ARTICLES & ANNOUNCEMENTS (CALIFORNIA FOCUS)
(1) “Update on [CCTC] Teacher Examination Study”; Upcoming Stakeholders Meetings
Source: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing–CCTC (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/)
Contact: Yvonne Novelli: ynovelli@ctc.ca.gov
[August 2004 CCTC Meeting Agenda Item 4C]
Introduction
At the June 5, 2003 meeting of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Commission directed staff to research examination issues related to how the current California test specifications and test structures that measure basic skills, content knowledge, and pedagogy might be streamlined. Staff returned to the Commission with four broad policy issues for consideration at the June, 2004 meeting. The four exam issues presented for discussion at the meeting were:
— Basic skill exam requirements for teacher candidates,
— Overlapping content across current teacher licensure exams,
— Technology and the implementation of on-line, test center exams, and
— SB 2042 teaching performance assessment.
The Commission directed staff to develop an implementation plan detailing a public discussion process that would provide the opportunity for education stakeholders to discuss the four policy issues listed above.
Background
California law requires that candidates preparing for a preliminary California teaching credential meet certain minimal requirements prior to attaining a credential. Over time, specific examinations have been added to these requirements for the purpose of ensuring accountability for basic skill competence, subject matter knowledge, and pedagogy.
Education Code Section 44259(b)(5) requires the Commission to ensure that teacher preparation and examinations are fully aligned to the K-12 academic content standards for students. The Commission has been actively engaged in aligning program standards and subject matter examinations with the K-12 academic content standards since the passage of this requirement in 1998 (SB 2042). The Commission has also been engaged in the development and implementation of the California Teaching Performance Assessment (CA TPA), which enables programs to meet the requirement of Standard 19 and assess candidates on the teaching performance expectations (TPEs). However, in a letter sent in early 2003 from the then- Secretary for Education, Kerry Mazzoni and Senator Dede Alpert, the authors of Senate Bill 2042, cautioned the Commission about the magnitude of the state budget crisis. The Commission was asked to work with representatives of the higher education institutions to determine whether the model teaching performance assessment could be redesigned to lower costs. Accordingly, this requirement is suspended until further Commission discussion and action
Proposed Implementation Plan for Public Discussion of Exam Issues
Commission staff proposes that at least four public meetings be held with educational stakeholders to discuss the four policy issues listed in the introduction of this item. Commission staff would invite stakeholders, develop an agenda, and facilitate the meetings. Each meeting will address one of the following policy questions.
= What is the appropriate way to assess basic skill competency?
= Is there overlapping content across the current teacher licensure exams?
= What are the implications of appropriate and secure on-line, test center exams?
= How should the SB 2042 teaching performance assessment requirement be maintained and implemented?
= Staff will synthesize the meeting discussions and provide exam update reports at appropriate Commission meetings. Staff proposes to bring an action item based on the public meetings to the Commission for its consideration at its April, 2005 meeting.
_____________________
EXAMINATION STUDY MEETINGS
A series of four unique stakeholders meetings will be held by the Commission as part of the Examination Study, which is described in the August 2004 agenda item “Update on Teacher Examination Study” that can be found on the Commission’s web site at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/aboutctc/agendas/august-2004/august-2004-4C.pdf [excerpted in part above]. This study will be covering the assessment of basic skill competency, overlapping subject matter content, electronic testing, and the TPA maintenance and implementation. We are inviting stakeholders from California colleges, universities, school districts, county offices of education, educational associations, and others interested to discuss possible changes to the examination structure. Your suggestions will be submitted to a group of technical advisors from California colleges and universities who are knowledgeable about testing to discuss the possible implementation. Attendees may participate in as many meetings as they choose. All meetings will be held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Commission on Teacher Credentialing office in Sacramento, California.
Dates and Topics:
November 16, 2004: Assess basic skill competency
January 25, 2005: Overlapping content
January 26, 2005: Electronic testing format
February 24, 2005: Teaching performance assessment
**If you are interested in attending any of these meetings, send you name, institution, position, email address, telephone number, and fax number to Yvonne Novelli at ynovelli@ctc.ca.gov . Further details will then be forwarded to you.
(2) Reminder: Mathematics Framework (August 2004 Draft) Field Review
Source: Joan Commons, Mathematics Project Specialist, San Diego County Office of Education
The California Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development sponsored videoconferences at ten County Offices of Education throughout the state to discuss the August 2004 Draft Mathematics Framework document. During the videoconference held on October 19, Mary Sprague (California Department of Education) stated that only 30 responses to the document have been received via the online evaluation survey. Please visit http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ to review the draft and submit any comments by the November 9 deadline.
ARTICLES & ANNOUNCEMENTS (NATIONAL FOCUS)
(1) “Research Matters / Teach Mathematics Right the First Time” by Steve Leinwand and Steve Fleischman
Source: Educational Leadership – September 2004 (pp. 88-89)
URL: http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200409/leinwand.html
[Preface] In this new column for Educational Leadership, experienced researchers at the American Institutes for Research [AIR] will discuss research-based practices, providing educators on the front lines of school improvement efforts with the information they need to make the best instructional decisions. Steve Fleischman, a principal research scientist at AIR, will be series editor, identifying the effective practices featured here each month. Send questions or topic suggestions to Steve at editorair@air.org. We also welcome your comments at el@ascd.orgSteve Leinwand, the author of [the below article], is a Principal Research Scientist at the American Institutes for Research (AIR), specializing in mathematics instruction and assessment. He is the author of Sensible Mathematics: A Guide for School Leaders (Heinemann, 2000).
—————————————————
[Article] In mathematics instruction, a chasm exists between research and practice. For evidence of this gap, look no further than the mismatch between what research says about developing students’ conceptual mathematics understanding and what we actually do. An example is the way we teach math content in elementary and middle schools. A growing body of promising research shows that if initial instruction focuses exclusively on procedural skills, then students may have difficulty developing an understanding of math concepts.
Listen to 7th graders define perimeter as “adding up all the numbers,” and watch as their teacher struggles, often unsuccessfully, to move these students toward more appropriate understandings: that perimeter is actually the distance around an object,relates to the words border and surrounding, and is a special case of measuring length. Unfortunately, many people will blame this situation on the “mathematical weaknesses” of the students, or even of the teacher, rather than on instructional sequencing that flies in the face of research.
What We Know
Richard Skemp (1987) coined the terms instrumental practices and relational practices to differentiate two approaches to teaching and learning. Instrumental practices involve memorizing and routinely applying procedures and formulas. These practices focus on what to do and how to get answers. In contrast, relational practices emphasize the why of learning. These practices involve explaining, reasoning, and relying on multiple representations–that is, on teaching for meaning and helping students develop their own understanding of content.
Since the 1980s, several studies have examined the role and impact of instrumental and relational practices on student achievement outcomes. Although the research base is somewhat limited and should be replicated to validate the findings, results consistently point to the importance of using relational practices for teaching mathematics. In the existing research, students who learn rules before they learn concepts tend to score significantly lower than do students who learn concepts first.
For example, Kieran (1984) looked at two groups of students learning to solve simple equations, such as 6 + x = 18. One group was taught procedures (subtract 6 from both sides); the other was not. Both groups then received instruction about the meaning of variables and equations. Next, they used trial and error to balance an equation. On post-tests, the students who received only meaningful, or relational, instruction performed better in applying the procedure and solving the equations. In contrast, the students who first received procedural instruction on how to solve an equation tended to resist new ideas and appeared to apply procedures without understanding.
Wearne and Hiebert (1988) investigated the effectiveness of different approaches for teaching decimal concepts. They suggested that “students who have already routinized rules without establishing connections between symbols [and what they mean] will be less likely to engage in the [conceptual] processes than students who are encountering decimals for the first time.” (p. 374)
Perhaps most convincing is the work of Pesek and Kirshner (2000). They studied students who were learning about area and perimeter and concluded that “initial rote learning of a concept can create interference to later meaningful learning” (p. 537). Students who were exposed to instrumental instruction before they received relational instruction “achieved no more, and most probably less, conceptual understanding than students exposed only to the relational unit.” Even more telling was the way students in the two study groups approached solving problems. Students who learned area and perimeter as a set of how-to rules referred to formulas, operations, and fixed procedures to solve problems. In contrast, students whose initial experiences were relational used conceptual and flexible methods to develop solutions.
This research strongly reinforces our understanding that the form of instruction humorously but accurately characterized as yours is not to reason why, just invert and multiply may not enhance the performance of many students. Alternatively, instruction that places a premium from the start on meaning and conceptual understanding may improve classroom productivity.
What You Can Do
Mathematics teachers can take simple and immediate steps to put the gist of this research into practice.
* Promote students’ discussion of making meaning by posing open-ended questions: Why do you think that? Can you explain your reasoning? How do you know that?
* Make explicit connections and incorporate pictures, concrete materials, and role playing as part of instruction so that students have multiple representations of concepts and alternative paths to developing understanding.
* Avoid instruction focused on teaching a single correct approach to arrive at a single correct answer.
Educators Take Note
In his review of the scientific research on mathematics instruction, Grover Whitehurst, the director of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Educational Sciences, rightly points out that educators should be wary about basing instructional practices on potentially unsubstantiated translations of study findings (2003). Whitehurst adds, however, that “literature demonstrates the limits of generalization of math skills that can occur when instruction focuses exclusively on learning facts and procedures.”
This month’s column offers some research-based guidelines for mathematics instruction in the hope that they will support improved student achievement. The research message is strong: Teach for meaning initially, or risk never getting students beyond a superficial understanding that leaves them unprepared to apply their learning.
[The complete article includes a reference list.](2) “Third Year of NSF’s Math and Science Partnerships to Focus on Teachers”
Source: National Science Foundation – 19 October 2004
Program Contact: Diane Spresser, National Science Foundation, (703) 292-5118, dspresse@nsf.gov