Your search found 11353 results.

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; State Standards; Educational Opportunities; Evidence; Adolescents; Social Studies; Academic Standards; History; Secondary School Teachers; Secondary School Students; Student Needs; Educational Needs; Teacher Expectations of Students; Teacher Student Relationship; History Instruction; Teaching Methods; Critical Thinking; Thinking Skills; Special Education Teachers

Abstract:
The Common Core State Standards for literacy in history and social studies present opportunities and challenges for teachers of and adolescents with learning disabilities (LD). In addition to reading challenges, students must engage in higher order thinking and reasoning. To provide opportunities for students to successfully respond to such challenges, teachers must have an understanding of the expectations in the Standards, and of the learning needs of students with LD. Teachers can assure success for adolescents with LD by selecting proven instructional procedures and engaging in collaboration to provide students with the supports they need. Examples of one evidence-based practice, Content Enhancement, are provided to illustrate instructional protocols for teachers of diverse classes that include adolescents with LD. (Contains 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; State Standards; Mathematics Skills; Mathematics Instruction; Elementary Secondary Education; Academic Standards; Mathematics Tests; Outcomes of Education; Mathematics Teachers; Evidence; Intervention; Basic Skills; Elementary School Teachers; Secondary School Teachers; Elementary School Students; Secondary School Students

Abstract:
The Common Core State Standards provide teachers with a framework of necessary mathematics skills across grades K-12, which vary considerably from previous mathematics standards. In this article, we discuss concerns about the implications of the Common Core for students with mathematics difficulties (MD), given that students with MD, by definition, struggle with mathematical skills. We suggest that instruction centered on the Common Core will be challenging and may lead to problematic outcomes for this population. We propose that working on foundational skills related to the Common Core standards is a necessary component of mathematics instruction for students with MD, and we provide teachers with a framework for working on foundational skills concurrent with the Common Core standards. We caution, however, that implementation of the Common Core is in its infancy, and the implications of the Common Core for students with MD need to be monitored carefully. (Contains 1 table and 3 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; State Standards; Guidance; Special Education Teachers; Elementary School Students; Elementary School Teachers; Teacher Expectations of Students; Academic Standards; Reading Instruction; Reading Tests; Language Arts

Abstract:
The K-5 reading standards within the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards provide guidance to teachers about grade level expectations for students. Though the authors of the standards acknowledge that some students may experience difficulty reaching the rigorous expectations, they explain that the standards outline a pathway to proficiency for all students, including those who struggle with literacy. Students with learning disabilities, who often have significant literacy difficulties, may face particular challenges when their instruction is framed by these standards. This article unpacks the complex K-5 reading standards and provides a discussion of the implications for students with learning disabilities and their general and special education teachers. Examples from K-5 lessons and recommendations for teachers and researchers are provided. (Contains 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; State Standards; Evidence; Writing (Composition); Special Education Teachers; Academic Standards; Writing Instruction; Writing Tests; Educational Environment; Secondary School Students; Secondary School Teachers; Writing Teachers

Abstract:
This article examines the Common Core State Standards as they apply to writing and students with learning disabilities (LD). We first consider why the implementation of these standards is advantageous to writing instruction for students with LD as well as the challenges in implementing them. Next, we make the following four recommendations in terms of their implementation: (1) increase general and special education teachers' knowledge about writing development; (2) create a writing environment in which students with LD can thrive; (3) employ evidence-based writing practices in general education classes (where most students with LD are taught); and (4) use evidence-based writing practices effective with students with LD. We conclude by considering research that still needs to be undertaken to help educators maximize the probability that students with and without LD meet the writing benchmarks proposed in these Standards. (Contains 3 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; Science Instruction; Academic Standards; State Standards; Science Tests; Language Arts; Scientific Concepts; Science Teachers; Secondary School Students; Secondary School Teachers

Abstract:
The Common Core Science Standards represent a new effort to increase science learning for all students. These standards include a focus on English and language arts aspects of science learning, and three dimensions of science standards, including practices of science, crosscutting concepts of science, and disciplinary core ideas in the various subject areas. Many of these issues bring important implications for students with learning disabilities, which we discuss in turn. With appropriate supports and applications, students with learning disabilities can potentially benefit greatly from these new standards. However, the demands of these standards may require a higher level of support than those commonly available for many students with learning disabilities. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
College Students; Working Class; Middle Class; Classification; Grade Inflation; Academic Standards; Social Structure; Personality; Student Attitudes; Educational Attitudes; Anti Intellectualism

Abstract:
Have college students become careerists rather than intellectuals? Are working-class students to blame for grade inflation, grade-grubbing, and the downscaling of the university's noble mission of educating the whole person? These assertions, although somewhat buried in a mass of facts and findings, are present in almost every research study on college student "orientations" produced since the 1970s. This article critically examines these assertions from a working-class perspective, pointing out the ways "intellectualism" and "academicism" have been culturally constructed to favor middle-class behavior and actions, arguing instead that anxiety over the economic value of a college degree reflects awareness of intense changes in the occupational structure and has little to do with increased materialism or anti-intellectualism. (Contains 1 table and 9 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Higher Education; State Standards; Educational Technology; Evidence; Teacher Interns; Consortia; Expertise; Severity (of Disability); Alignment (Education); Internship Programs; Academic Standards; National Standards; Mentors; Needs Assessment; Educational Needs; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Best Practices; Teacher Collaboration; College Faculty; Special Education Teachers

Abstract:
Teachers of students with moderate and severe disabilities must possess the skills and knowledge to address a unique set of needs and challenges. These may include, but are not limited to, management of challenging behaviors, performance of health-related procedures, use of assistive technology, and instruction using evidence-based strategies. This article describes the process undertaken by a higher education consortium of faculty with expertise in low incidence disabilities from across institutions of higher education in Kentucky to address the challenge of supporting 1st year teachers (i.e., interns) when assigned mentors and administrators who do not have expertise in this area. This consortium addressed this challenge by creating two documents: (a) an alignment of state standards to professional standards and (b) an addendum to the state internship materials. The intent of this article is to share the development process with others who may wish to design similar documents to address state and national standards for teacher interns. (Contains 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Instructional Materials; Geography; Professional Development; Geography Instruction; Educational Needs; Skill Analysis; Skill Development; Academic Standards; Instructional Design; Instructional Development; Curriculum Development; Educational Strategies; Educational Technology; Partnerships in Education; Change Strategies; Educational Change

Abstract:
Never before in human history has it been more important for a person to be geographically literate. But the unsettling reality is that many teachers and most students are not yet geographically literate. Currently, American students are not even provided opportunities to learn enough geography to understand the very basic aspects of the world in which they live. Without explicit intervention and a dedicated focus on geographic literacy by educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers, U.S. children will be unable to thrive in the global marketplace, unlikely to connect with and care for their natural environment, and unsure about how to relate to people from other parts of the world. One thing is abundantly clear; if American children hope to participate in democracy and play a strong leadership role in the world, they must possess geographic knowledge, understandings, and skills. The Instructional Materials and Professional Development Committee of the Road Map project gathered to identify the needs for geography education in this twenty-first century. These needs span every grade level in the nation's formal and informal education systems in public and private education. These needs extend beyond the stand-alone geography course and exist in science, technology, mathematics, social studies, arts, and English language arts courses as well. These needs can and should be addressed through carefully designed and properly implemented instructional materials and professional development. This article provides ten important recommendations for educators, developers, policymakers, and funders to seriously consider in supporting student learning, teacher learning, and large-scale collaboration and change in the field of geography education through instructional materials and professional development. Each recommendation is presented in the full report with a core argument and supporting research, vignettes of each recommendation in practice, examples of alignment with Common Core State Standards, additional information about recommended strategies or principles, and recommended readings. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Instructional Materials; Geography; Elementary Secondary Education; Geography Instruction; Educational Strategies; Change Strategies; Educational Planning; Partnerships in Education; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Educational Needs; Needs Assessment; Instructional Development; Research Reports; Integrated Curriculum; Behavioral Objectives; Educational Objectives; Curriculum Development; Academic Standards

Abstract:
The National Geographic Society, the Association of American Geographers, the American Geographical Society, and the National Council for Geographic Education partnered to outline a "road map" for long-term strategies to improve K-12 geography education. The partner organizations assembled three committees to create synthesis reports, each of which examined and made recommendations for an area of geography education that is critical to improvement. These areas include education research, assessment, and instructional materials and professional development. The recommendations for each report revolve around advancing a common goal; presenting an approach to geography education that balances "knowing geography" with "doing geography." Articles summarizing two of these reports (Schell et al. this issue; Wertheim et al. this issue) are included in this issue of "The Geography Teacher." This short overview is designed to provide background for those two articles. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Program Effectiveness; Instructional Materials; Geography; Educational Change; Best Practices; Elementary Secondary Education; Geography Instruction; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Evaluation Methods; Evaluation Research; Evaluation Needs; Needs Assessment; Change Strategies; Academic Standards; Alignment (Education); Behavioral Objectives; Educational Objectives

Abstract:
In late 2012, both the second edition of the "Geography for Life: National Geography Standards" and the National Science Foundation-funded "Road Map for Geography Education Project" reports were released; the former document describes the conceptual goals for K-12 geography education, and the latter, a route to coordinating reform efforts to realize those goals. A central premise of the Road Map Project reports is that reform must be implemented comprehensively across each facet of education. This will require a more robust foundation of research about teaching and learning around the geography learning objectives, developing high-quality instructional materials that move students toward those goals, preparing geography teachers to facilitate learning them, and creating assessments that validly and reliably assess them. The Road Map Project assessment report describes a process for creating assessments, from describing best practices for design and use of assessments, to describing a system for articulating what should be assessed, and how it should be assessed. In this article, the authors highlight five central components of the report, including: (1) areas identified as high priorities for geography assessments; (2) a clarification of the goals to be assessed; (3) an examination of how well existing assessments meet those goals; (4) a framework for creating a new generation of assessments that can support reform efforts; and (5) recommendations for where efforts should be focused to implement these changes. (Contains 2 figures and 1 footnote.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website