Building a Better Reading-Writing Assessment: Bridging Cognitive Theory, Instruction, and Assessment

Based upon our work at the district, state, and national levels, we address the following issues: how to improve large-scale writing assessments, and how to create bridges between effective reading and writing instruction and writing assessment

Making Thinking Visible: A Method to Encourage Science Writing in Upper Elementary Grades

In order to make a dramatic change in the way teachers approach science writing, the authors found it necessary to address both science instruction as a whole and the use of writing during various stages. To guide them in this endeavor and communicate a concrete idea of an ideal foundation for highly effective science writing to teachers, the authors turned to the CORE Model of Instruction. The CORE Model on instruction, which was originally developed as a representation of the manner in which reading and writing can be linked and reinforcing to each other, is described in this article. The CORE Model incorporates four elements: Connect, Organize, Reflect, and Extend

Best Practices in Writing Assessment

Our assignment in this chapter is to discuss best practices in writing assessment, a task that poses a twofold challenge for teachers-first, the task of providing authentic opportunities for students to acquire skill in writing while covering an ever-increasing array of other curriculum demands; second, the overriding pressures to ensure that students perform well on the standardized tests that have become the primary accountability index. As we complete this chapter, few state testing systems rely to any significant degree on performance tests for measuring student achievement. Multiple-choice tests dominate, and on-demand writing tests (including the SAT) generally contravene the counsel provided by the College Board. Our purpose is to survey assessment concepts and techniques supported by research and practical experience and to suggest ways to fit these ideas into the realities of policies that, although well intended, often conflict with best practices. The advice from the College Board illustrates this point; it captures many facets of best practices, but the real SAT assessment permits none of these elements. We have limited space for presenting how-to details, but we will provide selected references to help apply the ideas. The chapter is organized around three topics. First, we describe the concept of embedded classroom writing assessments designed to inform instruction and provide evidence about learning. The bottom line here is the recommendation that writing tasks (instruction and assessment) be designed to support the learning of significant academic topics (Urquhart & Mclver, 2005). Next, we present several contrasts that emerge from this perspective: process versus product, formative versus summative evaluation, and assessment versus testing. Finally, we review a set of building blocks that is essential to all writing assessments, especially those that are classroom-based: the prompt, the procedures, and the rubrics. As you have probably realized from the scenarios and the discussion thus far, our focus will be on composing more than mechanics. Attention to spelling and grammar is eventually important, but it helps if the writer has something to say and has learned how to organize his or her ideas.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/education_books/1002/thumbnail.jp

Best Practices in Writing Assessment for Instruction

Our assignment in this chapter is to discuss best practices in writing assessment, a task that poses a twofold challenge for teachers-first, the task of providing authentic opportunities for students to acquire skill in writing while covering an ever-increasing array of other curriculum demands; second, the overriding pressures to ensure that students perform well on the standardized tests that have become the primary accountability index. As we complete this chapter, few state testing systems rely to any significant degree on performance tests for measuring student achievement. Multiple-choice tests dominate, and on-demand writing tests (including the SAT) generally contravene the counsel provided by the College Board. Our purpose is to survey assessment concepts and techniques supported by research and practical experience and to suggest ways to fit these ideas into the realities of policies that, although well intended, often conflict with best practices. The advice from the College Board illustrates this point; it captures many facets of best practices, but the real SAT assessment permits none of these elements. We have limited space for presenting how-to details, but we will provide selected references to help apply the ideas. The chapter is organized around three topics. First, we describe the concept of embedded classroom writing assessments designed to inform instruction and provide evidence about learning. The bottom line here is the recommendation that writing tasks (instruction and assessment) be designed to support the learning of significant academic topics (Urquhart & Mclver, 2005). Next, we present several contrasts that emerge from this perspective: process versus product, formative versus summative evaluation, and assessment versus testing. Finally, we review a set of building blocks that is essential to all writing assessments, especially those that are classroom-based: the prompt, the procedures, and the rubrics. As you have probably realized from the scenarios and the discussion thus far, our focus will be on composing more than mechanics. Attention to spelling and grammar is eventually important, but it helps if the writer has something to say and has learned how to organize his or her ideas.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/education_books/1004/thumbnail.jp

Long-term outcomes following a single corticosteroid injection for trigger finger

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of corticosteroid injection for trigger finger are well documented only with short-term follow-up. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the long-term effectiveness of a single injection and to examine predictors of success up to ten years after injection. METHODS: This case series analyzed 366 first-time corticosteroid injections in flexor tendon sheaths from January 2000 to December 2007 with a minimum follow-up duration of five years. Two hundred and forty patients (66%) were female, 161 patients (44%) had multiple trigger fingers, and eighty-eight patients (24%) had diabetes at the time of injection. The primary outcome of treatment failure was defined as subsequent injection or surgical trigger finger release of the affected digit. Medical records were reviewed, and any patients without documented failure or a return office visit in 2012 to 2013 were contacted by telephone regarding symptom recurrence and the need for additional treatment. Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank test and Cox regression analysis assessed the effect of baseline patient and disease characteristics on injection success. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of patients demonstrated long-term treatment success after a single injection. In the final regression model, the interaction of sex and the number of trigger fingers was the single predictor of treatment success. Exploring this association revealed a ten-year success rate of 56% for female patients presenting for the first time with a trigger finger compared with 35% in male patients presenting for the first time with a trigger finger, 39% in female patients with multiple trigger fingers, and 37% in male patients with multiple trigger fingers. Eighty-four percent of treatment failures occurred within the first two years following injection. Patient age, symptom type, and undifferentiated diabetes status were not predictive of treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: Female patients presenting with their first trigger finger have the highest rate of long-term treatment success after a single corticosteroid injection. Patients who continue to experience symptom relief two years after injection are likely to maintain long-term success. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Increasing Teachers\u27 Metacognition Develops Students\u27 Higher Learning during Content Area Literacy Instruction: Findings from the Read-Write Cycle Project

Success in the 21st century, for individuals and societies, requires competence in comprehending and communicating in the academic disciplines--the natural sciences, history, geography, and more. The Read-Write Cycle (RWC) Project, a three year longitudinal research study conducted from 2005-2008 in ten public elementary schools in southern California, explored the effectiveness of curriculum and instructional strategies that integrate literacy with disciplinary knowledge with the simultaneous goals of: (1) enhancing students\u27 literacy outcomes; and (2) broadening and deepening knowledge of the content area. Funded by the U.S. Institute of Education Sciences, the RWC Project concentrated over years one and two on 1,024 students in grades three through six and the ongoing professional development of 18 classroom teachers. This documentary account focuses on one aspect of the larger project, specifically the RWC Project\u27s effect on teachers\u27 metacognition about their own practice leading to upper elementary grade students\u27 higher learning by developing students\u27: (1) metacognition and reflection; (2) exploration and depth in content domains; and (3) integration of literacy in content areas

A Student\u27s Guide to giant Viruses Infecting Small Eukaryotes: From Acanthamoeba to Zooxanthellae

The discovery of infectious particles that challenge conventional thoughts concerning “what is a virus” has led to the evolution a new field of study in the past decade. Here, we review knowledge and information concerning “giant viruses”, with a focus not only on some of the best studied systems, but also provide an effort to illuminate systems yet to be better resolved. We conclude by demonstrating that there is an abundance of new host–virus systems that fall into this “giant” category, demonstrating that this field of inquiry presents great opportunities for future research

Envenomations by Bothrops and Crotalus Snakes Induce the Release of Mitochondrial Alarmins

Skeletal muscle necrosis is a common manifestation of viperid snakebite envenomations. Venoms from snakes of the genus Bothrops, such as that of B. asper, induce muscle tissue damage at the site of venom injection, provoking severe local pathology which often results in permanent sequelae. In contrast, the venom of the South American rattlesnake Crotalus durissus terrificus, induces a clinical picture of systemic myotoxicity, i.e., rhabdomyolysis, together with neurotoxicity. It is known that molecules released from damaged muscle might act as ‘danger’ signals. These are known as ‘alarmins’, and contribute to the inflammatory reaction by activating the innate immune system. Here we show that the venoms of B. asper and C. d. terrificus release the mitochondrial markers mtDNA (from the matrix) and cytochrome c (Cyt c) from the intermembrane space, from ex vivo mouse tibialis anterior muscles. Cyt c was released to a similar extent by the two venoms whereas B. asper venom induced the release of higher amounts of mtDNA, thus reflecting hitherto some differences in their pathological action on muscle mitochondria. At variance, injection of these venoms in mice resulted in a different time-course of mtDNA release, with B. asper venom inducing an early onset increment in plasma levels and C. d. terrificus venom provoking a delayed release. We suggest that the release of mitochondrial ‘alarmins’ might contribute to the local and systemic inflammatory events characteristic of snakebite envenomations

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707