Teachers and school leaders often want a one day introduction
to the landscape of new science standards. Importantly, Wisconsin's model academic standards (WMAS) in science remain the same. In consideration of science program reviews, some districts are looking to build on the WMAS with the National Research Council's Science Education Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards. A one day workshop can be the starting point for the more in depth process I outlined in my last blog post, though I think teachers would benefit from reading through the NRC Framework beforehand (a guided book study perhaps?). I definitely do not think that groups of teachers should
get a brief introduction to a new set of standards and then be left to implement a new science program in their limited PLC time.
Here are links to the slides from some CESA 2 elementary and secondary
standards workshops (note, there’s an extra unit idea at the end of the secondary
slides with a HS life science focus):
When I start these workshops, I ask participants to think about their
main goal(s) for their students’ science learning for the year. Because I see
many teachers who get too hung up on covering the content, I want them to consider
the big picture of science. I refer back to these ideas throughout the
workshop, particularly when a teacher asks something like, “Why don’t they
mention the stages of meiosis within these DCI’s?”
I next discuss the development of the NRC Framework and NGSS. I think it’s important to note that the NGSS were a
state-led, non-federally funded effort!
We then review the structure of the standards, looking together at a
page. What is this disciplinary core idea vs. topic view? How are we supposed
to use the PE’s? What is a standard here? Notably, here in WI, we’ve decided
that the standard is the whole page – emphasizing the practice, DCI and CCC
connection. For some reason teachers rarely ask questions as we go through the
structure, even though they have them (maybe it’s just a bit overwhelming). I
make sure to discuss what the acronyms and numbers mean, as well as those
little asterisks. I’ve found that this resource
from NSTA on the three dimensions to be useful. I make sure to point out
that each PE connects the three dimensions, showing the handy multi-color view
provided when looking at standards on www.nextgenscience.org. I also note that ability to get more info by
clicking on almost anything on those nextgenscience.org standards pages –
linking directly to the framework and the CCSS (excellent!).
Recently, I have next been going through some of the basics of
designing a unit. We first talk about interesting phenomena in the world around
us. Students (particularly those not generally interested in science/math) are
really engaged by talking about issues in their community or on the news now. My
units that I detail a little on my slides are oil spills (ES), Near Earth Objects
(MS), and the Wisconsin wolf hunt (HS). There are certainly loads of other
possibilities, and at the early elementary grades students could do fairly
simple phenomena like animals, people and plants in changing seasons (very
appropriate in WI with a wind chill expected to be -30ish next week!).
I then imagine that I’m a teacher at a particular grading wanting to
connect a unit to a particular phenomenon. I ask, does this work with the DCI’s
and the PE’s designated for my grade? I
have found that interesting phenomena don’t work at every grade in K-5, but do
connect within every grade band somewhere. And, they typically connect across
science disciplines and build well into engineering connections.
After discussing connections to students’ background knowledge, and
having some type of entry
event to kick things off, we do some modeling. I emphasize that modeling is
an iterative process where students create some sort of representation of their
thinking. In the elementary PD, teachers draw out the basics of an
ecosystem/food web at a local river. We then discuss the oil spill incident
(and I’d do some background with students on what oil is). We go back to the
model (drawing) of the river and create an after scene—adding an oil spill to
it and asking how it would affect the ecosystem. Teachers ask, so is modeling
just drawing something? No. It could be 3-D or computer-based. It should likely
include some words and details. The key is that it shows student thinking
before the learning activities and is used as a tool to develop and assess
their thinking throughout the unit. Tools for Ambitious Science teaching has a fabulous
primer on modeling. I have teachers
do this modeling in groups, as it fosters some great conversations. As a
teacher I could see doing the modeling as a whole class, particularly at the
beginning with lower elementary students. In the end, I would have students
create the models individually to assess their learning, although I don’t have
teachers do that step.
I only describe the interim learning in brief. We do reference and read
from the Engineering is
Elementary unit on oil spills. It has a lot of great ideas. Many learning
experiences will happen between the introductory modeling and engagement steps,
and the final model creation and presentations. In the workshop, the learning
activities that we actually do include creating an experimental or engineering
model, and going through writing claims, evidence and reasoning.
To do a little hands-on science, we do what’s really an engineering
activity. Teachers try out some sample oil spill clean up. Within the PD I ask
teachers to design how to do these tests, though I’d give elementary students a
bit more structure. After they model an oil spill clean-up (vegetable oil with
black oil based food coloring in it put into water), we discuss the benefits
and limitations of the model with this worksheet.
Next, we discuss the claims,
evidence and reasoning methodology to write a good conclusion. Notably, the
claim is not a hypothesis here. The claim is the beginning part of the
conclusion students are writing after they’ve done the investigation. Evidence
can be pictorial or written, qualitative or quantitative.
I use this
CER template to guide this writing (built from work of Joe Krajcik and Eric
Brunsell).
There is some review time built in here. How can we include authentic engineering?
What NGSS practices and crosscutting concepts did we use in our activities? How
would you assess this work (think PE’s)?
Teachers at this point are anxious to think about their own lessons and
units. I use
this worksheet to help guide those small group discussions around improving
a particular lesson. I ask teachers to bring a lesson or their books to the
workshop. After some review time (about 30 min depending on how engaged they
are), we create a set of considerations together for what teachers should do as
they review their current lessons.
I tend to think that the NGSS appendices (see the
left column here) are an underutilized resource, so we jigsaw them next.
When groups report out, I ask them to especially focus on how these appendices could
be used by groups of teachers to support their implementation efforts. In the
secondary session we discuss appendix K for quite a while, including an exploration
of the pros and cons of an integrated science program.
At this point I acknowledge that standards purists would likely prefer
teachers to build units and lessons up from the standards, rather than tweaking
what they already have (being practical I think both are legitimate parts of
reconsidering your science instruction). We use this Understanding
by Design template to map objectives for an NGSS unit (basic idea from Eric
Brunsell). I review this template
with ideas included to describe the unit planning process. Within this discussion, we talk about how crosscutting
concepts (CCC’s) can provide the frame for essential questions. Scientists and
engineers certainly have particular lenses for looking at the world around them—these
are basically represented within the CCC’s. So, I discuss how you might look at
a particular phenomenon through the lens of each of the CCC’s (on my slide of
ideas, I’m considering brain-eating
amoeba in ponds). I credit Emily
Miller with this CCC and essential question idea.
Finally, we have a little time for planning. What are you main
takeaways from the day? What are your short and long terms goals? How are you
going to share what you’ve learned with others within your school/district?
And, at the end of the workshop, I always offer my willingness to
answer questions by email as they come up – kevin-dot-anderson-at-dpi-dot-wi-dot-gov!
*I want to also note the great work done by Dave Bydlowski and Greg
Johnson of the Wayne County RESA. Check
it out here for further PD ideas.
