Dr. Michelle R. Ciminelli mrcim@niagara

1. Helping Preservice Teachers Understand the ELA CCSS: An Authentic and Student Centered Project Dr. Michelle R. Ciminelli mrcim@niagara.edu

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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)

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

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

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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. Data Analysis • Data coded using constant comparative method - Strauss & Corbin, 1990 • Open, axial, and selective coding - Cresswell, 1998 • 100% Interrater reliability

13. Findings

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Findings Student Comfort Level Regarding Use of CCSS After the Project

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

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

22. 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

23. Thank you!