High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 2d58e-MmY4Y


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage


Betty Underwood, Assistant Director, OSI. Sue Codere Kelly, Project Coordinator, OSI ... NAEP categories of practice (page 83) 1. Identifying Science Principles ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:80
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: Can5
Learn more at: http://www.michigan.gov


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage

High School Science Content Expectations Setting
the Stage
  • Work Group Meeting
  • January 9, 2006
  • MEA Building
  • Office of School Improvement
  • Michigan Department of Education

High School Content Expectations External
  • Why are we doing this now?
  • NCLB Assessments aligned to rigorous standards
  • K 8 GLCE response to NCLB, set the stage for
  • Michigan Merit Exam
  • National attention to high school reform
    Achieve and state curricular/course standards
  • Cherry Commission Michigans economic future
    depends on postsecondary engagement
  • Postsecondary remediation

High School Content Expectations External
  • MDEs High School Redesign 6 Action Teams
    Content Standards, Assessment, Promising
  • High School Graduation Requirements
  • National Governors Association 1.8 million
    grant awarded over 2 years Enrolled Michigan in
    American Diploma Project
  • Request from the Practitioners Define high
    school expectations

High School Redesign
Information Gathering Presentations Position
Development Group discussions, advisory
input Position Dissemination Roll out,
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
  • 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,
  • School Improvement
  • Field Services 5 Regions
  • Title 1 (and others)
  • High Priority Schools

  • 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

  • Susan Codere/Kelly
  • Responsible for production in an organized,
    efficient, and timely manner for final Board
  • 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

  • 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 thinkingcurricular format options,
    companion documents, instructional support,
  • Work group chairs are responsible for the product

Curricular Format Options
1. Traditional Course/Grade Specific CTE
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
3. By the End of High School Set of Content
Expectations Mathematics ELA Social
Studies Science CTE Integrated
Transparency, Specificity, Pacing
OSI Curriculum Protocol Flowchart
Draft Documents Small Review Group MDE
representative practitioners 1
Document Development Work Group of Scholars Chair
and 5 8 appointed members OSI Convened
Final Documents Dissemination 3 Regional 10
Localized 10
Developing Science Content Expectations Key
  • Constraints on development process and product
  • Timeline
  • Expectations and review process
  • Capacity of system to teach for student learning
  • Possible criteria for science expectations that
    support useful and connected knowledge
  • Content to be included
  • Specifications for form of expectations, criteria
    for student understanding
  • (Setting boundaries)

Constraints Timeline
  • We must have a draft ready for review by April
  • Tradeoff sharing ideas vs. setting parameters
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • What is traxoline?
  • Where is traxoline montilled?
  • How is traxoline quaselled?
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • The pedagogical contract. Who establishes it?

  • 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
  • Virtually unanimous reaction of subject matter
  • Overall, this looks like a lot to cover without
    slipping into procedural display
  • The coverage of my area is inadequate

Possible Criteria Included Content
  • Essential content
  • 1. Included in NAEP framework
  • 2. Necessary for students to play roles of
    responsible citizens learner, consumer, voter,
    worker, volunteer, advocate
  • Advanced content
  • 1. Important for specific kinds of work
  • 2. Important preparation for college science

Possible Criteria Specifications for
  • NAEP categories of practice (page 83)
  • 1. Identifying Science Principles
  • 2. Using Science Principles
  • 3. Using Scientific Inquiry
  • 4. Using Technological Design
  • NRC Science Learning Study strands of scientific
  • 1. Understanding and using scientific
    explanations of the natural world
  • 2. Generating, and evaluating scientific evidence
    and explanations
  • 3. Understanding how personal and scientific
    knowledge are constructed
  • 4. Productive participation in the science

Specifications for Understanding (cont)
  • Students should demonstrate proficiency across
    ALL categories of practice for EACH content
  • 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

Issues for Final Discussion
  • Can we agree on specifications
  • Conceptual content How do we decide whats
  • Practice dimension How do we define useful and
    connected understanding?
  • Language of content expectations Conceptual or
  • How to produce expectations in performance
  • Are we ready for content groups to start writing?
    What additional agreements do we need?

MDE Contact Information
  • Susan Codere Kelly, Project Coordinator
  • Office of School Improvement
  • Michigan Department of Education
  • SCodere_at_aol.com
  • Betty Underwood, Assistant Director
  • Office of School Improvement
  • Michigan Department of Education
  • UnderwoodB_at_michigan.gov
  • Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, Director
  • Office of School Improvement
  • Michigan Department of Education
  • Canuly_at_michigan.gov
About PowerShow.com