Science and Technology/Engineering Review Panel Phase I Session

1. Science and Technology/Engineering Review Panel Phase I Session Regional Sessions Nov. 2 – Marlborough High School Nov. 9 – Bridgewater State College Nov. 10 – AIC, Springfield Nov. 24 - Middlesex Community College Dec. 1 – MassBay Community College

2. Purpose To provide an overview of and gather input on the Review Panel’s work to date Please use the feedback sheet to record reactions, questions, or thoughts

3. Elementary Teachers/Faculty Judy McClure Karen Rose Mary Taft, Ph.D. Teegan von Burn Middle School Teachers/Faculty Martha Cohn Shelly Pagnotta Stephen VanVoorhis High School Teachers/Faculty Dana Akins-Adeyemi MaryJo Carabatsos, Ph.D. Suzy Drurey Joan Kadaras High School Teachers/Faculty continued Anastasia Karasoulos-Vekiarides Mark Kobel Rosemary Rak Wayne Tanson Kay Whitner Coordinators/Department Heads Karen Blakeslee, Ed.D. Joseph Clement Jennifer Craddock Janet MacNeil Peter Nassiff, Ph.D. William Rigney Deanna Suomala Mette Schwartz, Ph.D. Review panel member representation

4. Administrators Barbara Malkas Jonathan Shapiro Higher Education Faculty Catherine Dignam, Ph.D. Linda Grisham, Ph.D. Richard Larson, Ph.D. Katherine McNeill, Ph.D. Thomas Vaughn William Waller, Ph.D. Brian White, Ph.D. Community and Business Amy Cannon, Ph.D., Beyond Benign Jennifer Gresham, Zoo New England Pat Harcourt, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Sandra Mayrand, University of Massachusetts Medical School Robert Richardson, Intel Corporation Susan Reyes, Northeast Sustainable Energy Association Yvonne Spicer, Ed.D., National Center for Technological Literacy Jochem Struppe, Ph.D., Bruker-Biospin Corp Benjamin Woznick, Ph.D., Retired Review panel member representation

5. Overview of suggested changes • Standards and strand maps developed together • Improve progressions of concepts across time • Strategically integrate STE skills with content • Selectively decrease scope and update topics • PreK-2, 3-5, & 6-8 as both grade-by-grade & grade-span standards • Career & college readiness suggestions • Update and add Framework resources

6. Panel Assumptions (selected) • Standards represent the core, not necessarily the totality, of what is to be learned. Schools and districts are free to include additional content. • STE standards will include knowledge and skills related to the 4 strands and 5 high school courses. • Changes to standards have many implications for students, teachers, districts, and the state. To minimize disruption and unintended consequences, any suggestion for changing standards should be based on compelling evidence of how it is necessary. • MCAS assesses students’ proficiency with standards. MCAS will continue to be given at grades 5, 8, and at the end-of-course in high school, assessing the range of standards in grades 3-5, 6-8, and each corresponding high school course. • The amount of time students need to learn STE standards will vary. For purposes of developing the standards the following times for STE are used as guidelines: • K-2: 25 min/day (~2 hr/week) • 3-5: 35 min/day (~3 hr/week) • 6-8: 55 min/day (~4.5 hr/week) • 9-12: 65 min/day (~5.5 hr/week, or 6 55-minute periods)

7. 1. Standards & strand maps

8. MA Strand Maps • Show relationships between & progressions of standards • ESS, LS-Bio, PS-Chem, PS-Intro Physics, T/E • Topics color coded • Cross-linked across maps • Possible to code for themes (ex: weather & climate) • Possible to cross-link to other subjects http://www.doe.mass.edu/omste/maps/default.html

9. 2. Improving progressions • Improve vertical alignment of concepts (progressions) • Pay particular attention to PreK-8 standards, leading to high school • Base changes on learning progression research “empirically-grounded and testable hypotheses about how students’ understanding of, and ability to use, core scientific concepts and explanations and related scientific practices grow and become more sophisticated over time, with appropriate instruction” (NRC, 2007) • Includes research of student pre-, naïve-, & mis-conceptions (“initial beliefs”)

10. Topic Progression Template

11. Topic Progression Template

12. Topic Progression Template • These templates (1 per topic) will be available as instructional resources • Drawing upon a wide range of experts across the nation to complete topic templates The following example is for illustration purposes only! It is meant to illustrate the types of decisions the review panel will likely have to make in revising standards.

13. Motion & Forces Strand Map(2001/2006) Opportunity-to-learn gap Inconsistent specificity Disconnected standard Concept may be better aligned elsewhere

14. Add concepts from progression Remove concepts not well aligned with progression Move standards to address gap Add specificity for consistency Move standard elsewhere

15. The review panel aims to balance reductions or additions to each grade span with changes in other topics so the overall scope of each includes a reasonable amount to teach and learn

16. 3. Context of STE skills • 1996 Framework • Skills articulated in full strand of “Inquiry” • Action phrases (verbs) within content domain standards, such as: “Present evidence that…,” “Measure and predict…,” and “Investigate and describe…” • 2001 Framework • Skills not included as standards; included in introduction with statement encouraging integration with content • Action phrases (verbs) generally constrained to cognitive skill verbs • 2006 minor revision of high school standards • HS Science Inquiry Skill Standards added (4) • general statements with bullets to clarify • Action phrases (verbs) expanded

17. Considerations for STE skills • Survey input emphasized the need to include STE skills, particularly at PreK-8 • Learning theory emphasizes the need to do something with content: • Learning skills with content reinforces both • Using skills provide opportunities for applying content

18. A. STE skills from progressions • First, include STE skills identified in the development of topic progressions as standards • Example skills identified in the motion and forces progression: • measuring forces • choosing a frame of reference • graphing motion The following example is for illustration purposes only!

19. Include skills from topic progression

20. B. STE practices (inquiry skills) • Second, integrate STE practices (for example, skills of predicting, investigating, designing, or modeling) • Verbs in standards should reflect those skills and be strategically integrated with content • Reflect a cohesive progression of learning similar to content topic progressions • Students should still engage in full inquiry and design processes • (We will also follow national discussions on this issue) The following example is for illustration purposes only!

21. Sample Weather and Climate standards modified to strategically integrate STE skills This example is for illustration purposes only and will change. 3-5 6.Explain how air temperature, moisture, wind speed and direction, and precipitation make up the weather in a particular place and time. R Predict the weather for a particular place and time based on sample air temperature, moisture, wind speed and direction, and precipitation data. 9. Differentiate between weather and climate. R Differentiate between weather and climate and illustrate with data. 6-8 11. Explain how the tilt of the earth and its revolution around the sun result in an uneven heating of the earth, which in turn causes the seasons. R Construct a model to explain how the tilt of the earth and its revolution around the sun result in an uneven heating of the Earth, which in turn causes the seasons.

22. 4. Considerations for scope & rigor • Scope: how much content & skills students are expected to learn • Survey input: • Reduce overall … ‘lack of time,’ ‘can’t get to it all,’ ‘can’t engage students’ • Inconsistencies across grade spans & strands • Rigor: the range of thinking skills expected of students (lower- and higher-order) • Expectations at PreK-8 inconsistent with high school

23. Scope and rigor suggestions • Do not increase the overall scope; try to selectively decrease scope • Reasonably allow for at least one multi-week, in-depth investigation of a topic each year • Increase the overall rigor of the standards to be more uniform across grade levels

24. 5. Considerations for Gr-by-Gr • Grade-by-grade promotes alignment of curriculum across schools and districts (addresses transience) • Survey: 66% of PK-5 teachers suggested grade-by-grade • But there was an overall theme that curricular flexibility across grades is important • Survey: Middle schools—about ½ implement a “spiral” or “integrated” approach and about ½ implement a discipline-specific (“layer-cake”) approach • Lack of research articulating specific alignment of concepts with grades limits validity of grade-by-grade • Electronic standards allow for either perspective

25. Grade-by-grade & grade span • Present PreK-2, 3-5 and 6-8 standards as both grade-by-grade and grade-span standards • Grade span standards maintain options for curricular flexibility • Grade-by-grade standards provide alignment for those who choose it

26. 6. Career & college readiness Within the broader Framework: • Promote a minimum of 3, and ideally 4, lab-based high school STE courses that encompass 3 or more STE disciplines (breadth) • MassCore also recommends minimum 3 lab-based STE courses • Promote in-depth investigations in courses, electives, and/or capstone projects (depth) • Include STE habits of mind, for example: • curiosity • attention to evidence • analytical reasoning • precision and accuracy • problem solving

27. 7. Update and add Framework resources Suggestions include: • Connections to other subject areas (esp. mathematics) • Assumed time and basic materials for STE instruction and programs • Both STE terms and cognitive terminology in glossary • Core vocabulary by grade span (not an exhaustive list) • Statement of the value and use of instructional technology in STE (probeware, simulations, modeling software, online databases, etc) • Sample course syllabi for elective courses • Essential questions to guide curriculum planning • STE websites and electronic resources

28. Next steps • Complete public sessions about Phase I work • Present Phase I Progress Report to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education • Develop topic progressions (template) • Content experts and ESE • Research-based • Phase II: draft revised standards & strand maps • Phase III: public input • Anticipated completion early 2011

29. Comments and discussion Please share and turn in the feedback sheet Thank you! Office for Mathematics, Science and Technology/Engineering mathsciencetech@doe.mass.edu For more information about the review, including this presentation: http://www.doe.mass.edu/omste/review.html