Facilitates Content Conversations - Standards Talks

The instructor effectively demonstrates a command of the mathematical content standards.
Made by MCESA
APPLY
G
Earn Graduate Credit
Graduate-level credit is available for this micro-credential. You can apply for credit through one of our university partners after successfully completing the micro-credential.
Learn More About Graduate Credit

About this Micro-credential

Key Method

The instructor demonstrates a coherent command of the mathematical content standards and associated pedagogy and effectively interacts with participants to facilitate their learning.

Method Components

The intention of this competency is to examine the degree to which instructor effectively demonstrates command of the mathematical content standards and practices content and the associated pedagogy associated with the standards in a given grade-level mathematics domain. A logical place to demonstrate this competency would be during the “Standards Talk” segment, but that is not necessarily the only point where this competency can be demonstrated.

Components of an Effectively Conducted Standards Talk:

Part A. Demonstrate evidence of preparation by providing a written reflection of your planning process

Part B. Demonstrate preparedness through command of the content knowledge

  • Communicates clearly
  • Demonstrates knowledge of the standards
  • Makes connections across domains
  • Makes connections with the Standards for Mathematical Practice
  • Chooses illustrations and diagrams that illuminate understanding of the standards
  • Addresses misconceptions and the need for accommodation
  • Anticipates “aha” moments

Part C. Interacts effectively with participants

  • Asks purposeful questions that lead participants to key understandings based on the knowledge and understanding established while using the key documentation, such as:
    • The standards document
    • Progressions document
    • “Our Thoughts”
    • Van de Walle book
    • Mining Mat

Part D. Responsive to audience’s questions and comments throughout the standards talk

  • Frequently checks for understanding
  • Adapts standards talk to the participants’ knowledge and understanding
  • Goes deeper where needed and knows when to save some of the deepness for a later moment
  • Knows when to push and when to hold off
  • Watches for signs of disequilibrium and responds appropriately

Part E. Engages the participants

  • Responds supportively to the participants’ questions and comments following the initial inspection of the standards (“What sub-standards and hidden concepts are in each standard?”)
  • Encourages participants to use the Mining Mat throughout the talk as well as referencing it throughout the course
  • Stays within a 15-minute time frame

Research & Resources

Supporting Research

Instructor attends to the PD context

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. C., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

2A. Instructor demonstrates a command of effective communication,

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. C., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

2B. Instructor demonstrates mathematics content knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.

3. Instructor poses purposeful questions

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.)
    http://stanford.io/2aarVaH

4. Instructor responds to participant questions and misconceptions

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. C., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

5. Instructor effectively engages participants in the learning process

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
    http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf

Resources

  • National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards—Mathematics. Washington DC: Author.

The Common Core State Standards in mathematics were built on progressions: narrative documents describing the progression of a topic across a number of grade levels, informed both by research on children’s cognitive development and by the logical structure of mathematics.

  • Rimbey, K. A. (2013). From the Common Core to the Classroom: A Professional Development Efficacy Study for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
    http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.18088
  • Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades Pre-K-2. Pearson.
  • Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades 3-5. Pearson.
  • Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades 6-8. Pearson.

Submission Requirements

Submission Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

The items in this following section detail what must be submitted for evaluation. To earn the micro-credential, you must receive passing evaluations for each question in Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

Part 1. Overview Questions

(300-word limit for each response)

Part A

  • What grade level and domain were covered in this standards talk?
  • How did you prepare for this standards talk? What resources did you use? How did you organize your presentation?
  • How did you customize the standards talk for your participants?

Part 2. Work Examples/Artifacts

Instructor must submit a 15-minute video of a standards talk. The rubric in this section will focus on the instructor’s mathematical content knowledge, the preparation for the standards talk, and the ways in which s/he engages the participants.

Part B
To view the rubric associated with this part, please download the requirements doc at the bottom of the page.

Part C
To view the rubric associated with this part, please download the requirements doc at the bottom of the page.

Part D
To view the rubric associated with this part, please download the requirements doc at the bottom of the page.

Part 3. Instructor Reflection

(300-word limit for each response)

Part E

  • How did you respond to your participants’ demonstrated understanding/misconceptions during the standards talk?
  • How effective do you think this standards talk was relative to your planning?

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Requirements

Download to access the requirements and scoring guide for this micro-credential.
How to prepare for and earn this micro-credential - in a downloadable PDF document

Ready to get started?

APPLY