Michigan’s New Content Expectations for K-7 Science Monday, January 28, 2008 Kellogg Hotel and...
-
Upload
geraldine-ryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Michigan’s New Content Expectations for K-7 Science Monday, January 28, 2008 Kellogg Hotel and...
Michigan’s New Content Expectations for K-7
Science
Monday, January 28, 2008Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center
East Lansing, Michigan
Content Expectations
• Provide a foundation for curriculum
and assessment development that
represents rigorous and relevant
learning for ALL students.
Content Expectations
• Provide a description of what
students should know and be able to
do in Science by the end of seventh
grade to prepare them for a
successful high school experience.
Built on Current Research
“ The next generation of Science standards and curricula at the national and state levels should be centered on a few core ideas and should expand on them each year, at increasing levels of complexity, across grades K-8.”
Current Research
“Today’s standards are too broad, resulting in superficial coverage of science that fails to link concepts or develop them over successive grades.”
– Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching
Science in Grades K-8 by National Research Council
Draft Documents
State Board of Education Review
5 - 6 months prior to requesting approval
Web Review of Draft
30 – 90 days to review, process comments
Draft Documents
National Review
Edited Draft to Achieve or other
Final Documents
Dissemination
3 Regional
10 Localized
Curriculum Protocol Flowchart
Draft Documents
Work Group
Edit draft based on National Review
Draft Documents
MDE Internal Review Group
MDE Management, PR
Draft Documents
Small Review Group
MDE & representative practitioners
Document Development
Work Group of Scholars
Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members
OSI Convened
Draft Documents
Work Group Reconvened
Edit based on
Reviews
Final Documents
Superintendent
Final Documents
State Board Approval
Legislative ReviewMDE
MDE
Overview of Process
• Academic Work Group – January, 2007– Liz Niehaus (Niehaus and Associates), Co-Chair– Larry Casler (Genesee Math/Science Center), Co-Chair
• Sub-committees for Physical, Life, Earth• Sub-committees for K-2, 3-4, 5-7
• First Draft to State Board – May 8, 2007• External and Internal Reviews – May 2007• Public/Web Review – May 14 – June 28, 2007• National Review – July – August, 2007• Presentation SBE – November 13, 2007 • SBE Approval – December 11, 2007• Statewide dissemination - January, 2008
Development of Expectations
Academic Work Group– Liz Niehaus (Niehaus and Associates),
Co-Chair– Larry Casler (Genesee Math/Science Center),
Co-Chair
Work Group divided into content and then into grade level – “a different lens”
Development of Expectations
Reviews• May – MDE Internal and External Review
• May & June – Web/Public Review (over 900
completed surveys and over 100,000 comments)
• July & August – National Review
• November – State Board of Education Review
• December – State Board of Education Approval
Public/Web Review Process
• M/S Center Network Director’s meeting
• Protocol and PowerPoint for site presentations
• Information posted on BaP, MDE, and MSTA sites
• Math/Science Centers hosted 38 organized reviews
• May 14th – June 28th
• Responses reviewed by Academic Work Group and Internal Reviewers
• Over 3000 site visits
• More than 900 completed surveys
• More than 100,000 individual comments
Public/Web Review
Preparing for National Review
• Web responses were reviewed by Academic Work Group
• Developed protocol for review and editing
• IF changes were made, justifications were provided in writing
Insert Kevin’s Picture
Science Academic Work Group
Larry Casler, Co-Chair, Genesee M/S Center
Hope Beringer, RomeoHerm Boatin, Dearborn Barb Armbruster, Forest Hills Charles Bucienski, OlivetDavid Bydlowski, Wayne RESAEileen Byrnes, WarrenMary Carlson, Grand LedgeJan Coratti, PlymouthConnie Crittenden, Williamston
Liz Niehaus, Co-Chair, Niehaus and Associates Inc.
Geri Elliston, CharlotteMargaret Griffin, DetroitCarol Gutteridge, FentonJason Henry, New Branches PSANancy Karre, Battle Creek MSCLiz Larwa, BrightonJane Levy, Ann ArborDeborah Peek-Brown, Detroit PublicMichele Svoboda, Comstock Park
Internal Review
• Science Leaders representing science content areas
• Reviewed the entire document
• Made recommendations for any change based on NAEP 2009 Framework or learning progressions
Science Internal Review Group
• Theron Blakeslee, Ingham ISD
• Gary Cieniuch, Livonia
• Robby Cramer, Grand Haven
• Betty Crowder, Rochester
• Paul Drummond, Macomb MSC
• LaMoine Motz, Oakland MSC
• Robert Poel, WMU
MDE Science Consultant
• Kevin Richard, MDE
External Review
• Science Leaders representing various professional organizations
• Reviewed the entire document
• Made recommendations for any change based on NAEP 2009 Framework or learning progressions
Science External Reviewers
• Lois Doniver – American Federation of Teachers Michigan
• Wanda Groeneveld – Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principal Association• Christine Webster – Michigan Earth Science Teachers Association• Drew Isola – Michigan Association Advanced Physics Teachers
• Carol Jones – Michigan Science Education Leadership Association• Rochelle Rubin – Michigan Science Teacher Association
• Paul Drummond – Michigan Math/Science Center Network
National Review
• Richard Vineyard, Ph.D., Council of State Science Supervisors, Review Coordinator
• General review and summary report
• States selected based on their recent adoption of elementary standards; elementary teaching experience; and geographic diversity
• Followed Achieve criteria
National Review Provided
• Positive feedback
• Specific rewording suggestions
• Suggestions for learning progressions to avoid redundancy
• Support for grade level content – “Big Picture” vs. “Mile Wide and Inch Deep”
Final Revisions
• Re-worded possessive format of some statements/expectations
• Re-examined to eliminate redundancy
• Re-evaluated the uniformity of the depth of understanding required or assessment grain size
Need for Grade Level Expectations
• Student mobility
• Cross-district professional development
• Common equipment, kits, and lessons
• Districts have a “common curriculum”
• Consistency with other subjects
• Integration with other subjects
• Clarifies the distribution of learning
Research Driving the New Expectations
• National Standards Alignment
– NSES (National Research Council, 1996)
– AAAS Benchmarks and Atlases (1993, 2001, 2007)
• NAEP 2009 Framework Alignment
• “Taking Science to School: Learning and
Teaching Science in Grades K-8”
(National Research Council, 2007)
Development of Expectations
GLCE Selected Performance Verbs Knowledge List Examine
Describe Observe
Identify
Comprehension Compare and Contrast
Predict Distinguish
Application Demonstrate Relate
Calculate Classify
Illustrate Conduct
Analysis Explain Determine
Synthesis Design
Evaluation Measure Critique
Structure of K-7 Science
• K-7 document includes grade level documents
• Each grade document contains:
– General Introduction
– Grade Span Organization Structure
– Grade Level Specific Narratives
– Grade Level Specific Table of Contents
– Grade Level Specific Expectations
Structure of K-7 Science
Discipline
Standard
Content Statement
Content Expectation
Structure of K-7 Science
Discipline: Earth Science
K-7 Standard E.ES: Earth Systems – Develop an
understanding of the warming of the earth by the sun as the major source
of energy for phenomenon on Earth and how the sun’s warming relates to
weather, climate, seasons, and the water cycle. Understand how human
interaction and use of natural resources affects the environment.
Content Statement E.ES.E.2: Weather – Weather
changes from day to day and over the seasons.
Content Expectation E.ES.01.23 Describe severe
weather events.
K-4 Organization, Example, p. 3
5-7 Organization, Example, p. 50
Structure of K-7 Science Expectation Count
Kdg 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 5th 6th 7th Total
Physical 7 5 5 15 14 46 9 6 14 29
Life 2 4 3 6 6 21 9 10 11 30
Earth 1 9 7 11 9 37 8 13 13 34
Total 10 18 15 32 29 104 26 29 38 93
Overview of K-7 Science
Number of GLCEs per Grade Level
0
5
10
15
20
25
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Grade Level
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
nte
nt
Ex
pe
cta
tio
ns Science Processes
Physical Science
Life Science
Earth Science
Overview of K-7 Science
Number of Science GLCEs per Grade Level
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Grade Level
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
nte
nt
Ex
pe
cta
tio
ns
K-7 Science Coding
Discipline
Standard
Content Statement
Content Expectation
P.PM.04.23 Discipline Standard (Grade Level) Statement Expectation
Acknowledgements
• Internal and External Review Members
• Fellow Educators K-16
• National Review Participants
• State School Board Members
• MDE
• Academic Work Group
Break
• Break 10:00 – 10:20
• Table Investigation Begins at 10:20
Table Investigation
• First opportunity to review and respond to new Content Expectations
• Become familiar with organization and content of the Expectations
• Provide valuable feedback to MDE
• Assist MDE in designing rollout sessions and companion documents
Table Investigation
• Explanation (10:20 – 10:25)
• Part 1 (10:25 – 11:10) – Individual analysis of expectations from one grade level
• Part 2 (11:10 – 11:20) – Group Discussion
• Part 3 (11:20 – 11:30) – Debrief
Table Investigation
• Envelope includes – 1 investigation description sheet, and – 8 individual response sheets
• Individual response sheets include directions.
• Identify timekeeper for each table.
• Facilitators available to answer questions about process.
Table Investigation
Part 1 (10:25 – 11:10)
• Read standards, content statements, and expectations.
• Provide feedback.
• Code each expectation (1, 2, or 3) using rubric.
• Add comments as appropriate.
• Review remaining expectations for your grade.
• Estimate the percent of the expectations at your grade that you currently teach.
Table Investigation
Part 2 (11:10 – 11:20)
• Discuss findings as a group.
• Collect individual response sheets and place back in envelope.
• Facilitators will collect envelopes.
Part 3 (11:20 – 11:30)
• Debrief as time allows.
Code Expectations
Use the 1-2-3 numbering system.
1 – I currently teach this content at this grade level and
will need to make little instructional modification.
2 – I currently teach related content and will need to
modify instruction to meet this expectation.
3 – I currently do not teach this expectation.
This is new content for this grade level.