High School Content Expectations

1
High School Content Expectations

• Science

2
Overview of Process

• Academic Work Group January, 2006
• Dr. Andy Anderson (MSU), Co-Chair
• Dr. Robert Poel (WMU), Co-Chair
• Sub-committees for Earth Space, Biology, Physics,
  Chemistry

3
Overview of Process

• Academic Work Group January, 2006
• First Draft to State Board May, 2006

4
Overview of Process

• Academic Work Group January, 2006
• First Draft to State Board May, 2006
• Public/Web Review May 15
  July 1, 2006

5
Overview of Process

• Academic Work Group January, 2006
• First Draft to State Board May, 2006
• Public/Web Review May 15 July 1, 2006
• National Review June, 2006

6
Overview of Process

• Academic Work Group January, 2006
• First Draft to State Board May, 2006
• Public/Web Review May 15 July 1, 2006
• National Review June, 2006
• On State Board Agenda October, 2006

7
Organizing Structure
8
Organizing Structure
Earth Science
E1 Inquiry, Reflection and Social Implications
(2) E2 Earth Systems (4) E3 The Solid Earth
(4) E3 The Fluid Earth (3) E4 Earth in Space
and Time (4)
9
Organizing Structure
Biology
B1 Inquiry, Reflection and Social Implications
(2) B2 Organization and Development of Living
Systems (6) B3 Interdependence of Living
Systems and the Environment (5) B3 Genetics
(4) B4 Evolution and Biodiversity (3)
10
Organizing Structure
Physics
P1 Inquiry, Reflection and Social Implications
(2) P2 Motion of Objects (3) P3 Forces and
Motion (8) P4 Forms of Energy Energy
Transformations (12)
11
Organizing Structure
Chemistry
C1 Inquiry, Reflection and Social Implications
(2) C2 Forms of Energy (5) C3 Energy Transfer
and Conservation (5) C4 Properties of Matter
(10) C5 Changes in Matter (8)
12
Knowledge and Practice

• Separate content and process NO

13
Knowledge and Practice

• Separate content and process NO
• Integrated knowledge and practice YES
• Knowledge Content statements
• Practices Identifying, Using, Inquiring,
  Reflecting
• Performance expectations Knowledge applied to
  practice

14
Science Practices

• Identifying
• Recall, define, relate, represent basic principles

15
Science Practices

• Identifying
• Recall, define, relate, represent basic
  principles
• Using
• Make sense of the natural world, predict and
  explain observations

16
Science Practices

• Identifying
• Recall, define, relate, represent basic
  principles
• Using
• Make sense of the natural world, predict and
  explain observations
• Inquiry
• Identify and explain patterns, habits of mind

17
Science Practices

• Identifying
• Recall, define, relate, represent basic
  principles
• Using
• Make sense of the natural world, predict and
  explain observations
• Inquiry
• Identify and explain patterns, habits of mind
• Reflecting
• Critique and justify strengths and weaknesses of
  scientific knowledge

18
Connecting Knowledge and Practice
19
Identifying Stating Models and Patterns
20
Using Models and Patterns to Predict or Explain
Observations
21
Inquiry Finding and Explaining Patterns in Data
22
Reflecting Understanding Nature and Limitations
of Science
23
Levels of Difficulty

• Pre-requisites
• Knowledge needed when entering high school (K
  7)
• Essential
• Critical knowledge regardless of course
• Aligned to large-scale assessment

24
Levels of Difficulty

• Core
• Specific to the discipline (course)
• Required for credit in required areas (Biology,
  and Chemistry or Physics)
• Preparation for advanced study
• Recommended
• Appropriate for rigorous college preparation
  courses

25
Levels of Organization

• Disciplines Biology, Earth Science, Chemistry,
  Physics
• Standards statements How students should be able
  to use knowledge in practice for a particular
  topic
• Content statements Summaries of essential
  knowledge

26
Levels of Organization

• Performance expectations How students should be
  able to use content knowledge for science
  practices (Identifying, Using, Inquiring,
  Reflecting)
• Assessments will be based on performance
  expectations

27
Difficulty Level Codes

• Prerequisite
• p in Content Statement and Performance
  Expectation codes (e.g., L3.p4, L3.p4A)
• Essential
• No extra letters in Content Statement codes
  (e.g., B3.4)
• Capital letters in Performance Expectation codes
  (e.g., B3.4A)

28
Difficulty Level Codes

• Core
• x in Content Statement codes (e.g., B3.4x)
• Lower case in Performance Expectation codes
  (e.g., B3.4c)
• Recommended
• r in Content Statement and Performance
  Expectation codes (e.g., B4.r5x, B4.r5a)

29
Table Session Tasks

• Generate discussion questions Use cards, hand
  to facilitators

30
Table Session Tasks

• Identify needed clarifications and boundaries for
  planned Companion Document Use, turn in
  feedback pages
• i. Phenomena, examples or observations
• ii. Representations instruments, units of
  measurement and categories for classification
• iii. Technical vocabulary
• iv. Clarifications of intent

31
Table Session Tasks

• Group Content Statements and Performance
  Expectations for instruction Take and keep
  notes for yourself

32
Facilitators

• Kevin Richard, Science Consultant
• Office of School Improvement
• RichardKe_at_michigan.gov

33
Science Development Work Group

• Academic Review
• Andy Anderson, Co-Chair, MSU
• Robert Poel, Co-Chair, WMU
• Theron Blakeslee, Ingham ISD
• Carol Clark, DLEG
• Brian Coppola, U of M
• Mark Davids, Grosse Pointe South HS
• Claudia Douglass, CMU
• Kaz Fujita, MSU
• George Goff, Detroit King HS
• Annis Hapkiewicz, Okemos HS

34
Science Development Work Group

• Academic Review
• Andy Anderson, Co-Chair, MSU
• Robert Poel, Co-Chair, WMU
• Marilyn Rands, LTU
• Walter Rathkamp, SVSU
• Kevin Richard, MDE
• Judy Ruddock, Flint PS
• Sandra Rutherford, EMU
• Michael Seymour, Hope College
• Randy Showerman, DLEG
• Betty Underwood, MDE

35
Science Development Work Group

• Internal Review
• Gary Blok, Plymouth Christian HS
• Larry Casler, Genesse Math/Science Center
• Paul Drummond, Macomb ISD
• Michael Gallagher, Oakland Schools
• Shamarion Green, Flint Schools
• Joseph Grigas, Lake Fenton HS

36
Science Development Work Group

• Internal Review
• Cheryl Hach, Kalamazoo Math/Science Center
• Ardis Herrold, Grosse Pointe North HS
• Alberto de la Iglesai, Howell HS
• Michael Klein, Macomb ISD
• Shawn McNamara, Grosse Point South HS
• Parker Pennington, Ann Arbor Pioneer HS
• David Peters, East Kentwood HS
• Kevin Richard, MDE
• Jay Sinclair, MI Earth Science Teachers
  Association
• Gary Waterson, Benzie Central HS

37
Science Development Work Group

• Project Coordinator
• Susan Codere Kelly, MDE

38
Deepening Understanding of the Content
Expectations for High School Science
39
Deepening Understanding

• Why deeper understanding versus broader coverage?
• Lack of deeper understanding leads to procedural
  display (rote memory, definitions, and lack of
  connectedness) versus connected knowledge and
  practice.
• NRC Report http//science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/n
  staexpress_2006_09_25_execsummary.htm

40
Deepening Understanding

• Why deeper understanding versus broader coverage?
• National Assessment of Educational Progress
  (NAEP) Framework for 2009 Testing Program
• Cross-disciplinary expertise needed in many
  current and frontier science areas that call for
  deeper understanding of basic concepts that cut
  across traditional disciplinary boundaries.

41
Why rely on NAEP as a model?

• What are the advantages?
• A New NAEP Test (The Nations Report Card) is
  scheduled for 2009 Michigan can be one step
  ahead in preparing our students.
• A NAEP Framework Committee has been working on a
  road map for use by the NAEP Assessment folks
  that takes into account the current research in
  teaching/learning that has occurred since the
  last NAEP test.

42
Why rely on NAEP as a model?

• What are the advantages?
• The NAEP Framework Committee has used the latest
  National Science Education Standards and AAAS
  Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy documents.
• Michigans short deadline for preparing science
  expectations prevented an exhaustive effort to
  establish a thoughtful and research-based
  framework.

43
Why rely on NAEP as a model?

• What are the advantages?
• The NEAP Framework was consistent with the
  Michigan Science Curriculum Framework.

44
Why rely on NAEP as a model?

• What are the disadvantages?
• NAEP is more generic and aimed at every states
  educational goals versus any unique situations
  (e.g. The Great Lakes, Auto Industry, etc.) or
  past documents (MIClimb) that already exist in
  Michigan.

45
Why Organize By Disciplines?

• Avoids the pitfall of establishing a statewide
  set of standard courses that may be aligned with
  a particular textbook, personality or style.
• Familiar organization makes expectations easy to
  find.

46
Why Organize By Disciplines?

• Recognizes the difference between the Michigan
  Merit Curriculum (basic literacy for ALL
  students) and the High School Science Course
  Expectations (courses preparing students for
  advanced study).
• Allows school districts more options for
  curriculum choices (integrated, interdisciplinary
  or special courses, etc.) and scheduling methods
  (block scheduling etc.).

47
Why have practices, content statements, and
performance expectations?

• Scientific concepts are important as tools that
  enable practices.
• We need to be clear about
• The important concepts (content statements)
• The key practices (Identifying, Using, Inquiry,
  Reflection)
• How the concepts are used in practice
  (performance expectations)

48
Why have practices, content statements, and
performance expectations?

• Therefore the High School Science Expectations
  document places calls for performance
  expectations as the intersection of content and
  practice.

49
Why have practices, content statements, and
performance expectations?
50
Why do we need a companion document?

• To identify the specific constraints and
  boundaries for the High School Science
  Expectations document.

51
Why do we need a companion document?

• Current draft leaves key aspects of standards
  open to interpretation
• i. Phenomena, examples, or observations
• ii. Representations instruments, units of
  measurement, and categories for classification
• iii. Technical vocabulary

52
Why do we need a companion document?

• Clarifications of intent
• Current draft lacks content-specific inquiry and
  reflection expectations. That is Specific
  examples of inquiry and reflection tasks and
  performances that should be included within the
  scope of the science expectations and other
  examples that are not but could be included in
  other advanced placement or specialized courses
  within a schools science curriculum.

53
Afternoon Breakout Session Tasks

• Develop subject-specific Performance Expectations
  for Inquiring and Reflecting
• Subject-specific examples for Performances
  1.1A-1.1i
• Subject-specific examples for Performance
  1.2A-1.2k