High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage Work Group Meeting January 9, 2006 MEA...
-
Upload
verity-owens -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage Work Group Meeting January 9, 2006 MEA...
High School Science Content Expectations:
Setting the Stage
Work Group MeetingJanuary 9, 2006
MEA Building
Office of School Improvement
Michigan Department of Education
High School Content Expectations – External VariablesWhy are we doing this now?
NCLB – Assessments aligned to rigorous standards
K – 8 GLCE – response to NCLB, set the stage for transition
Michigan Merit Exam National attention to high school reform –
Achieve and state curricular/course standards Cherry Commission – Michigan’s economic
future depends on postsecondary engagement Postsecondary “remediation”
High School Content Expectations – External Variables
MDE’s High School Redesign – 6 Action Teams: Content Standards, Assessment, Promising Practices…
High School Graduation Requirements National Governor’s Association – $1.8 million
grant awarded over 2 years; Enrolled Michigan in American Diploma Project
Request from the Practitioners – Define high school expectations
Competenciesfor High School Completion
Academic CoreElectives
Post-secondary Preparation
Core Academic Environment for Delivery
Policy needed for Reform
Content Standards
MathematicsEnglishScience
Social Studies
CTE Integrated
Instructional Design & Delivery
Infrastructure
School Redesign
Policy-makingState BoardLegislature
IncentivesRequirementsPostsecondary
Information Gathering: PresentationsPosition Development: Group discussions, advisory input
Position Dissemination: Roll out, publications
High School Redesign
Who are the key players? CAO lead on High School Redesign Office of School Improvement lead on curriculum Office of Educational Assessment and
Accountability lead on Michigan Merit Charles (Andy) Anderson and Robert Poel,
Science Co-chairs Betty Underwood, Assistant Director, OSI Sue Codere Kelly, Project Coordinator, OSI Kevin Richard, Science Consultant, OSI Work Group is the “Academic Review”
Who is OSI? Curriculum & Instruction
Curriculum – ELA, Math, Science, SS, the Arts Reading First Academic Support – PSAs, Migrant, ELL,
Homeless, CSR, AP, GTC, Dual, Alternative, Blue Ribbon, Boarding
School Improvement Field Services – 5 Regions
Title 1 (and others) NCLB/AYP High Priority Schools
OSI… 73 FTE Civil Servants 40 + contracted/on loan consultants $15 million budget $900 million flow-through Director, 2 Assistant Directors 3 Supervisors 2 Manager Consultants
Roles of Key Players Andy Anderson and Bob Poel
Convene and facilitate work group(s) Provide content/process expertise and
direction Review final documents Hub for all issues Represent the MDE when requested
Betty Underwood Represent OSI and director Convene and facilitate next steps Budget authority In the loop on committee decisions
Roles… Susan Codere/Kelly
Responsible for production in an organized, efficient, and timely manner for final Board approval
Serves as the central collection point of the project – NGA related Responsible for logistics of project Ensures an "expectations" path as opposed to repackaging our current
"standards“ and keeping the next part of the project in her scope Convene the meetings for subsequent layers of review teams Serves as a valuable resource for researching information on behalf of
the committees OSI's point person for activities that relate to high school curriculum in
general Support for Andy and Bob, has the latitude to make suggestions on
formatting and process All other duties as assigned by the director reports directly to Director on this project and works in tandem with
Betty regarding the day-to-day operations of high school content expectations development
Roles… Kevin Richard
Serves as MDE Science representative Provides statewide perspective Provides content expertise Lead on dissemination and companion
documents Works with Sue on subsequent layers of review Provides input to Betty/Sue on feasibility
Your Role Collaborate as a member of a team Understand your “commission” Be sensitive to the political nature inherent
in doing work for a statewide initiative Accept the fact that this is an iterative
process Reach consensus, support group decisions Skate to where the puck is going…
Your Mission As a team, develop a draft of high school course
content expectations - consideration of variables that impact our work
Virtual, face-to-face, topical groups Do not “re-package” previous work Forward thinking…curricular format options,
companion documents, instructional support, assessment
Work group chairs are responsible for the product
Curricular Format Options
9th Grade
ELA Overview Algebra I or Geometry
10th Grade
American Literature
Geometry or Algebra II
11th Grade
British/World Literature Algebra II or Pre-Calculus or Statistics
12th Grade
ELA/Overview Pre-
Calculus or AP Statistics or AP
Calculus
1. Traditional Course/Grade Specific – CTE Integrated
3. By the End of High School
Set of Content Expectations
Mathematics
ELA
Social Studies
Science
CTE Integrated
2. Throughout the High School Experience
Integrated Sequence of Content Expectations with CTE
Transparency, Specificity, Pacing
EXAMPLE
Draft Documents
State Board of Education Review
5 - 6 months prior to requesting approval
# 4
Draft Documents
Web Review
30 – 90 days to review, process
comments
#5-A, 6
Draft Documents
National Review
Edited Draft to Achieve or other
#8
Final Documents
Dissemination
3 Regional
10 Localized
# 10
OSI Curriculum Protocol Flowchart
Draft Documents
Work Group
Edit draft based on National Review
#8
Final Documents
State Board of Education
Request for Approval
#9
Draft Documents
MDE Internal Review Group
MDE Management, PR
#2, 3
Draft Documents
Small Review Group
MDE & representative practitioners
# 1
Document Development
Work Group of Scholars
Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members
OSI Convened
Draft Documents
Work Group Reconvened
Edit based on Web Review
#7-A, 7-B
Developing Science Content Expectations: Key Issues1. Constraints on development process and
product1. Timeline2. Expectations and review process3. Capacity of system to teach for student learning
2. Possible criteria for science expectations that support useful and connected knowledge
1. Content to be included2. Specifications for form of expectations, criteria for
student understanding3. (Setting boundaries)
Constraints: Timeline We must have a draft ready for review by April
Tradeoff: sharing ideas vs. setting parameters quickly Tradeoff: originality (i.e., writing ourselves rather than adapting
other models) vs. quality and consistency of product Tradeoff: consultation vs. getting the job done (aiming for
process that is transparent but based on what those of us in the room now bring to the table)
We must agree to specifications then write to those specifications
Constraints: Expectations and Review Process Flanagan recommendations: Biology,
chemistry or physics, one other course We will need to develop recommendations for
4 courses in grades 8-12 First step: Essential and advanced
expectations for end of high school Internal review Achieve review (Achieve.org)
Questions for ACHIEVE Review (from Website) Are the standards as rigorous as those of highly regarded
states and nations? Is there a clear progression of knowledge and skills as students grow older? Do the standards include samples of student work to illustrate the quality and complexity of student expectations?
Are the standards clearly written and easy to understand? Are they specific enough to provide clear guidance to students, teachers, parents, administrators, and curriculum and assessment developers? Do they focus on measurable content, knowledge and skills?
Are the standards teachable, or do they sacrifice breadth for depth? Do the standards balance mastery of knowledge with conceptual understanding? Are connections among the disciplines emphasized?
Constraint: Capacity of the System to Teach for Understanding Tradeoff: Procedural display vs. useful and
connected knowledge Tradeoff: content coverage vs. practices
associated with useful and connected knowledge
Procedural Display Definition: Learning to manipulate words and
symbols without fully understanding their meaning
Antonym: Useful and connected knowledge Useful for explanation, prediction, technological design Connections among observations, patterns, models and
theories Connections among different representations (words,
equations, graphs, tables, drawings, etc.)
An Example of Procedural Display: The Montillation of Traxoline
It is very important that you learn about traxoline. Traxoline is a new form of zionter. It is montilled in Ceristanna. The Ceristannians gristerlate large amounts of fevon and then bracter it to quasel traxoline. Traxoline may well be one of our most lukizes snezlaus in the future because of our zionter lescelidge.
Answer the following questions in complete sentences. 1. What is traxoline?2. Where is traxoline montilled?3. How is traxoline quaselled?4. Why is it important to know about traxoline
Research Findings and Personal Experience Procedural display is the dominant form of
science learning in American high schools College-level examples from my
experience (senior science majors) What determines the mass of a sealed bag and
its contents? Does changing the density change the mass?
Where does the mass of a tree come from? Does knowing the chemical formula for photosynthesis help you to answer this question?
Development of an Inquiry-Based Science Curriculum Where to start? What standards and
benchmarks? Developers expectations and Classroom realities. Importance of field testing and revision. Covering content or uncovering concepts. The nature of scientific inquiry. How scientist
make claims and persuade others? The tyranny of large population states with state
wide adoptions. Researched-based decisions versus practical
realities. The pedagogical contract. Who establishes it?
Conclusion We need to push for useful and connected
knowledge of carefully selected content Virtually unanimous belief of people doing
research and development in science learning: We are trying to cover too much content too shallowly
Virtually unanimous reaction of subject matter specialists: Overall, this looks like a lot to cover without
slipping into procedural display The coverage of my area is inadequate
Possible Criteria: Included ContentEssential content1. Included in NAEP framework2. Necessary for students to play roles of
responsible citizens: learner, consumer, voter, worker, volunteer, advocate
Advanced content1. Important for specific kinds of work2. Important preparation for college science
courses
Possible Criteria: Specifications for UnderstandingNAEP categories of practice (page 83)
1. Identifying Science Principles2. Using Science Principles3. Using Scientific Inquiry 4. Using Technological Design
NRC Science Learning Study strands of scientific proficiency1. Understanding and using scientific explanations of the natural
world2. Generating, and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations3. Understanding how personal and scientific knowledge are
constructed4. Productive participation in the science classroom
Specifications for Understanding (cont)
Students should demonstrate proficiency across ALL categories of practice for EACH content statement
NAEP: Learning Performances are developed as specific practices for particular content statements (see NAEP framework, pages 83-86)
Possible Criteria: Setting Boundaries Possible types of boundaries
Technical vocabulary Examples, observations, data (e.g., which
organisms, compounds, landforms) Instruments and units of measure Representations (e.g., which kinds of formulas,
symbols, level of mathematical proficiency, diagrams, etc.)
Possibly leave for later?
Possible Future Meeting Dates Setting specifications? Sharing first drafts: Week of February 13 Sharing and discussing revisions: Week of
March 6 Discussing final revisions: Week of March
27
Tasks for Working Groups Get to know one another Review available resources Try writing some expectations (very small
topic) Develop timeline and division of
responsibilities Prepare to share with whole group
Your draft expectations Main problems and issues that you are
concerned about
Issues for Final Discussion Can we agree on specifications:
Conceptual content: How do we decide what’s included?
Practice dimension: How do we define useful and connected understanding?
Language of content expectations: Conceptual or performance?
How to produce expectations in performance language?
Are we ready for content groups to start writing? What additional agreements do we need?
MDE Contact Information
Susan Codere Kelly, Project CoordinatorOffice of School ImprovementMichigan Department of [email protected]
Betty Underwood, Assistant DirectorOffice of School ImprovementMichigan Department of [email protected]
Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, DirectorOffice of School ImprovementMichigan Department of [email protected]