let’s go learn and the common core v10rc · pdf filelet’s go learn confidential 4...

Using Let’s Go Learn to Reach the Common Core

January 9, 2014

Let’s Go Learn Confidential 2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 3 SHORT HISTORY OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 3 COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS: NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL 4 THE COMMON CORE INITIATIVE IN THE CONTEXT OF PREVIOUS REFORM INITIATIVES 4

KEY SHIFTS OF COMMON CORE STANDARDS 5 PRINCIPLES OF COMMON CORE STANDARDS 5 SHIFTS IN ELA COMMON CORE STANDARDS 5 SHIFTS IN MATH COMMON CORE STANDARDS 6

HOW DORA ALIGNS TO THE COMMON CORE 7 COMMON CORE READING STANDARDS THE DESTINATION; DORA THE FLIGHT PLAN 7 DORA ALIGNMENT 7 ELA COMPARISON CHART ‐ KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 12 7 LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCES, & TECHNICAL STUDIES COMPARISON CHART ‐ GRADES 6 ‐ 12 11

HOW ADAM ALIGNS TO THE COMMON CORE 12 COMMON CORE MATH STANDARDS THE DESTINATION; ADAM THE FLIGHT PLAN 12 ADAM ALIGNMENT 12 COMPARISON CHART ‐ KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 5 12 COMPARISON CHART ‐ GRADES 6 THROUGH 8 14

WITH LET’S GO LEARN, REACH THE COMMON CORE 16

SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY 17

APPENDIX 1: MORE ABOUT DORA 18 COMMON CORE ELA STRANDS 18 COMMON CORE INFORMATIONAL TEXT AND LITERATURE READING STANDARDS 18 DORA’S ALIGNMENT WITH COMMON CORE READING STANDARDS 18 COMMON CORE READING FOUNDATIONAL SKILLS 18 DORA’S ALIGNMENT WITH COMMON CORE FOUNDATIONAL SKILLS 19 COMMON CORE LANGUAGE STANDARDS 21 DORA’S ALIGNMENT WITH COMMON CORE LANGUAGE STANDARDS 21

APPENDIX 2: MORE ABOUT ADAM 22 COMMON CORE MATH DOMAINS 22 ADAM NUMBERS AND OPERATIONS ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMON CORE 22 ADAM MEASUREMENT ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMON CORE 23 ADAM DATA ANALYSIS ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMON CORE 24 ADAM GEOMETRY ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMON CORE 24 ADAM ALGEBRA ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMON CORE 25


Introduction to the Common Core State Standards

Short History of Common Core State Standards o In 2004, Achieve, a non‐profit policy‐making D.C. organization founded by

the National Governors Association (NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), kicked off the American Diploma Project (ADP). The project’s goal was to analyze what high school students needed to know in order to succeed in college and in their careers after high school. The ADP team researched market projections to identify top future jobs and then determined the skills necessary to optimally perform these jobs. ADP then backwards‐designed the prerequisite English and mathematics knowledge and skills necessary for entry‐level positions in these jobs. The results of ADP’s analysis were published in Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma that Counts (Achieve, 2004).

o In 2005, Achieve founded the ADP Network, inviting states to review and revise their standards to align with post‐secondary requirements of college and career. By 2008, 22 states had joined the network.

o In July 2008, Achieve published Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the Ground Up. The report documented a core group of math and ELA standards that ADP state members had adopted to align their high schools with college and career requirements. Gene Wilhoit of CCSSO summarized a key finding: ““As this report shows, a state‐led effort is the fastest, most effective way to ensure that more students graduate from high school ready for college and career, a universally accepted goal” (G. Wilhoit, Achieve, 2008)

o Also in 2008, the NGA and CCSSO hired Student Achievement Partners to develop the Common Core State Standards. Firm partners David Coleman and Susan Pimentel authored the Common Core ELA standards, and partners Jason Zimba and William McCallum authored the Common Core math standards. Videos of their philosophy and pedagogy can be found on the Common Core Initiative site.

o In 2009, drafts of the standards went through two public reviews. o In June 2010, the final draft of the Common Core State Standards was

published by CCSSO and NGA, who jointly own the copyright. o Currently, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common

Core. Adoption was given a boost when the federal Department of Education required that states that apply for Race to the Top monies adopt the standards.

o The federal government funded two consortia, Smarter Balanced and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), to write Common Core assessments for ELA and math. States have the option to choose one of the consortia and to choose both the reading and math assessments, one of the assessments, or neither of the assessments. Eight states have opted out of using either assessment. Assessments are currently being piloted and will be implemented in SY 2014‐2015.


Common Core State Standards: Neither Fish nor Fowl The Common Core Standards have become a popular source for political and educational debates. Media coverage often confuses them with Smarter Balanced and PARCC consortia assessments or with curricula for reading and math. However, they are neither. The NGA and CCSSO offer the following definition: “The Common Core State Standards are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for the knowledge and skills students need in English language arts and mathematics at each grade level to ultimately be prepared to graduate college and career ready. The standards establish what students need to learn, but they do not dictate how teachers should teach. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms” (http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently‐asked‐questions).

The Common Core Initiative in the Context of Previous Reform Initiatives The Common Core Standards Initiative follows a long tradition of US educational reform movements that despair of US ranking on international assessments. Their focus is a critical economic and cultural need for US students to rank at the top of the international academic hierarchy. A Nation at Risk, published in 1983, kicked off the current debate with its passionate introduction: “We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well‐being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur‐‐others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments” (National Commission on Excellence in Education). The late 1980s and 1990s saw the development of voluntary national standards. In 1989, all state governors adopted National Goals for the Year 2000. Also in 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published its first national curriculum standards for math. And in 1996, the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English co‐published their first national curriculum standards for English Language Arts. Politically, the Common Core standards are viewed as “state” standards because the NGA and CCSSO developed them and the individual states rather than the federal government have adopted them. They represent the first set of “national” standards that have a mandated bite: states that have not adopted Common Core are not eligible for federal Race to the Top funding. Only Texas, Alaska, Minnesota (adopted math Common Core but not ELA), Virginia, and Nebraska have not adopted the Common Core. Let’s Go Learn products’ breadth and depth support Common Core State Standards and individual state standards.


Key shifts of Common Core Standards David Coleman, co‐founder of Student Achievement Partners, was the lead author of the ELA Common Core Standards. A summary of his presentation to New York principals to prepare them to implement the ELA and math Common Core follows (Coleman, 2011). It’s valuable as a window into his personal philosophies, passions, and perspectives regarding what it means to be prepared for college and career‐ready.

Principles of Common Core Standards Coleman stresses in his presentation that high school students are not ready for career and college when they graduate as evidenced by high remediation rates in college. He says that Common Core authors developed standards that answered three critical questions:

o Do the standards build a staircase to college and career readiness? o What is the evidence that this is happening? o How do new standards fit into available classroom time?

Shifts in ELA Common Core Standards Coleman discusses the following points in his video. Reading scores for the past 40 years, as evidenced by NAEP, have been flat, while we’ve doubled educational funding. Previous standards, particularly in elementary school, have focused on literature. Because only about 7% of reading is informational, students are not gaining vocabulary and content knowledge necessary in higher grades. Common Core requires a 50/50 balance between informational text and literature. Coleman summarizes Common Core ELA and literacy standards as requiring “reading like a detective and writing like an investigative reporter with texts of increasing complexity.” Coleman describes the six biggest shifts in ELA as follows:

o Common Core State Standards require that students divide their reading time equally between informational texts and literature. This will allow them to build a coherent body of knowledge across the grades.

o In Grades 6‐12, it’s important that students excel in content areas as well as in ELA. To ensure this, there are Common Core Standards for literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Content knowledge should come not through lectures but through students reading and learning directly from texts.

o The single greatest predictor of whether students will do well in college and career literacy tasks is their ability to read and understand complex texts in core content areas. The Common Core Standards staircase text complexity tasks, and the required grade‐level text complexity is laid out by grade.

o All the questions that teachers ask students should be dependent on the text itself. This forces students to do a “close reading” of the text and develop their own content knowledge.


o Currently, the most popular forms of writing in school are narratives that describe personal opinions or experience. Neither of these forms prepares students adequately for college or careers. Students must develop their ability to write using evidence. Common Core standards require that in the high school years, students write to inform and to argue. These types of writing are staircased from elementary school to high school.

o Coleman describes academic vocabulary as words such as “consequential” or “criteria,” words that are common to most complex texts. Knowing this vocabulary is key to comprehending complex texts. Not knowing words like these creates a “hidden wall,” particularly for ELL students.

Shifts in Math Common Core Standards On international assessments, US students score far below students in Finland, Singapore, east Asia, etc. According to Coleman, the primary reason for poor performance is not that other students spend more time studying. It’s that their teachers focus on a few key concepts rather than on “inch‐deep, mile‐wide” concepts. Coleman describes this philosophy as “teach less; learn more.” He states that teachers in high‐performing countries focus on three topics: whole numbers, operations, and the quantities they measure. Coleman describes the biggest shifts in math as follows:

o In K‐2, Common Core Standards focus on addition and subtraction of whole numbers and the quantities they measure.

o In Grades 3‐5, Standards focus on multiplication and division and the manipulation and understanding of fractions, the latter being the best predictor of performance in algebra.

o In Grades 6‐8, the Standards focus on proportional reasoning, geometric measures, and the number system. These Standards lead to algebra and increased mathematical performance in high school.

o Across the grades, the Standards focus on the most important factors in mathematical performance: fluency (automaticity, speed, and accuracy), understanding (what operation/tool to use and why), and application (capacity to apply mathematical thinking even when not required).

o The K‐8 “trunk” allows students to do everything they need to do in high school mathematics courses.


How DORA Aligns to the Common Core

Common Core Reading Standards the Destination; DORA the Flight Plan Common Core Standards are end‐of‐year goals, NOT teachable objectives. Let’s Go Learn products provide online assessments and instruction based on teachable objectives and personalized learning paths. Let’s Go Learn’s DORA assessments and reports provide a teachable map to the Common Core. More importantly, our products differentiate for every student. The Common Core Initiative introduction clearly states that the goal of the Standards is to set grade‐level expectations – not provide a path for those above or below them: “The Standards set grade‐specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade‐level expectations. No set of grade‐specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom. However, the Standards do provide clear signposts along the way to the goal of college and career readiness for all students.” Let’s Go Learn provides the granularlevel data, reporting, and datadriven instruction necessary to meet gradelevel expectations.

DORA Alignment Common Core ELA Standards are divided into four content categories: reading, language, writing, and speaking/listening. According to the Common Core introduction, “Although the Standards are divided into Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language strands for conceptual clarity, the processes of communication are closely connected, as reflected throughout this document.” Let’s Go Learn covers the integrated standards through diagnostic assessment, instruction, professional development, and teacher tools, choosing the delivery system that best meets teacher and student needs.

ELA Comparison Chart Kindergarten through Grade 12 Reading CCSS DORA Informational

Text

Key ideas and details: main ideas, details, explicit and inferential meaning; connections

X X


Craft and structure: unknown words in context; structure of texts; firsthand and secondhand accounts

X X

Integration of knowledge and ideas: interpretation of visual information; author purposes; integration of information

X X

Range of reading and level of text complexity

X X

Literature Key ideas and

details: main ideas; details; connections

X PD

Craft and structure: unknown words in context; comparison of structures and points of view; differences in genres and elements of genres, themes, topics, etc.

X PD

Integration of knowledge and ideas: comparisons of genres and media

X PD

Range of reading and level of text

X PD


complexity Foundational

Skills K‐5

Print concepts X (K) PD Phonological

awareness: Understanding of spoken words, syllables, and phonemes

X (K‐1) X

Phonics & word recognition: phonics and word analysis to decode

X (K‐5) X

Fluency: accuracy and fluency in reading

X (K‐5) X

Writing Text types and

purposes: opinion pieces, arguments, informative/explanatory texts, and narratives

X PD

Production and distribution of writing: task, purpose, audience; writing process; technology

X PD

Research to build and present knowledge: research projects, multiple sources, evidence from texts

X PD

Range of writing X PD Speaking &


Listening Comprehension

and collaboration: collaborative discussions with diverse partners; paraphrasing in variety of formats and media; analyzing discussions for reasons and evidence

X PD

Presentation of knowledge and ideas: claims and findings through evidence

X PD

Language Conventions of

Standard English when writing or speaking: grammar and usage; capitalization, punctuation, and spelling

X PD

Knowledge of Language: conventions in reading, writing, listening, and speaking

X PD

Vocabulary Acquisition & Use: meaning of unknown words and multiple meanings; figurative language, word relationships, and nuances

X X


Literacy in History/Social Studies, Sciences, & Technical Studies Comparison Chart Grades 6 12

CCSS DORA History & Social Studies

Key ideas and details

X X

Craft and structure

X X

Integration of knowledge and ideas

X X

Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

X X

Science & Technical Subjects

Key ideas and details

X X

Craft and structure

X X

Integration of knowledge and ideas

X X

Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

X X

Writing Text types and

purposes X PD

Production and distribution of writing

X PD

Research to build and present knowledge

X PD

Range of writing X PD


How ADAM Aligns to the Common Core

Common Core Math Standards the Destination; ADAM the Flight Plan Common Core Standards are end‐of‐year goals, NOT teachable objectives. Let’s Go Learn products provide online assessments and instruction based on teachable objectives and personalized learning paths. Common Core Math Standards are divided into eleven domains: Counting & Cardinality, Operations & Algebraic Thinking, Numbers & Operations in Base Ten, Number & Operations – Fractions, Measurement & Data, Geometry, Ratios & Proportional Relationships, The Number System, Expressions & Equations, Functions, and Statistics & Probability. Let’s Go Learn’s ADAM assessments and reports provide a teachable map to the Common Core. More importantly, our products differentiate for every student.

ADAM Alignment According to the Common Core introduction, “Learning opportunities will continue to vary across schools and school systems, and educators should make every effort to meet the needs of individual students based on their current understanding.” Let’s Go Learn covers the Common Core through diagnostic assessment, instruction, professional development, and teacher tools, choosing the delivery system that best meets teacher and student needs.

Comparison Chart Kindergarten through Grade 5 Commo

n Core ADAM Comment

Counting & Cardinality

Number Names; counting sequence, comparisons of numbers

X X Common Core covers this only in Kindergarten standards

Operations and Algebraic Thinking

Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division; properties and relationships; factors and multiples; patterns; interpretation of numerical expressions; analysis of patterns and

X X


relationships; real‐world problem solving

Numbers & Operations in Base Ten

Place value understanding and application to operations; application to multi‐digit arithmetic

X X

Number & Operations ‐ Fractions

Fractions as numbers; equivalence and ordering; decimal notations for fractions; applying operations

X X Common Core begins strand in Grade 3

Measurement & Data

Length in different units; working with time, time intervals, and money; estimating; relating dimensions to operations; volume and mass of objects; geometric measurement; conversions; angle and angle measurement; representing and interpreting data

X X

Geometry Analyze, compare, create, and

compose shapes, and reasoning with shapes and attributes, lines, and angles; properties of 2‐and 3‐dimensional figures; graphing on coordinate plane; real‐world problem solving

X X


Comparison Chart Grades 6 through 8 Ratios & Proportional Relationships

Ratio concepts and reasoning; real‐world problem solving

X X

The Number System

Multiplication and division of fractions by fractions; common factors and multiples; fluency with multi‐digit numbers; all operations with rational numbers; understanding that there are numbers that are not rational and approximating them by rational numbers

X X

Expressions & Equations

Algebraic expressions; one‐variable equations and inequalities; quantitative relationships between dependent and independent variables; properties of operations to generate equivalent expressions; radicals and integer exponents; understanding connections between proportional relationships, lines, and linear equations; solving for linear equations and pairs of simultaneous linear equations; real‐world problem solving

X X

Geometry Problem solving for area,

surface area, volume, and angle measure; drawing, constructing, describing geometrical properties and their relationships; understanding congruence and similarity using physical

X X


models, transparencies, or geometry software; understanding and applying Pythagorean Theorem; problem solving for volumes of cylinders, cones, and spheres

Statistics & Probability

Understanding of statistical variability and distributions; understanding of random sampling and drawing inferences about population; drawing informative comparative inferences about two populations; chance processes; developing, using, and evaluating probability models; investigating patterns of association in bivariate data

X X

Functions Common Core begins instruction in 8th grade

Defining, evaluating, and comparing functions; using functions to model relationships between quantities

X X


With Let’s Go Learn, Reach the Common Core The Common Core Initiative introduction clearly states that the goal of the Standards is to set grade‐level expectations – not to provide a path for individual students to reach them: “The Standards set grade‐specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade‐level expectations. It is also beyond the scope of the Standards to define the full range of support appropriate for English language learners and for students with special needs.” Let’s Go Learn provides a learning path to the Common Core through our online diagnostic assessments, individual and group reporting, teacher tools, and targeted instruction.

o If students are to succeed in reading and math, they need to have explicit instruction, reinforcement, and practice in the specific skills that scaffold to the Common Core Standards. This is why schools and districts need Let’s Go Learn products—because we help students get from where they are to where they need to be to meet the Common Core expectations.

o Let’s Go Learn products personalize instruction because we understand that each student’s instructional path is unique. If every student is to reach the Common Core end‐of‐year goals, each must have an individual learning path. Differentiated instruction must be employed to meet each student’s individual needs. Let’s Go Learn makes personalized learning possible.

o The International Reading Association, in its guidance to implementing the

Common Core, states: “Teachers will need to continue to provide high‐quality explicit and systematic instruction in these foundational skills if students are to succeed in learning to read.” DORA and the LGL Edge reading products support classroom instruction with granular, skill‐level online assessments, reporting, and instruction that scaffold Common Core end‐of‐year goals.

o The National Council of Teachers states that it is “committed to helping

educators interpret and understand the Common Core State Standards” (NCTM). ADAM, DOMA, and LGL Edge math products support this intent by providing teachers with online diagnostic assessments, reporting, and instruction that scaffold Common Core end‐of‐year goals.


Short Bibliography

o Achieve, Inc, “Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the Ground Up,” July 2008. http://foundationcenter.org/educationexcellence/report.jhtml?id=fdc83500010

o Achieve Inc., 2004. “ADP Benchmarks.” http://www.achieve.org/adp‐benchmarks

o D. Ravitch, 2013. “Why I oppose Common Core Standards.” As cited in the

Washington Post, V. Strauss, (2/26/13). http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer‐sheet/wp/2013/02/26/why‐i‐oppose‐common‐core‐standards‐ravitch/

o Achieve, “Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the

Ground Up,” July 2008. http://foundationcenter.org/educationexcellence/report.jhtml? id=fdc83500010

o American Diploma Project Benchmarks: http://www.achieve.org/adp‐benchmarks

o IRA/NCTE Standards, 1996.

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Books/Sample/StandardsDoc.pdf

o The National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk, 1983.

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

o National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010. Common Core State Standards Initiative. http://www.corestandards.org/

o David Coleman, 2011. “What We Are Watching: David Coleman on the Common Core

Standards.” http://educationnext.org/what‐were‐watching‐david‐coleman‐on‐the‐common‐core‐standards/

o International Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee.

(2012). Literacy Implementation Guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/association‐documents/ira_ccss_guidelines.pdf

o National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, “Supporting the Common Core State

Standards in Mathematics.” http://www.nctm.org/ccssmposition/


Appendix 1: More about DORA

Common Core ELA Strands Common Core ELA strands include Reading, Writing, Speaking & Listening, and Language. DORA coverage extends to the reading strands and the language strand. Let’s Go Learn covers the Writing and Speaking & Listening strands through professional development webinars.

Common Core Informational Text and Literature Reading Standards Common Core Reading Informational Text and Literature Standards cover the following concepts:

o Key ideas and detail o Craft and structure o Integration of Knowledge and ideas o Range of reading and level of text complexity

DORA’s Alignment with Common Core Reading Standards Note: Reading passages are informational/expository.

o Reading comprehension for informational text o On the reading comprehension sub‐test, in a variation on protocols

for some informal reading inventories (Gillet & Temple, 1994; Leslie & Caldwell, 1994), children silently read expository passages of increasing difficulty and length and then answer three factual questions, two inferential questions, and one contextual vocabulary question without the ability to re‐read the passage. The silent reading comprehension sub‐test forms the crux of DORA, attempting to provide a window into the semantic domain of a learner’s reading abilities. The design of this entire sub‐test simulates practical content reading and the goal for students to retain knowledge beyond the test‐taking environment. The content of each silent reading passage is expository and written to reflect the subject areas that students of a particular grade level would encounter. The program stops administering passages and questions once a student misses a certain number of questions on a passage. It provides teachers with information about a child’s comprehension level. The Reading Comprehension sub‐test consists of 12 Flesch‐Kincaid leveled passages with 6 questions per passage. There is one passage per grade, with three sets of comprehension passages used. Students cycle through A, B, and C passages on subsequent assessments.

Common Core Reading Foundational Skills Common Core Reading Foundational Skill Standards cover the following concepts:

o Print concepts


o Phonological awareness o Phonics and word recognition o Fluency

DORA’s Alignment with Common Core Foundational Skills o Phonological awareness

o The ability to hear and manipulate discrete sounds in spoken words is referred to as phonemic awareness. The phonemic awareness sub‐test uses oral and picture‐only items. Categories tested include: 1) addition, 2) deletion, 3) substitution, 4) identification, 5) categorization, 6) blending, 7) segmenting, 8) isolation, and 9) rhyming. Children demonstrate their phonemic awareness by segmenting words into individual sounds (i.e., /fish/ into /f/‐/i/‐/sh/), deleting sounds in words, blending sounds, adding sounds, or substituting sounds within a word to make a new word. Children who have good phonemic awareness can often recognize/decode words and spell/write better than others. Some researchers have indicated that phonemic awareness is one of the best predictors of reading success (Stanovich, 1993‐1994). Others further argue that it is especially important to determine children’s level of phonemic awareness in the primary grades to ensure that they get any necessary intervention as early readers, lest they struggle with reading as young adults.

o Phonics o In addition to having an awareness of the discrete sounds in

words, it is important that children master the ways sounds and words are represented in English. This is important because children need to be able to effortlessly decode and recognize familiar and unfamiliar words to help facilitate the process of negotiating the meaning behind texts (Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The phonics sub‐test assesses a child’s ability to recognize basic English phonetic principles of high utility (Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995), including: 1) beginning sounds, 2) short vowel sounds, 3) blends, 4) the silent E rule, 5) consonant digraphs, 6) vowel digraphs, 7) r‐controlled vowels, 8) diphthongs, and 9) syllabification. The phonics sub‐test consists of 80 criterion‐ referenced words, with 20 words per grade, from 1st to 4th grade.

o Word recognition: o DORA’s word recognition sub‐test assesses a learner’s ability to

recognize leveled lists of words. In this sub‐test, children are presented with a number of increasingly difficult words until they reach a level at which they “frustrate” or stop recognizing the words presented to them. The final outcome of the assessment gives teachers an idea of the grade‐level ability of a child to recognize words out of context. This assessment is important in


identifying how well an individual can use what he or she knows about text to recognize words outside the context of a sentence and of increasing difficulty. The word recognition sub‐test consists of 120 criterion‐referenced words, with 10 words per grade from 1st to 12th grade.

o The high‐frequency words sub‐test assesses words from Edward B. Fry’s 300 sight words, which have been arranged into three general levels of difficulty (Fry, Kress, & Fountoukidis, 2004). A child’s response time in identifying these sight words is recorded and factored into the scoring of the child’s performance on the assessment. The high‐frequency words sub‐test consists of 72 criterion‐referenced words, with 24 words per grade from 1st to 3rd grade.

o Spelling The spelling sub‐test asks students to generate correct spellings of words of increasing difficulty based on: 1) the number of syllables in a word, 2) regular phonetic patterns within the words, 3) irregular phonetic patterns within the words, 4) vocabulary level, and 5) a child’s expected familiarity with a word based on grade level. The process of spelling involves a number of cognitive processes. While each person uses different strategies for spelling words, these strategies usually have in common a familiarity with a particular word (i.e., familiarity with its meaning and visual exposure to the word), letter‐sound matching, and confirmation of how the word “looks” (Bear et al., 2000; Ruddell, 1999; Gillet & Temple, 1994). Because spelling is also a generative process (as opposed to a decoding and meaning‐making process in reading), it is natural for young readers’ spelling abilities to lag a few months behind their reading abilities. DORA’s spelling sub‐test tries to capture the nuances of the different processes children use to spell words by employing target words with increasing difficulty in different domains. In the process of creating the items for the DORA spelling sub‐test, reading specialists created a list of recommended target spelling words by examining words commonly encountered in or taught at particular grade levels. The difficulty of the recommended words changes in these general domains in the following ways: 1) number of syllables in a word, 2) regular phonetic patterns within the words, 3) irregular phonetic patterns within the words, 4) vocabulary level, and 5) a child’s expected familiarity with a word based on his or her grade level. In the first through third grade spelling lists, for instance, while most of the words are phonetically regular, the number of syllables increases with each grade level and the phonetic patterns within each word become increasingly difficult. The way the difficulty increases per grade level varies. Studies of how students perform on the spelling test have been used to eliminate words


that are too easy or difficult for a particular grade level, resulting in a test that possesses the ability to better distinguish students who spell well on one list of words as opposed to another. The spelling sub‐test consists of 60 criterion‐referenced words, with 5 words per grade, ranging from 1st to 12th grade.

o Fluency There are two oral fluency tests, which are delivered one on one with the student. One test measures a student’s oral reading fluency and the other measures oral reading fluency with comprehension. Fluency is included as a teacher‐administered measure. In this sub‐test, children read aloud short leveled passages that have increasing syntactic complexity. Teachers time children’s reading of these passages and record their errors and prosody (voice inflection, articulation, and versification) according to a pre‐established rubric adapted from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Oral Reading Fluency Scale (1995).

Common Core Language Standards Common Core Language Standards are grouped as follows:

o Conventions of standard English o Knowledge of language (starts in Grade 2) o Vocabulary acquisition and use

DORA’s Alignment with Common Core Language Standards o Vocabulary

The vocabulary sub‐test assesses students’ oral vocabulary, using visual definitions. A learner’s knowledge of words and what they mean is an important part of the reading process, as knowledge of word meanings affects the extent to which the learner comprehends what he or she reads (National Reading Panel, 2000). The vocabulary sub‐test assesses a child’s understanding of words. The words from this sub‐test were selected by teachers and reading specialists to reflect the types of words children learn in various disciplines at different grade levels and in various stages of their lives. Similar to the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn, 1959), on the vocabulary sub‐test children are asked to select the picture which correctly corresponds to a word they hear. The program continues to present children with increasingly difficult words until they make a certain number of errors. This sub‐test provides information about a child’s level of oral words per grade, ranging from 1st to 12th grade.


Appendix 2: More about ADAM

ADAM is a one‐of‐a‐kind online computer‐adaptive diagnostic assessment. It is the most comprehensive mathematics assessment for the Common Core currently available. The skills and subskills that ADAM assesses are listed below the Common Core domains they support.

Common Core Math Domains Common Mathematics Standards cover the following domains:

o Counting & Cardinality o Operations & Algebraic Thinking o Numbers & Operations in Base Ten o Numbers & Operations – Fractions o Measurement & Data o Geometry o Ratios & Proportional Relationships o The Number System o Expressions & Equations o Functions o Statistics & Probability

ADAM Numbers and Operations Alignment with the Common Core Common Core Domains Counting & Cardinality, Operations (from Operations & Algebraic Thinking), Numbers & Operations in Base 10, and Numbers & Operations – Fractions, Ratios & Proportional Relationships, and The Number System are covered as follows. o Numbers and Operations

o Numbers: rounding (10s, 100s, 1,000s), comma & place holder, counting (by 1s, 2s, 3s, 5, 10s, 100s, and 1000s), text and numerals, numerals (2‐digit), cardinal and ordinal numbers, counting backwards

o Place value: decimals (thousand, ten‐thousand, hundred‐thousand, millions), expanded form

o Comparing and ordering: decimals, money, symbols (2‐digit and 3‐digit), numbers

o Addition of whole numbers: multiple digits, regrouping, non‐regrouping, 2‐digit plus 1‐digit, to 10, equivalent forms, modeling with objects

o Subtraction of whole numbers: regrouping, non‐regrouping, subtracting from 10

o Multiplication of whole numbers: commutative, associative, distributive, 2‐digit and 3‐digit by 2‐digit, 3‐digit by 1‐digit, 2‐digit by 1‐digit, powers of ten, factors 2 to 10, factors 0 and 1, grouping and repeated addition


o Division of whole numbers: 4‐digits, whole numbers, facts, 1‐digit divisor and remainders, division as inverse of multiplication

o Fractions: adding and subtracting with unlike denominators, converting fractions, least common multiple & greatest common factor, multiplying and dividing, solving problems, multiplying patterns, adding with like denominators, adding, proper/improper/mixed, multiplying by whole number, comparing and ordering, as decimals and place value tenth and hundredth, equivalent with lowest terms, as parts of sets, partitioning objects into parts

o Number theory: divisibility rules, common greatest factors, prime factors, prime/composite numbers, multiples, factors

o Decimal operations: terminating and repeating decimals, division, multiplication and money notation, adding and subtracting

o Percentages: discounts and markups, increases and decreases, calculator percentages, estimating and calculating, proportions, ratios, percents and decimals, percents and fractions

o Ratios and proportions: using proportions to solve problems, interpreting and using ratios

o Positive and negative integers: multiplying and dividing negative numbers, adding and subtracting negative numbers, absolute value, solving problems with integer operations, ordering rational numbers, positive and negative numbers

o Exponents: rational numbers and exponent numbers, square roots, negative whole number exponents, irrational numbers, rational integer operations and powers, scientific notation

ADAM Measurement Alignment with the Common Core The Common Core Measurement (from Measurement & Data) domain is covered as follows.

o Measurement Money: values, recognition Time: calendar in weeks, elapsed time, calendar in months, reading a clock

Temperature: reading, concept Length: converting units, comparing metric lengths, converting units of length, length, customary and metric units, concepts, number line, measuring by object, comparative vocabulary

Weight: converting and comparing units and concepts of weight, units of measure, customary

Capacity and volume: comparing metric capacity/volume, units of capacity/volume, units of measure, metric and customary capacity

Rate: solving rate problems, scale, comparing rates, understanding rates


ADAM Data Analysis Alignment with the Common Core The Common Core Data (from Data & Measurement) and Statistics & Probability domains are covered as follows.

o Data Analysis Patterns and solving: linear patterns, extending linear patterns, extending patterns, sorting by common attributes, simple patterns

Data representation: problem solving, features of data sets, multiple representations of the same data, simple data representation

Simple probability: probability of multiple events, representing probabilities, estimating future events, simple probability, likelihood

Outcomes: representing possible outcomes, representing outcomes/results, recording outcomes

Displaying data: scatterplots, data representations, comparing data (fractions and percentages), displaying data, interpreting graphs

Measures of central tendency: data set quartiles, use of measures of central tendency, outliers, changing central tendency, computing measures of central tendency, mean/median/mode

Ordered pairs: writing ordered pairs, identifying ordered pairs

Samples: independent and dependent events, sampling errors, selecting samples

ADAM Geometry Alignment with the Common Core The Common Core Geometry domain is covered as follows:

o Geometry Location and direction: vocabulary 2D shapes: solving problems of congruence, translations and reflections, elements of geometric figures, symmetry, identifying congruency figures, polygons, forming polygons, describing shapes, attributes, naming by name and shape, comparing

3D shapes: geometric elements, patterns, qualities, composing, faces, shapes

Triangles: Pythagorean theorem, solving for unknown angles, definitions, right angles, attributes

Quadrilaterals: definitions, attributes Area and perimeter: complex figures, perimeter/area/volume, area of triangles/parallelograms, 2D and 3D units of measure, word problems, solving for


area vs. perimeter, area with square units, dividing rectangles into squares

Lines: parallel and perpendicular, vertical line segment length, horizontal line segment length, plotting points of linear equation

Circles: calculating using Pi, Pi, qualities Angles: types, sum of angles, angles and angle measurement

Volume and surface area: surface area and volume of complex solids, volume of triangular prisms and cylinders, volume, surface area

Geometric relationships: changes of scale, expressing geometric relationships, using variables in geometric equations

ADAM Algebra Alignment with the Common Core The Common Core Algebraic Thinking, Expressions & Equations, and Functions domains are covered as follows.

o Algebra Relationships: equivalent multiplication, equivalent addition, rules of linear patterns, commutative and associative properties of multiplication, symbolic unit conversions, relationships of quantities, sorting by unlike objects

Expressions and problem solving: multiplying and dividing monomials, positive whole number powers, simplifying expressions, using order of operations to evaluate expressions, writing expressions, solving problems using order of operations, applying order of operations, equivalent expressions, writing algebraic expressions, using distributive property, order of operations (with parentheses), selecting operations, problem solving using data (addition and subtraction), number sentences and problems, symbols

Equations: solving multi‐step rate problems, solving two‐step linear equations, algebraic terminology, solving 1‐step inequalities, solving 1‐step linear equations, solving linear functions, solving by substitution, problem solving and data, simple equations, formulas, concepts of variables, functional relationships, problem solving with equations/inequalities

Graphing algebraic relationships: plotting set ratios, slope, graphing functions, graphic representations, coordinate plane

let’s go learn and the common core v10rc · pdf filelet’s go learn confidential 4...

Documents