Advertisement

The Development and Assessment of Cognitive Readiness: Lessons Learned from K-12 Education

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter shares examples and considers what lessons can be learned from the K-12 education sector’s experience in defining and assessing readiness. Using readiness definitions and assessment strategies at three key transition points, including readiness for kindergarten, college, and challenging work, the chapter identifies commonly required capacities, such as relevant content knowledge; cognitive strategies such as problem solving and analytic reasoning; social competence, including teamwork and leadership; communication; motivation and persistence; and metacognition. The consequences of a mismatch between the capacities needs for readiness and measures of readiness also are considered. Finally, the core elements of training and assessment systems to support readiness are discussed.

Keywords

Content Knowledge School Readiness Common Core State Standard Early Childhood Program College Readiness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported herein was partially supported by grants from the Office of Naval Research, Award Number N000140810126, and the Gates Foundation, Award Number 59559. The findings and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Office of Naval Research or the Gates Foundation.

References

  1. Achieve, Inc. (2008a). Out of many, one: Toward rigorous common core standards from the group up. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Achieve, Inc. (2008b). Closing the expectations gap 2008. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Achieve, Inc. (2009). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.achieve.org/node/175
  4. ACT, Inc. (2005). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Iowa City, IA: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, E. L. (2007a). The end(s) of testing (2007 AERA presidential address). Educational Researcher, 36(6), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, E. L. (2007b). Model-based assessments to support learning and accountability: The evolution of CRESST’s research on multiple-purpose measures. Educational Assessment (Special Issue), 12(3&4), 179–194.Google Scholar
  7. Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In S. Newman & D. Dickerson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research. New York: Guillford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (pp. 20–50). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, R., & Conley, D. (2007). Comparing high school assessments to standards for success in entry-level university courses. Educational Assessment, 12(2), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. California Community Colleges, California State University, University of California. (1982). Statement on competencies in mathematics expected of all entering freshman. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/mathcomp.html
  12. California Department of Education (CDE). (2009). Introduction to desired results. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/desiredresults.asp
  13. California State University (CSU). (2009). Early assessment program. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from http://www.calstate.edu/EAP/12/19/09
  14. Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., & Jaynes, C. (2009). Text genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference. Reading Psychology, 30(6), 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010, March 18). Cal State to require remedial courses before freshman year. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 14, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/cal-state-to-require-remedial-courses-before-freshman-year/21915
  17. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative: The standards. Retrieved January 14, 2011, from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
  18. Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Report prepared for the Gates Foundation. Eugene, OR: EPIC.Google Scholar
  19. D’Agostino, J., & Bonner, S. (2009). High school exit exam scores and college performance. Educational Assessment, 14(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and race. Social Science Research, 33, 464–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher, J. D. (2004). Cognitive readiness: Preparing for the unexpected. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.Google Scholar
  22. Geiser, S., & Studley, R. (2003). UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Russell, J. L., Marsh, J. A., & Miles, J. (2008). Accountability and teaching practices: School-level actions and teacher responses. Research in the Sociology of Education, 16, 31–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  25. Herman, J. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Herman, J. L. (2007). Accountability and assessment: Is public interest in K-12 education being served? (CRESST Report 728). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  27. Herman, J. L. (2008). Accountability and assessment in the service of learning: Is public interest in K-12 education being served? In L. Shepard & K. Ryan (Eds.), The future of test based accountability. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Herman, J. L. (2009). Moving to the next generation of standards for science: Building on recent practices (CRESST Report 762). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  29. Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key to next generation assessment success (AACC Report). Los Angeles, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  30. Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117–142). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). Introduction: The place of analogy in cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2005). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–78). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, V., & Burkham, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Boston: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, M. (2008, December 7). Speaking from experience. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/07/news/OE-MILLER7
  36. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Phelan, J., Choi, K., Vendlinski, T., Baker, E. L., & Herman, J. L. (2009). The effects of POWERSOURCE intervention on student understanding of basic mathematical principles (CRESST Tech. Rep. No. 763). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., & Cogan, L. S. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 10–26.Google Scholar
  41. Snow, C., & Van Hemel, S. (Eds.). (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: NRC.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). America’s high school graduates: Results from the 2005 NAEP high school transcript study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information StudiesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations