Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Teaching and Measuring Cognitive Readiness pp 117–134Cite as

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1611 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achieve, Inc. (2008a). Out of many, one: Toward rigorous common core standards from the group up. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achieve, Inc. (2008b). Closing the expectations gap 2008. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achieve, Inc. (2009). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.achieve.org/node/175

  • ACT, Inc. (2005). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Iowa City, IA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L. (2007a). The end(s) of testing (2007 AERA presidential address). Educational Researcher, 36(6), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brown, R., & Conley, D. (2007). Comparing high school assessments to standards for success in entry-level university courses. Educational Assessment, 12(2), 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • California State University (CSU). (2009). Early assessment program. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from http://www.calstate.edu/EAP/12/19/09

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative: The standards. Retrieved January 14, 2011, from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

  • Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Report prepared for the Gates Foundation. Eugene, OR: EPIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino, J., & Bonner, S. (2009). High school exit exam scores and college performance. Educational Assessment, 14(1), 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and race. Social Science Research, 33, 464–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. D. (2004). Cognitive readiness: Preparing for the unexpected. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key to next generation assessment success (AACC Report). Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Miller, M. (2008, December 7). Speaking from experience. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/07/news/OE-MILLER7

  • 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 

  • OECD. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Snow, C., & Van Hemel, S. (Eds.). (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: NRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, 311 GSE & IS Building, 300 Charles E. Young Drive North, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1522, USA

    Joan L. Herman

Authors
  1. Joan L. Herman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan L. Herman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , National Center for Research on Evaluati, University of Southern California, Longbow Drive 15366, Los Angeles, 91403, California, USA

    Harold F. O'Neil

  2. Office of Naval Research, Inglewood Ct. 2431, Arlington, 22043, Virgin Islands, USA

    Ray S. Perez

  3. National Center for Research on Evaluati, Standards, and Student Testing, CRESST/UCLA, Charles E. Young Drive North 301, Los Angeles, 90095-1521, California, USA

    Eva L. Baker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Herman, J.L. (2014). The Development and Assessment of Cognitive Readiness: Lessons Learned from K-12 Education. In: O'Neil, H., Perez, R., Baker, E. (eds) Teaching and Measuring Cognitive Readiness. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7579-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation