Join Our Discussion

I-CAT/Common Core Integration Survey Results

Key Study Information

Purpose:

A focus group was held on September 3rd, 2010 at Heartland AEA 11 to examine several proposals for integrating the Common Core State Standards ("Common Core"), adopted by the Iowa State Board of Education, into the Iowa Curriculum Alignment Toolkit (I-CAT). 

Demographic Information:

  • The group consisted of eight educators from suburban and rural Heartland districts who are responsible for curriculum and/or school improvement efforts for their respective districts.
  • All eight of these educators participated in group discussion.
  • Five of these educators completed the I-CAT/Common Core Integration Survey. Attrition was due to scheduling conflicts that prevented them from staying long enough to hear all of the proposals and to take the survey.

Method and Materials:

Heartland's alignment specialist facilitated the focus group session using the visual presentation and handout found here. Focus group members were free to ask questions and engage in conversation freely with the facilitator, Heartland administrators, and each other throughout the 20 minute session. At the end of the session, focus group members took approximately 2-3 minutes to independently complete the I-CAT/Common Core Integration Survey online.

Results

Data Display

Figure 1. Graph of rank order ratings for each of the three proposals.



Table 1. Table of rank order ratings for each of the three proposals and total number of responses by proposal



Table 2. General comments provided by focus group members

Data Synthesis and Interpretation

Overall, Proposal C received the highest ratings. Anecdotally, conversation during the focus group centered on the idea that there is still a desire to get broader information about what teachers teach beyond their own grade level to detect possible gaps and overlaps. Furthermore, the group generally felt that having the flexibility to also have teachers reflect on grade-adjacent levels instead of being limited to pre-defined grade spans (i.e., K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12) was appealing. For example, a second grade teacher would also complete reflections for first and third grade content, not kindergarten and first grade content (Proposal A) or just first grade content (Proposal B)

A slight modification was requested to Proposal C during the session, jut prior to survey completion. Instead of having teachers manually select one grade level to reflect on at a time, focus group members suggested having the adjacent-grade level content automatically populate in an un-labeled manner once the teacher selects his/her grade level. Additionally, several focus group members indicated verbally that having teachers just focus on their own grade level or labeling content according to grade level for data entry could lead to increased pressure to "select the right content" instead of honestly and accurately reflecting on what students had the opportunity to learn.

Overall, the information gathered during this focus group indicates a desire to pursue Proposal C or a modification of Proposal C as detailed above.
Comments