apply to new ones so students see how math is interconnected and constantly growing and branching out. This allows them to use skills they may have previously used to future math topic areas.
ReplyDeleteThis article helps me to teaching and learning through inquiry because it explains they importance students actually being engaged in what is being taught. Inquiry based lessons allow students to discover math in a meaningful way. One example is by using giving students manipulatives and having the students do tasks that will lead to discovery. Even if this takes longer than traditional methods it is more important for students to actually understand what they are learning. This will allow them to use the skills in the future. “Less topic coverage can be associated with higher scores on those topics covered because students have more time to master the content that is taught.”
The key points of this article are, quite explicitly, focus, coherence, and rigor. In fact, in that order. Of course, the implication of these three words is much deeper than one may imagine. I really feel like the point of the article, aside from explaining the new way things will be assessed and generally taught, is to sort of persuade some of the older, more stubborn perhaps, teachers that there is actually a problem that's finally being addressed. I sympathize deeply with the need of this change, mainly because I've had those very teachers who just won't let up. The ones with their eyes closed and cheeks turned to need and change. This implementation of fluency and conceptual understanding across the grades and curriculum is an obvious one that has been screaming for help to become reality for years now. Don't get me wrong, I had wonderful schooling, but my mind also works in a very connective and socratic way. Without my outside the box reasoning and skepticism, I'm doubtful I'd be where I am today.
ReplyDeleteWhile the focus on change was prominent in this article, the pinpointing of just that, pinpointing and focus, may be greater, or should I say more profound. The idea that we have to focus our instruction rather than vomiting mathematical ideas all over these students and expecting them to clean it all up for themselves is immense. For years I've been tutoring students simply because the teachers they deal with breeze over something and expect the students to master it after only one brief exposure to it. We absolutely need to take what the old standards wanted to cover and condense it into something not only coherent, but worthwhile. How often does a student say, "but when will I ever use this?" or, "but why does this even matter?". Too often is the answer there. We have to take the passion and love we have of our subject, and transform it to a passion and yearn for our kids to feel the same way, or at least find value in it. Because really, we have to remember we are NOT teaching subjects, we are teaching people the essence of our subjects. If you love mathematics but hate children, leave. I think a monstrous part of focus has to do with care. In fact, I think care has to do with coherence and rigor as well. Hell, if we don't care, why teach to begin with?!
Now coherence and rigor really get me going, and let me tell you why. Teachers throughout my schooling have almost made it seem as though they were filling some sort of quota. Like they had to do what they had to do, regardless of the bodies in the room. I think coherence and rigor almost become sort of personal attributes. If I have a classroom full of students who care and are excited about whatever we're doing, rigor and coherence may both come easily. Contrarily, it may be a tad more difficult if the students would rather be watching paint dry than be in my class. That said, we need to focus our teaching on rigor so as not to ruin a topic we hold so dear and that is so crucial to an educated life, regardless of the students "liking" it or not. Of course i think that the main ideas of focus, coherence, and rigor will help students to see value in schooling, even if they don't like the subject, because the less they struggle, the more tolerance for classes they may not "like".
This article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because while it's already what I intend to do, I enjoy the confirmation that majority of teachers will be trying to do the same thing. The coherence is the biggest thing for me, because as inquiry leads to greater conceptual understanding, it's inevitable that coherence rises from it. I'm a huge believer in teaching the "why", not the "how", and prompting the student to investigate, rather than coming to me for the be all end all answer. I really just think that teaching and learning through inquiry will be the best way to make these new standards the norm in classrooms across America.
This article sets out to justify the Common Core State Standards by explaining exactly what educators hope to accomplish by implementing them. The Common Core Standards main focus in mathematics is to create a nationwide curriculum which removes much of the bloating that is present in today’s mathematics classroom. It seeks to remove a course of study which is a “mile-wide, [but an] inch-deep.” The Common Core stresses a deeper understanding of core concepts in tandem with a removal of the fluff that is present in the edges of the curriculum. Everything should be relatable to these core ideas. The Common Core hopes to accomplish these goals by creating a curriculum which is focused, coherent, and rigorous.
ReplyDeleteFocus the one of the major goals of the Common Core, as it is the one which will pair out all of the unnecessary material that is currently in state curriculums. This focus will also give students a better understanding of the topics at hand by allowing them to become immersed in the materials and preventing them by having to learn something by rote memorization. It takes a topic past the “how” it works stage to the “why” it works stage, which is very important for understanding.
A Coherent Curriculum is one in which all topics are interrelated. From first grade through graduate school, all mathematics builds on itself in a way that if you did not know anything from third grade, for example, much of high school and college math would be indecipherable. Because of this fact, it makes sense that the entire math curriculum should be related in a way which early years are referenced by later years, and all topics are relatable to others.
A rigorous curriculum is one in which all topics are treated as equals and all assessments are demanding yet fair. By going deeper into topics, students understanding should grow. Educators should be rigorous in three areas: conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application. More often than not in schools, procedural skill is valued above all others, but conceptual understanding and application should at least be given equal footing. All the procedural skill in the world will do no good if one does not know when to use it.
This article helped me understand more about inquiry based instruction because of two reasons: the points it made about why the Common Core is necessary were very strong and the three main points of the common core are practically screaming for the use of inquiry based tasks. By eliminating frivolous mathematics, teachers would have the time to create and implement tasks which would deepen students understanding, inquiry tasks and projects are incredible ways to bring many branches of mathematics together and stress the interrelatedness of the subject, and a well-designed task can easily assess the 3 main points on which to be rigorous about.
The articles key point was how the common core state standards are going to change the math curriculum in the form of focus, rigor and coherence. The article states that focus will help teachers and schools see what topics are necessary or major concepts that students will need to know and understand. A quote from the article said it best, "teaching less and learning more." Students are drowning in material that are just preparing them for the state exam, not helping them to be college and career ready. With the new common core students will focus more on larger topics and use skills such as problem solving, collaboration, reasoning, applications and more, which will help students become college and career ready. In the article coherence is explained by teaching the topics that will bridge together past material that was learned. Students will be able to build off of skills that they learned in previous years helping them see that topics are linked together. I feel this is a great way for students to be encouraged to understand concepts better rather than just memorize material to get them through the test. Lastly the article talks about the three different aspects of rigor, which are applications and fluency procedural skills, and conceptual understanding.
ReplyDeleteThis article helps me better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because it promotes more active learning. To me inquiry learning is always been about doing. Having the students discover the method or discover the material with their own processes. Students are going to be more engaged in the learning because the common core shows has us link material to past classes. Building on what the student show have already discovered and making that connection or click can really help the student understand how concepts work together. The article stated that the math curriculum, " is a mile wide and an inch deep." The common core has helped us choose the big topics that need to be explained so we can use our time in the classroom more appropriately. Taking the time to do more inquiry based learning.
The major ideas of this articles was that emphasis must be placed on focus, coherency, and rigor to elicit the goal of the common core standards. The author went into great depth about what each of these meant and explained their importance while using materials.
ReplyDeleteThe first idea was focus which is making sure the students understand what they're going over. Having the students actively engaged in the topic and really getting them to think critically about it allows them to own the material. Focus has to be applied throughout the uses of examples and materials used to efficiently discuss a topic.
Coherency of topics is also an idea of great emphasis in the Common Core. that is ensuring the major topics connect fluently throughout the year and more importantly to the next grade. I feel this is important especially in mathematics since all the ideas are connected in different ways, it really allows math to explain itself. I believe that math, if not taught in a coherent manner, will expose students abandoning the subject matter.
Rigor is the final element of emphasis in the standards and is broken down into 3 major ideas in which i will,not touch upon. What I will mention about rigor that i found most intersting is that it is avery malleable term. The standards places a strict emphasis on conceptual learning and hence rigor can be used in both conceptual and procedural aspects. Sometimes you can look at dozens of problems and assess whether the students can understand the procedure and see if they can apply it to different situations. That falls under rigor concerning procedural learning. However, taking time to get the students to truly learn a concept that stems into a wide variety of learning is also very important. The bottom line is rigor must have balance to ensure student success
The major ideas of the article were:
ReplyDeleteFocus, which was described primarily through "trimming the fat" of the previous set of math standards. The design of the previous standards was so broad that it was hard to keep the real goals in mind, preparing students for careers and for college.
Coherence is the idea that all topics learned in the classroom should be relevant to another topic, and should build the framework for the work to be done in later grades. Without coherence, we're just teaching students to memorize lots of facts about individual topics instead of following the methods of Euclid and building new knowledge with the help of old knowledge.
Rigor in the new Common Core is described as a focus on equal balance between conceptual
understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and applications.
The rest of the article was about applying these three main ideas to the acquisition of teaching materials, which didn't feel particularly relevant to me since I'd never had to get teaching materials before. I will keep the article in mind for when that time comes, of course.
This article helped me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because the new standards support true understanding. The author kept reiterating the term "a mile wide and an inch deep" to describe the current curriculum, and I completely agree with the sentiment. The current math curriculum, and the one that I was a part of back in high school, felt far too spread out. I entered college with no idea of what kind of in-depth knowledge and understanding math allows. Encouraging children in the classroom to ask questions, and posing questions as a basis for the lesson in your classroom facilitates much deeper learning than the average lesson plan. Focus is the main idea that fits inquiry based learning best, in my opinion, but it can be used as a tool to fulfill all three magnificently. Helping students build their mathematical knowledge "from the ground up" rather than having them memorize topics naturally fits with the concept of coherence, and the specific applications based upon the teacher can address the issue of rigor.
It didn't include my name!
DeleteJamieson Costello
The key points of this article are:
ReplyDelete- The common core standards are to ensure that all students are career and college ready in literacy by the time they finish high school.
- The standards are research and evidence based, internationally benchmarked, rigorous, and aligned with college and work expectations.
- They are not meant to replace content standards but to supplement content areas.
- The standards do not state how these goals should be met, they just establish what the intended goals are.
- Literacy is a main component of the standards. They require that reading, writing, listening, and speaking are not taught and refined only in English classes but across the curriculum.
- The Common core claims a student who is college ready will be independent, value evidence, have a strong content knowledge, respond to various demands, comprehend and critique, use technology, and understand other cultures and perspectives.
- Each subject has grade specific standards, which are outlined in the common core.
- These include the reading, writing, language, speaking and listening requirements for each subject within each grade as well.
This article helps me to better understand teaching and learning through inquiry because as a teacher I will need to infuse these common core standards into my curriculum and a great way to do this is through inquiry learning. Inquiry learning promotes critical thinking, using evidence to understand concepts and has the students essentially solving problems. In life, in college, and in the workplace people solve problems. For example, your boss gives you a task. You will then have to figure out what to do in order to finish the project. Teaching through inquiry will allow students to practice these problem solving skills early on. Making their later years in life easier because they have developed the skill set to problem solve through inquiry learning.