Petrosky argues that students benefit from reading whole books—as opposed to marching through them chapter by chapter—before they study them in class.
In this blog, Grainger argues the need to allow students opportunities to explain their reasoning to each other and to accept that errors of all sorts are common to doing real science.
Petrosky argues that our outdated factory model of education allows us to believe that formulas, templates, and automated feedback can replace students' needs to write something for someone and their need to have readers with repertoires of human responses to their works.
In this blog, Petrosky and Mihalakis argue for abandoning templates for writing and opting instead for having students write about and write like engaging, challenging texts that span the universe of genres.
In this blog, Petrosky and Mihalakis explain the development and uses of two types of portfolios of students' work for curriculum embedded formative assessment along with a more traditional type of formative assessment that they refer to as drop-in. Their blog includes one-page guides that can be used to norm the development of performance assessments and to gauge mathematics and English/literacy tasks for their cognitive demands.
In this blog, Petrosky makes the case of using performance assessments and portfolios rather than multiple choice tests of any sort.
Spiegel makes the case for science education as a vital component for all students' education from Kindergarten through graduation.
Interview with Anthony Petrosky, Co-Director of the Institute for Learning, and Associate Dean of the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh.
Interview with Rebecca Grainger, a member of the Institute for Learning's Disciplinary Literacy Science Team.
Interview with Virginia Loh-Hagan, the newest member of IFL's ELA team.
Petrosky explains the importance of explicitly teaching students to use a repertoire of academic language for introducing, citing, and explain text references in their essays for the ELA/literacy CCSS.
Bill, Campo and Goldman discuss the role of direct instruction in the CCSS mathematics classroom environment.
CCSS Success Requires District and School Leaders to Have Powerful Strategies for Improving the Instructional Core—Here's How to Get Started.
Bill and Goldman discuss detailed and focused lesson planning for the mathematical understanding emphasized in the CCSS.
Mihalakis and Petrosky describe what good ELA/Literacy curriculum needs to look like to prepare students for the upcoming PARCC CCSS assessments.
Bill and Goldman argue that student understanding and use of mathematical practices can and should be assessed.
Jordan and Spiegel make the point that science teachers need to understand the CCSS regarding writing in the science classroom.
Mihalakis and Petrosky argue that understanding the gist of texts is a crucial scaffold to reaching the CCSS standards of reading comprehension.
Bill and Goldman explain the importance of paying attention to the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice, particularly Standard #7, "Look for and make use of structure.
Petrosky addresses what the new PARCC assessments suggest will need to change in ELA/literacy instruction.
Petroksy argues that context for historical and scientific documents matters immensely. A sentence by sentence close, literal analysis of these documents runs the risk of losing the complexity of the documents being read.
Petrosky makes an argument for using a full range of learning repertoires. When readers work with a repertoire of text-based studies, the grain size of the close readings can be adjusted by the kinds of questions being asked and the standards being enacted by those questions.