Some blog followers might be interested in a “Math Education Bibliography” that was included on pages 42-83 of a recent essay "Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?" [Hake (2013)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB)
The bibliography contains over 400 hot-linked URLs and references, including:
(a) 3 articles due (or due in part) to Joan Ferrini-Mundy http://1.usa.gov/1iQzxNR, NSF Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources;
(b) a YouTube talk “Joan FERRINI-MUNDY on STEM Education Research Areas”; and
(c) 3 articles by MSU Distinguished Professor William Schmidt http://bit.ly/tMA3oL, among them “U.S. students need new way of learning science” [Schmidt (2012a)]. The latter discusses the PROM/SE project “Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education” at http://bit.ly/1eCnHUw.
References in categories a, b, and c are in the REFERENCE list below preceded by double asterisks**.
An ERRATUM is in order: One of the references in the “Math Education Bibliography” section of my essay is “Berkeley Websites. . . .” [Schoenfeld (2013a)]. Therein I wrote: “A former Berkeley website, containing links to many of Schoenfeld’s articles, seems to have vanished from the web : - ( .” CORRECTION: Over 15 links to Schoenfeld’s articles have recently been made available at http://bit.ly/1ap7pM9, as indicated in the revised reference below to Schoenfeld (2013a).
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [All URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 15 Jan 2014.]
**Ball, D.L., J. FERRINI-MUNDY, J. Kilpatrick, R.J. Milgram, Wilfred Schmid, & R. Schaar, “Reaching for Common Ground in K-12 Mathematics Education,” in Notices of the AMS 52: 1055-1058; online as a 49 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/10Z0msf.
** FERRINI-MUNDY, J. & K.G. Graham. 1991. “An Overview of the Calculus Curriculum Reform Effort: Issues for Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum Development,” American Mathematical Monthly 98(7): 627-635; the first paragraph is online at http://bit.ly/1erhawp. An ERIC abstract is online at http://1.usa.gov/196ebpe.
**FERRINI-MUNDY, J. YouTube video “Joan FERRINI-MUNDY on STEM Education Research Areas,” online at http://bit.ly/IOcTca, 332 views as of 15 Jan 2014 13:24-0800.
**Graham, K. G., and J. FERRINI-MUNDY. 1989. “An Exploration of Student Understanding of Central Concepts in Calculus,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. I’ve not found an online version.
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” An update of 26 Dec 2013 of an invited talk of 24 April 2012, Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California, online as a 2.7 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 and as ref. 70 at http://bit.ly/a6M5y0. The abstract and link are being transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/1jXolD6 with a provision for comments.
**Lauten, D., K. Graham, and J. FERRINI-MUNDY. 1999. “Increasing the Dialogue About Calculus with a Questionnaire” in Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics [Gold et al. (1999, pp. 237-240)] at http://bit.ly/1e6ShtL.
**SCHMIDT, W. 2011. “Want better math teachers? Train them better, scholar argues?” 09 June; online at http://bit.ly/1bP1V2r.
** SCHMIDT, W. 2012a. “U.S. students need new way of learning science,” 05 April; online at http://bit.ly/1csHB5o.
** SCHMIDT, W. 2012b. “Study supports move toward common math standards,” 05 Nov; online at http://bit.ly/J09KXl.
Schoenfeld, A.H. 2013a. Berkeley Websites: (a) Functions Research Group http://bit.ly/18Aod7R; (b) Algebra Teaching Study http://bit.ly/IJD7g8; (c) Mathematics Assessment Project http://bit.ly/1bNlL8e; (d) Formative Assessment with Computational Technologies (FACT) http://bit.ly/187WA5r; (e) Alan Schoenfeld’s Downloadable Publications http://bit.ly/1ap7pM9.
Showing posts with label William Schmidt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William Schmidt. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Sunday, March 3, 2013
The Contentious Common Core Controversy
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “The Contentious Common Core Controversy” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT: The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) http://www.corestandards.org/ have engendered considerable controversy - see e.g., “Resistance to Common Core standards growing” [Strauss (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y7kwdK. Stimulated by Diane Ravitch’s (2013) admonition at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK “to think critically about the standards,” I searched Google for “Common Core State Standards” to obtain 3,010,000 hits at http://bit.ly/15QLBZR on 03 March 2013 10:15-0800. Careful consideration of all those leads me to suggest the following sixteen as especially valuable:
ANTI- CCSS
1. “Eight problems with Common Core Standards” [Brady (2012)] at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.
2. “Engineering Good Math Tests” [Burkhardt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/VaJgpp;
3. “How Common Core will change testing in schools” [Krashen (2012)] at http://wapo.st/12bt9w5;
4. “Debunking the Case for National Standards: One-Size-Fits-All Mandates and Their Dangers” [Kohn (2010)] at http://bit.ly/Z0xoUV;
5. “Do young kids need to learn a lot of facts? ” [Miller & Carlsson-Paige (2013)] at http://wapo.st/13oJVqW.
6. “Whoo-Hoo! Occupy the Schools” [Ohanian (2013)] at http://bit.ly/XGs4oq;
7. “Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards” [Ravitch (2013)] at
http://bit.ly/XGpEpK;
8. “Do We Need a Common Core? ” [Tampio (2012)] at http://huff.to/ZBaDb6.
PRO-CCSS
9. “Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching” [Darling-Hammond et al. (2012)] at http://stanford.io/Wj1w1E;
10. “Standards Worth Attaining” Finn (2012) at http://bit.ly/XHtS0k;
11. “A Common Core Standards defense” [Hirsch (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y1gwvk;
12. “What English classes should look like in Common Core era” [Jago (2013)] at
http://wapo.st/XdE2cM;
13. “International Lessons About National Standards” [Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009)] at http://bit.ly/xPjmJ4.
14. “Seizing the Moment for Mathematics” [Schmidt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/Z0BbS2;
15. “On Naked Standards - And Free Curriculum” Tucker (2012) at http://bit.ly/Y531xl;
16. “The Case for National Standards” [Weingarten (2009)] at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.
For an earlier review of the pros and cons of the Common Core Standards see “National Education Standards for the United States? ” [Hake (2009)] at http://bit.ly/Z0DMLK. In a subsequent post I shall discuss the “Next Generation Science Standards” (NGSS) http://bit.ly/y1gJPx and their relationship to the “Common Core State Standards. ”
***************************************************
To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
"I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation. . . . . They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. . . . . Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states. . . . . . it was well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding unless they adopted the Common Core standards. . . . . "
- Diane Ravitch (2013) at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK
"The countries that consistently outperform the United States on international assessments all have national standards, with core curriculum, assessments and time for professional development for teachers based on those standards. . . . . Should fate, as determined by a student's Zip code, dictate how much algebra he or she is taught? . . . . Education is a local issue, but there is a body of knowledge about what children should know and be able to do that should guide decisions about curriculum and testing."
- Randi Weingarten (2009), president of the American Federation of Teachers at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.
"So much orchestrated attention is being showered on the Common Core Standards, the main reason for poor student performance is being ignored - a level of childhood poverty the consequences of which no amount of schooling can effectively counter."
- Marion Brady (2012) at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 March 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Contentious Common Core Controversy,” online on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv. Post of 3 Mar 2013 11:01:22 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
ABSTRACT: The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) http://www.corestandards.org/ have engendered considerable controversy - see e.g., “Resistance to Common Core standards growing” [Strauss (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y7kwdK. Stimulated by Diane Ravitch’s (2013) admonition at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK “to think critically about the standards,” I searched Google for “Common Core State Standards” to obtain 3,010,000 hits at http://bit.ly/15QLBZR on 03 March 2013 10:15-0800. Careful consideration of all those leads me to suggest the following sixteen as especially valuable:
ANTI- CCSS
1. “Eight problems with Common Core Standards” [Brady (2012)] at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.
2. “Engineering Good Math Tests” [Burkhardt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/VaJgpp;
3. “How Common Core will change testing in schools” [Krashen (2012)] at http://wapo.st/12bt9w5;
4. “Debunking the Case for National Standards: One-Size-Fits-All Mandates and Their Dangers” [Kohn (2010)] at http://bit.ly/Z0xoUV;
5. “Do young kids need to learn a lot of facts? ” [Miller & Carlsson-Paige (2013)] at http://wapo.st/13oJVqW.
6. “Whoo-Hoo! Occupy the Schools” [Ohanian (2013)] at http://bit.ly/XGs4oq;
7. “Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards” [Ravitch (2013)] at
http://bit.ly/XGpEpK;
8. “Do We Need a Common Core? ” [Tampio (2012)] at http://huff.to/ZBaDb6.
PRO-CCSS
9. “Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching” [Darling-Hammond et al. (2012)] at http://stanford.io/Wj1w1E;
10. “Standards Worth Attaining” Finn (2012) at http://bit.ly/XHtS0k;
11. “A Common Core Standards defense” [Hirsch (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y1gwvk;
12. “What English classes should look like in Common Core era” [Jago (2013)] at
http://wapo.st/XdE2cM;
13. “International Lessons About National Standards” [Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009)] at http://bit.ly/xPjmJ4.
14. “Seizing the Moment for Mathematics” [Schmidt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/Z0BbS2;
15. “On Naked Standards - And Free Curriculum” Tucker (2012) at http://bit.ly/Y531xl;
16. “The Case for National Standards” [Weingarten (2009)] at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.
For an earlier review of the pros and cons of the Common Core Standards see “National Education Standards for the United States? ” [Hake (2009)] at http://bit.ly/Z0DMLK. In a subsequent post I shall discuss the “Next Generation Science Standards” (NGSS) http://bit.ly/y1gJPx and their relationship to the “Common Core State Standards. ”
***************************************************
To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
"I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation. . . . . They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. . . . . Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states. . . . . . it was well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding unless they adopted the Common Core standards. . . . . "
- Diane Ravitch (2013) at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK
"The countries that consistently outperform the United States on international assessments all have national standards, with core curriculum, assessments and time for professional development for teachers based on those standards. . . . . Should fate, as determined by a student's Zip code, dictate how much algebra he or she is taught? . . . . Education is a local issue, but there is a body of knowledge about what children should know and be able to do that should guide decisions about curriculum and testing."
- Randi Weingarten (2009), president of the American Federation of Teachers at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.
"So much orchestrated attention is being showered on the Common Core Standards, the main reason for poor student performance is being ignored - a level of childhood poverty the consequences of which no amount of schooling can effectively counter."
- Marion Brady (2012) at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 March 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Contentious Common Core Controversy,” online on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv. Post of 3 Mar 2013 11:01:22 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
