Annotated Bibliography First Draft

SOURCE 1:

Kendall, John S. Understanding Common Core State Standards, n.p.: ASCD, 2011. eBook

            Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

            In his e-book, Kendall provides an overview of the Common Core Standards and gives the rationale for their development in the United States.  He begins by giving an overview of recent educational trends before standards-based education, during the movement toward the development of educational standards, and finally, under the new Common Core State Standards. Kendall outlines both the advantages and drawbacks associated with the development of the Common Core, arguing the need for a set of standards that will actually serve to close the achievement gap in education.  Next, he gives examples of the Common Core Standards in Math and English, emphasizing the advantages of the Common Core in regards to its organization and specific content.  Regarding the mathematics Standards, Kendall explains the difference between the Mathematical Content and the Mathematical Practice Standards, and he gives examples of each type of standard in order to demonstrate how they differ and eventually connect.  Kendall also highlights the major differences between the old standards and the Common Core in terms of scope, coherence, and specificity, concluding that the Common Core represents the implementation of intentional instruction using unified curricula and assessments that remains manageable while promoting increased student and teacher performance nationwide. 

            Though Kendall talks at length about the various drawbacks and dissenting opinions regarding the implementation of the Common Core, he still argues for their adoption and implementation across the board.  He pulls examples directly from the Standards themselves and does a good job of highlighting the key benefits of the Standards when compared with the disparate state standards currently being implemented.  Kendall also talks at length about the challenges he thinks will be encountered when attempting to implement such rigorous standards. While Kendall supports Common Core implementation, he clearly recognizes that adopting the Standards is just the first hurdle to be encountered when attempting such a dramatic change in American educational standards. 

            This e-book will help my inquiry by giving me a great source of foundational knowledge regarding the Common Core State Standards and the arguments associated with their adoption and implementation.  I also found the explanation of the Math Standards to be very helpful because I was confused as to the differences between the Math Practice and Math Content Standards and why these were separated at all.  I plan to use the examples of Math Content and Math Practice Standards to show how the Math Standards connect to one another. I also plan to show how these standards will connect and build upon one another across the grade levels to show how teachers will expose students to concepts on multiple levels, a task that requires drastically changing their teaching methods in most cases.

·          “The Common Core Mathematics standards differ from many state mathematics standards in a variety of ways: the focus for instruction is made clear for each grade; there is a significant emphasis on students’ conceptual understanding of mathematics; and the Standards for Mathematical Practice are raised to the same level as the Standards for Mathematical Content” (24).

·         “The most notable differences appear in middle school: probability and statistics begins in 6^th grade, and students begin working at expressions of ratio and proportion in 7^th grade.  In 8^th grade, students are expected not only to apply the Pythagorean Theorem but also to prove it. Teachers may find that the specific descriptions, arguments, and proofs required present a greater challenge than their states’ standards for middle school” (25).

·         “The essence of the Common Core initiative can be induced from its name. The nature of the core is of an essential and irreducible set of knowledge and skills, while common suggests a social contract and all that it implies: shared benefit and equitable treatment” (27).

SOURCE 2:

 Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, et al. “Plans to Adopt and Implement            Common Core State Standards in the Southeast Region States. Issues and Answers. REL 2012-No. 136.” Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (2012): ERIC. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

            This study describes how six different southeastern states have planned to analyze, adopt, and implement the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and English.  The researchers said the research came about as a result of a need to gather and compare each state’s particular plans so that information can be used in research on the outcomes associated with a particular plan of action. Then each of the plans for each state were stated and compared on the following points: the rationale given for adopting the Common Core standards; the communication strategies used to build support for the adoption of the Common Core; the timetables for implementation of the Common Core and the rationale given for the implementation year; the preparation timelines for the first year of teaching; the approach to training educators on the Common Core; and finally, the timeline and plans for aligning state assessments to the Common Core Standards.  For North Carolina in particular, researchers reported that the state educational board reviewed the Common Core State Standards extensively prior to seeking support for their implementation, and officials eventually decided to adopt the common standards as given with a plan to implement them beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. Researchers reported that all the states have plans for implementing the Common Core Standards that focus on developing curricular and instructional resources as well as training educators on the Common Core by using multiple formats.  Though the states each adhere to a unique implementation timeline, researchers emphasized that all states will be aligned with the Common Core Standards in time for Common Core-based assessments that will be administered in the 2014-2015 school year. 

            This article provided a wealth of information and did so in a fairly organized manner, though at times, I had a very difficult time keeping track of the differences between each state’s unique implementation plans.  Each different criterion was explained for each state in copious detail, making the article very long and tedious to understand. Thankfully, the researchers simplified the data by providing useful tables that made comparisons between the states very simple.  After viewing the tables based on each of the criteria, I thought the descriptions pointless; there was very little analysis of the trends in the data by the researchers so I don’t understand why they felt the need to describe data already given when they had already given data tables.  Even with all the redundancies of data, this article was very informative in its specific comparisons of Common Core implementation plans and did serve as a good source of information about the plans for implementation specific to North Carolina.

            I plan to use this report as a source of unbiased information regarding the implementation of the Common Core in North Carolina.  The information in the report allows me to understand the plans and timelines specific to my inquiry about North Carolina schools. This is helpful because it gives me credible, specific information on the state specific to my inquiry.  This report also helps me see that North Carolina educational agencies recognized the need to develop methods that would train educators to best implement the Common Core standards in their own classrooms.  Since my inquiry involves the teaching methods developed to implement the Common Core, I can use the information in this article to understand how teachers are educated to teach to its standards, ultimately affecting the successful implementation of the Common Core.

·         “In adopting the common standards, states agree that they will not pick and choose which standards to adopt but will adopt and implement the full set” (3).

·         “North Carolina reported that their state could benefit from the cross-state collaboration fostered by common standards, such as shared instructional resources and textbooks, joint professional development efforts, and the use of common assessments” (7).

·         “Respondents in all six states reported that their state will use a combination of approaches to teach educators statewide. All six will use the Internet to provide online training sessions, including webinars and professional development modules…All six states also reported offering some combination of face-to-face, direct training for school staff and a train-the-trainer approach in which state education agency staff train district teams (a small number of district office and school staff) who in turn train school staff throughout the district” (13).

SOURCE 3:

Burns, Marilyn. “Go Figure: Math and the Common Core.” Educational Leadership 70.4 (2012): 42. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.

            In her article, Burns argues that the Common Core State Standards in mathematics will require teachers to improve their students’ mental math and numerical reasoning skills if they are to adequately prepare them for college and the workforce, as well as the new Common Core-based math assessments.  She describes the Common Core Math standards and gives examples of the different Content and Practice standards in order to show how they differ from and relate to one another.  Then she relates these standards to an example of a mental math problem and argues how the development of mental math skills must be emphasized in the Common Core-aligned classroom if students are to be educated to the Standards and eventually assessed based on them.  She then explains how the need to determine how students reason through and solve math problems occasioned the development of the Math Reasoning Inventory (MRI), a tool that can be used to understand students’ numerical reasoning skills and highlight areas where they need improvement.  She argues that the need to assess and implement strategies to improve numerical reasoning skills is very important to teaching students to the Common Core because of the emphasis on development of analytical reasoning skills.

            I felt that Burns did a good job in explaining the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics in the context of what needs to change in a math teacher’s understanding and teaching strategies.  She is not a little biased towards the use of the MRI assessment as the tool of choice when assessing a students’ mathematical ability, but it is a test she helped develop, so the bias is expected.  This begs the question: are there any other inventories or tools out there that are comparable to the MRI in terms of assessing numerical reasoning?  Burns also gives useful examples of how different learners use their reasoning skills to solve a math problem, making it clear that educators need a tool such as the MRI in order to determine which students need more help than others so that each student is adequately educated under the Common Core. 

            I plan to use this article as an example of one of the many challenges educators face when implementing the Common Core State Standards in mathematics; developing numerical reasoning is clearly essential to the Common Core standards and preparing students for the Common Core-based assessments will require a shift in what skills teachers emphasize in the classroom.  This article also helps me to more fully understand the subtle differences between the Math Content and Math Practice Standards so that I can adequately explain them in my inquiry.

·         “I was reminded that one of the challenges of teaching is to listen to how students reason, rather than listening for responses we expect to hear” (43).

·         “Assessing students’ facility with numerical reasoning is essential to implementing the math standards…This means, for example, that students should be able not only to figure out the answer to a problem like 15 x 12, but also to demonstrate an understanding of multiplication as defined by the practice standards” (44).

·         “The inventory is designed to assess students and then instantly provide a detailed report of the reasoning strategies and understandings that they do and don’t demonstrate, which enables teachers to focus on strengthening any deficient reasoning strategies and underlying understandings about mathematics” (46).

 

Active Reading on Article #2

This next article compares Japan's Course of Study to the Common Core in terms of Mathematics skills.

Active Reading on Article #1

I chose to do the Active Reading technique since I pretty much do this anyway when I read an article. 
This first article compares current mathematics standards to the newly adopted Common Core Standards.

Reflections on Exploratory Essay Second Draft

Josh, you called it, and Megan agreed--I did alright on the Exploratory Essay and my reflections are posted below:

1.) The most helpful advice that I received from Megan was the advice to clean up the many stylistic errors I made on this paper, even in the second draft.  I really messed up the punctuation around some of my quotations and overlooked two blatant typographical errors. For me, that's pretty bad, because I usually pay more attention to the style than I did here.  I'm slipping, I guess. The only good thing is that these errors are easily remedied on the next draft for the portfolio.

2.) I really didn't receive any unhelpful advice here.  Every comment Megan made was warranted and helpful, so nothing to report.  I think I've been out of the game too long to know that certain citation styles have their own fonts; that was definitely news to me since I just started typing my essay in the default font of Microsoft Word 2007.  Good to know that the MLA font of choice is Times New Roman.  Hello, old friend.  It's been too long.

3.) The one question I have for Megan involves citing an online source.  In the comments, she mentioned that I need to designate the lack of pagination with n.p. Does this still need to be added after the quotation if it is citing a website? I was referencing the American Montessori Society webpage when Megan made the comment, so I need to know if I need to add that "n.p." for that type of source or if she was just giving me general information. 

4.) As for revision, I plan to correct the aforementioned typos and stylistic errors.  I also had several places where Megan was confused my my wording about instructors and teachers when discussing the Anyon reading.  I will clarify this as best I can. There's also one place where I need to elaborate on the Anyon article and explain how the "curriculum of work" functions according to her theory.  I plan to explain this further, and I will most likely have to change some wording around to avoid my signature run-on sentences. 

Megan says it's going to go fast for us from here on out, so heads up, everyone.  See you soon in class.

Get Specific or Die Tryin': First Conference Reflections

     Today I had my first conference with Megan, Brian, and Calvin regarding our research inquiry projects.  Each of us took turns to explain our inquiry topic, either by outlining the main components or by reading/summarizing our research proposal letters.  Then we got feedback from Megan and the rest of the group regarding topic direction and where we might need to modify our original ideas to make the inquiry a more attainable goal.  

     With each of our topics, we needed to define some limits and get very specific, such as what kind of social classes or student populations we wanted to research.  Megan especially went a long way to get us there, asking specifc questions that made us redefine our topics to cover specific methods, factors, populations studied, etc., The result was that we avoided broaching a broad subject and eventually having to write about that same subject in a needlessly long paper.  Each of us had great ideas for inquiry projects and the feedback we received at the conference helped shape those ideas into something much more manageable. 

1.) Calvin suggested I compare current teaching methods versus new teaching methods being used in the implementation of Common Core Standards.  Brian suggested examining what was working and what wasn't with each of these teaching methods, and to even look at whether anyone had done research on teaching methods previously dismissed as ineffective. Megan asked me to narrow down my field of study to a specific population (6th through 8th English students from North Carolina) and asked me to define the terms of measurement when referring to "successful" implementation of Common Core (AYP data). Megan also suggested I limit my perspective to consider just the teacher's perspective rather than that of the administrators as well when discussing opinions relating to my topic.

2.) Probably the most helpful advice I received was the suggestion to narrow down my topic into some reasonable frame so that I might write a paper as opposed to a dissertation.  I might be enjoying writing more than I have in a while, but not that much!  I really thought this was an interesting direction to go in and, based on some resources Megan turned me towards, I should be better placed to start looking for research articles and data for this very specific population.  I was already concerned with the breadth of the topic going into the conference and it seems I was right to be so; the first thing Megan said was that most conferences consisted of helping people get their topics more specific and manageable. 

3.) I think the advice to consider what teaching methods haven't worked in the past is the least helpful advice I received.  I appreciated the feedback, but I'm not sure that looking at ineffective teaching methods is going to keep my inquiry specific--if anything, I think it would make for a much broader subject to consider if I were to consider those as well as the successful ones.  I believe I will just stick to examining the teaching methods that have shown marked success in terms of AYP and leave it at that, hoping that it is enough.

4.) Overall, I felt the conference to be an incredibly beneficial use of my time. I had a huge topic going in that I suspected needed redefining, and I was able to do so with help from Megan, Brian, and Calvin.  I guess I really needed to see for sure that my inquiry project was sound (if gigantic) and I could find some decent research on it.  Megan gave me some great websites to check out for clarifications on the Common Core Standards and their implementation in North Carolina, so I have a great head start on my research already. At worst, I have a direction in which to travel. 

5.) While I think I had most of my questions answered at the time of the conference, I have since reconsidered the decision to focus on English students in 6th through 8th grades in North Carolina.  Since my friend (and inspiration for this inquiry) is a math teacher, I believe I want to look at math standards for the same population instead of English. I said English before mostly because we're in an English class, and I forgot to consider that I had a great math resource in my friend.  I believe I will proceed in this direction from here on out, and I apologize for the confusion, folks. I just needed more time to consider all the facts and I didn't think it through in the time I had during Conference--after all, had to get moving onto other people's proposals.  I feel that I can do better with this, though, and so I'm going ahead with it.

The only real question that I didn't ask is whether I should still look at how these methods are accommodating special populations of students.  I think doing so may make my topic too broad again, so I hesitate to look at it. That said, I welcome suggestions as to whether I should consider it as well in my inquiry.

6.) My plans for revision are to examine the teaching methods showing documented success with implementation of Common Core Standards for 6th through 8th grade Math education in North Carolina Schools.  I have clarified my definition of "success" and defined it in terms of AYP statistics documented for this population.  I will also limit my perspective to consider only that of the teachers (omitting the perspective of the administrators) when I discuss the effectiveness of the teaching methods outlined in the research.

Research Proposal

Dear Megan,

            I had lunch with a friend a few weeks ago who works as a math teacher at a charter school in Gaston County. The conversation meandered for a while, but came around to the Common Core Standards schools have adopted recently. I’d heard only a little bit about this initiative from my mother, a teacher herself, so I asked my friend to tell me a bit about it.  My friend proceeded to expound at length on the challenges and pitfalls of implementing what she called a “completely necessary, yet completely impossible” set of standards for educating students.  What was strange was that while she seemed so very excited that such an important step in educational reform had been initiated, she was quite daunted by the prospect of how to go about implementing such rigorous standards.

After our lunch ended, I thought more about these new standards and the huge and very real challenge they must be presenting to educators, administrators, and students. Also, it is such a recent change in educational standards, having only been adopted by most states in the last year, so current educational journals must be publishing some of the first research on this topic even now. I also knew that someone must have had success with this on a pretty big level for over 30 states to have adopted this set of standards. With these things considered, I thought it might be interesting to look at how the different states and school districts adopting the Common Core Standards are successfully implementing them for various populations for school.  Who’s having success? What methods are they using? What are they doing to accommodate exceptional children like academically gifted or autistic students? All these questions made me think that this would make for an interesting inquiry project.

Therefore, I propose to begin my inquiry by learning more about what constitutes the Common Core Standards. I plan to locate and review the published standards and then search the current educational journals for research on implementing them, looking especially for articles that discuss successful teaching methods used and how special student populations will be accommodated.  I will also use my connections with real educators, and plan to interview teachers and administrators that are facing and meeting the challenge of Common Core locally.  I believe a combination of individual interviews and research from the literature will give me the best foundation of information and help me to see the issue from multiple angles.  I hope you agree and think I’m headed in the right direction. If you have any suggestions on how I might improve my plan of attack on the research, I would appreciate any help you might have to give.

                                                                                                            See you in class,

                                                                                                            Meredith Brannon

Exploratory Essay Self-Assessment Reflection

1.) My goals for myself in writing this paper were:
**** to effectively eliminate my own voice and opinion in the paper and try to give voice to my beliefs in terms of the connections I was able to make between the readings
****to reference the readings properly since I have documented difficulty doing that
****to plan this paper using an outline because I hardly ever plan when I write
****to try to use the workshopping in class to improve my paper's content beyond grammar
I think I effectively accomplished the first three goals I mentioned, and each presented it's own challenges.  I had to work very hard to not give my opinion on a paper like this that seems to beg for opinions.  I simply had to work to find passages that illustrated how the authors felt about something rather than focus on stating what I felt or believed.  I don't know that I've ever written an essay quite like this and I'm not a little nervous that I've written off topic. 
I do think I did a fairly decent job of referencing these articles; I found original texts in several cases so that page numbers were as accurate as possible. 
I also wrote an outline for the first time in a very very long time--I probably have only done that when it's been mandatory for an assignment.  I don't like to plan--it's simply not how I write. And I don't think not planning has never really gotten me into very much trouble on an assignment.  Even so, my difficulty in understanding this particular assignment told me that I probably needed to do something different--so I wrote out several ideas and outlines based on topics I could write effectively and selected the best-sounding plan to use for my essay.  That outline seemed to help me write the essay a lot quicker; I just had to flesh out bits of my argument rather than craft it wholly on the fly. 
Unfortunately, I really didn't get a lot out of the workshopping exercise.  I don't know that people had a lot of time to consider my paper after I read it aloud, so I don't think they were able to give me enough feedback beyond that of revising my run-on sentences.  We should stretch the workshop out over a longer period of time, maybe two class periods or something, or just not read papers aloud.

2.)  For the first time in a long time, I used my time to build not just one, but several outlines based on connections I'd seen between the readings.  Then I read them over and picked out the one I thought I could support the best with quotations.  I then began to fill out the arguments and search the texts for exact quotes.  I spent the majority of my time on searching for references and attempting to get the citations right.  I didn't really use a lot of classtime to write the paper; the workshopping helped me notice grammatical mistakes, not a lot else.  I mostly got praise from my group members and that was great, don't get me wrong. I just think I would've gotten more out of the workshop if we'd had more time in class to respond and didn't feel so rushed.  All in all, I think my use of time fit my goals, particularly that of citing references properly.  But I would like to my group members give me more feedback about content as opposed to syntax issues.

3.) I did see an improvement in my writing in terms of my tendency to use run-on sentences.  I got some good feedback from my group members on how I could break up those sentences to make things clearer, and I amended my paper based on their suggestions.  I also made notes on where they thought I could ask more questions about the readings or reorganize my paper to integrate those "questions I was left with" into the body of the paper.  I think I interacted well with my group members and gave them some good feedback as well.  Everyone seemed to read my paper and rethink their own paper in some way, so overall, I think it was a helpful workshopping exercise for all of us.

4.) I think each of my group members contributed to the betterment of my paper.  Joey helped me think about the run-on sentences and gave me some suggestions on how to break up long sentences.  Lynnsey did the same and raised questions about how I organized the paper so that I might think of more questions to ask of the authors and make more connections between the readings.  Josh gave me some very high praise, which did a great deal to assuage my concerns over writing off-topic. 

5.) I've learned that, although I have a lot more experience as a writer than most of the others in class, I still have a long way to go to improve my writing.  I think I can learn a lot from the other students, especially in regards to clarity in my wiritng--I think I know what I'm talking about and I do it well, but they're good judges of just how well I'm really making my point.  I am glad to have people giving honest opinions about my writing that aren't the instructor--and I look forward to people getting comfortable enough with my writing to really critique it hard.  That will hopefully come with time as we get more comfortable with each other and get to know each other's styles better. 

6.) As I said before, the hardest parts were trying to write on-topic and cite sources properly.  I found the assignment a bit ambiguous and I know Megan was doing that intentionally to avoid steering us in a particular direction.  Sometimes you just have to figure it out for yourself, and I really hope I interpreted the assignment correctly.  I'm not 100% certain I did just that--but I did think I avoided giving my opinion in the paper, and as difficult as it was to write this assignment, I think that was the easiest of the tasks to do. 
Citing references and paraphrasing have always been difficult tasks for me, and I worked hard to apply MLA citation guidelines and find the original sources so citations would be super-accurate should someone go looking at the sources.  I just think practicing citing sources using examples in class would be a good use of our class time, since it's such a big deal in academic circles.  I can tell you from experience that doing it incorrectly can have some pretty epic consequences and I'd hate to see people get busted for messing up something like that.
I'd say that I took risks in my paper by picking a very specific topic to discuss rather than a broad issue. Everyone else in my group went with a broad topic and I think they made a good effort of it.  I just found that I couldn't do that without giving my opinion too much to meet the conditions of the assignment as I understood them.  This may have been the complete wrong direction in which to travel--but the assignment left a lot of wiggle room and I thought I would do a better job on the paper by keeping the ideas simple and small.  Too bad my sentences are never simple and small! Guess nobody's perfect...

7.) I think I am most proud of the organization of my paper and how I chose to leave my most interesting question for the end.  I also attempted to do the letter format in the beginning, but that just didn't seem to fit with the aim of the paper in the end.  Since I started off and spent a lot of time talking about how these readings were the same, I wanted to give a little space to how they're different.  Megan explained about the "conversation" these authors are having and the whole point of the paper was to show how they're agreeing with each other--but people rarely agree all the time, and hardly ever when they're talking about a big issue.  I felt it was only appropriate to consider the differences and I think the questions I posed did a good job of that.  I know my choice to do that made my group members reconsider the organization of their own papers, so that is a compliment in itself, really.  I just hope I wrote effectively and didn't go off-assignment--if I did, I at least went all the way with it.

8.) I still think I need improvement with the quotations I used and the choice of connections I selected.  I couldn't get some readings to work for all comparisons, like Kaplan's for example, that I used in only one instance of comparison.  I probably need to go back and try to add in comparisons using that piece, but I found it difficult to do so and so I left it in only one place.  I also attempted to clarify my run-on sentences with the help of my group members' suggestions, and I split up several long, wordy sentences into smaller ones.  At Lynnsey's suggestion, I tried to ask more questions of the papers and integrate those questions into the body paragraphs as opposed to leaving all the questions to the end.

9.)  I said before that I wrote multiple outlines based on connections I had observed between readings and wrote out quotes I remembered that might support them.  I then read through these outlines and selected the one I thought I could flesh out the best.  I then sat down and filled in the argument and focused my "questions" towards the end of the paper.  In the beginning, I attempted to write it in letter form, but after reading the finished rough draft, I went back and edited those parts out.  I then tried to build a Works Cited page based on MLA format and found it difficult to cite the readings from the information readily available to me.  I used placeholders for in-line citations and some of the references and I asked Megan in class before the workshop about suggestions for getting reference information.  During workshopping, I took notes on my group member's suggestions and wrote them on my own hard copy, and I kept their corrected hard copies to see where I needed to correct run-on sentences.  I then edited my paper based on their suggestions for run-on sentences, and I integrated some additional "questions" into the body paragraphs.  Next, I did searches online for original sources of the readings and downloaded the Purdue OWL Reference Style Chart.  I used the chart to modify my placeholder Works Cited and in-line citations to reflect MLA style and the original source page numbers.  I then read the paper one last time and performed a spelling and grammar check in Microsoft Word to correct any obvious mistakes, finally submitting the finished piece to the forum for commentary.

Exploratory Essay: REMIX!!!

In his essay “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT”, test-prep guru Stanley Kaplan explains that critical thinking is “to think things out, to think about the hows and whys” (Kaplan 267).  He believes this is the most important skill to be taught to students in his SAT prep classes, and he uses several different teaching methods to accomplish this goal.  He’s not alone in this belief; the authors of several other readings we’ve talked about in class also believe the skill essential to success, not just in test taking, but for education in general. Though each of these authors is teaching a myriad of learners from multiple demographics, their teaching methods still have certain characteristics in common that serve to unite them as champions of critical thinking skills in the classroom.

                The first teaching method I realized these authors had in common is the usage of newspaper articles and current events as a way to encourage the development of critical thinking skills.  When discussing vocabulary building activities he used to prepare students for the SAT, Kaplan claims in “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT” that newspapers can be a useful tool. He explains, “Each week I instructed students to cut out ten newspaper articles and underline all the challenging words. The more they read, the more powerful their vocabulary became” (Kaplan 271).  Kaplan implies that critical thinking skills were used by the students in order to read and interpret the more challenging material in the newspapers, forcing them to read more and use their critical thinking skills to understand the difficult new vocabulary.  Though Kaplan uses newspapers to expose students to new words, other instructors mentioned our readings use them to expose students to new concepts.  In her article “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work”, Jean Anyon describes the affluent professional class of schools, claiming that social studies class work “involves almost daily presentation by the children of some event from the news” (81).  The instructor guides the discussion of these events “to help [the students] see the connections between events” because, as one instructor says, “These children’s opinions are important—that they learn to reason these things through” (Anyon 84).   Anyon mentions the method of using current events because it is a good example of how critical thinking skills are being taught successfully in upper class schools. This further proves her theory that the “curriculum of work” characteristic of upper class schools (as opposed to that of the lower-class schools) is actually preparing students to take on executive, professional jobs of the upper class.  It is true that Anyon and Kaplan describe using current events and news media to accomplish different goals in the classroom, but in each case, their use of the material helps students a connection between themselves and the larger world—connections made possible by the critical thinking skills they’ve developed.  It begs the question: could other skills such as writing be improved by the use of current events and news media in the classroom?

                I also noticed that several authors mentioned that having an interdisciplinary curriculum present in the school aided their instruction of critical thinking skills thought so necessary for academic success.  On their website, the American Montessori Society states that their elementary school teaching methods involve “work with the Montessori learning materials and an interdisciplinary curriculum as [the student] passes from the concrete to the abstract” (“Introduction to Montessori”). This alludes to the development of critical thinking skills, meaning proponents of the Montessori educational system believe their students are learning in their elementary school years to connect “concrete” facts in order to understand larger, “abstract” concepts. The Montessori Society mentions this curriculum in general terms, and I would like to know what specific subjects comprise their interdisciplinary approach. Another author is more specific about the fields of knowledge included in his approach and how it might improve thinking among his students. In his article “On the Uses of a Liberal Education”, Earl Shorris describes his Clemente humanities course to prospective students as comprised of “philosophy, poetry, art history, logic, rhetoric, and American history” where each subject will be instructed by “people of accomplishment” in each of their respective fields (54).  He implies that each subject is an integral part of the “humanities” education each student is lacking--each of these subjects will help them build “a foundation for getting along with the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world” (53).  Shorris believes that all the humanities are important and intertwined.  His description of how the course flows from the philosophy of Socrates to the artistic depictions of Ancient Greece mirrors the flow of connections he describe the students making between language and thought and history. From the successful outcomes mentioned in the article, Shorris demonstrates how these students became more willing and able make critical connections and learn in the Clemente course—one student even said that this was because “it was the first time anyone ever paid attention to their opinions” (58).  Clearly, the interdisciplinary approach featured in Shorris’ Clemente course and the American Montessori Society model have encouraged the development of these critical thinking skills within each group of students, making this shared method critical to the success of both teaching strategies. 

                The concept of students becoming teachers is another teaching method valued by several authors who use the strategy to effectively promote critical thinking skills.  On the American Montessori Society webpage entitled “Introduction to Montessori”, student teachers are mentioned as the “hallmark of the Montessori method”, where “older students reinforce their learning by teaching concepts they’ve already mastered”.  This implies that when students become teachers they gain more skills than through instruction by the teacher alone, making this teaching method essential to the students’ development as learners.  This concept is also seen in Jean Anyon’s description of the teaching methods characteristic of upper-class schools.  She describes language arts instructional methods used within executive elite class of schools, outlining how each student in the class “had to plan a lesson…and explain the concept to the class” (Anyon 85).  Grades were given based on the student’s style and presentation of the lesson, as well as their classroom management skills.  Anyon describes this method as the predominant teaching method used in the language arts classes in this type of school, implying the following: that the leadership and critical thinking skills developed during this activity are of high priority to the executive elite students, and that such skills are crucial for the students’ development as future executive-level workers. I noticed that both authors stress the importance of developing these skills in the elementary years, so I wondered: would the student teacher method be as effective at promoting critical thinking skills in older students like those in Shorris’ Clemente course?

                Another teaching method I noticed to be common among the readings we’ve read in class is the use of guided choice in student activities.  The American Montessori Society mentions this as another hallmark of their teaching philosophy on their “Introduction to Montessori” webpage, claiming that “the child, through individual choice, makes use of what the [classroom] environment offers to develop himself”.  By making this part of the foundation of their educational structure, the Montessori Society shows that giving students “freedom within limits” is essential to improving critical thinking. They believe that freedom encourages students to learn independently and figure things out in their own unique ways; the teacher will not always be there to tell them how to think.  Shorris also mentions an instance where students chose to take over their class during the logic section of his Clemente course in the humanities, resulting in a very positive change in their reasoning skills. The logic professor gave the students a difficult problem and sat back as students went to the board to solve the problem for themselves.  The discussion over the solution was intense and respectful; Shorris states: “[the character of the argument] was even more polite than it had been in the classroom, because now they governed themselves” (58).  This evidence demonstrates how guided choice within the classroom led students to continue their learning even outside the classroom, making even more use of their newly developed critical thinking and logic skills  than in the author’s classroom alone. Both authors speak to the effectiveness of guided choice in the classroom in promoting independent critical thought, but of all the teaching methods, I am most skeptical of this one’s effectiveness. After reading about the utility of guided choice in these instances, I thought about some of the drawbacks to guided choice in the classroom.  Anyon mentions instances where classroom management became an issue for teachers employing this method in the executive elite schools, so I wonder: what disciplinary or classroom management techniques have to be used in tandem with guided choice in order to avoid chaos in the classroom?   Also, is guided choice more appropriate as a teaching method for more mature students as opposed to all ages?

After noticing the similarities and differences between the teaching methods described in each article, I have to wonder at the effectiveness of introducing a novel teaching method into an established classroom and seeing how it would affect the development of critical thinking for students.  While several of the methods are shared between the teachers and authors of these articles, each classroom situation seems to be missing something and could stand to be improved by the addition of a new and effective way of learning.  For example, what would happen if Shorris were to begin to use current events in his humanities classes? Would that help his students to apply their new philosophy or logic concepts to their own lives in a more effective way than using hypothetical situations? Would using student teaching methods improve how students are prepared for the SAT in Kaplan’s courses? Could the “executive elite” classes benefit more from an interdisciplinary approach like that outlined by the Montessori system?  It would seem that since all the authors achieved success in their classrooms by employing these different methods, they might argue that each different classroom would be positively affected by the inclusion of a novel teaching method.  Each method seems to have been proven effective, so I think it would what would happen in terms of critical thinking development if a teacher were to employ all these teaching methods in one classroom.    

Works Cited

Anyon, Joan. “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work.” Journal of Education 162.1 (1980): 67-92.

Kaplan, Stanley. “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT.” Considering Literacy: Reading and Writing the Educational Experience. Ed. Linda Adler-Kassner. New York: Pearson, 2006. 265-273. Print.

Shorris, Earl. “On the Uses of a Liberal Education.” Harper’s September 1997: 50-60. Print.

“Introduction to Montessori.” American Montessori Society. American Montessori Society, n.d. Web. 1 March 2013.