Helping Preservice Teachers Understand the ELA CCSS:

An Authentic and Student Centered Project

Dr. Michelle R. Ciminellimrcim@niagara.edu

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)

MethodologyContext

• Undergraduate course• EDU 376 Language Arts Birth-Grade 6• Mid-way through the initial teacher

certification program in elementary education• 5th 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, 1998 • 100% 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

Better About the Same

Worse

25 8 0

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!