Our Evidence-Based Journey in Science
Steve Wood - Science Director
Science teachers have long understood the need to clearly share with students what they need to know, how they will learn it, and how their learning will be assessed. These ideas crystallized during and following professional development conversations at the Arboretum in the 2008-2009 school year. Those sessions, led by Cassie Erkens, focused on assessment for learning, and how we bring clarity for our students. What followed has been an ongoing focus on clearly defining learning targets, matching those to our assessments, and helping students know where they were on the journey.
Shortly after we began reviewing/creating learning targets in 2009, there were rumblings on the national scene about new science standards. In 2012, the National Research Council published “A Framework for K-12 Science Education.” Soon after, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released, and Stevenson H.S. set out to implement these standards across the consortium beginning in 2013. One of the biggest shifts in the NGSS was the focus on “3-Dimensional” science learning, weaving together the science and engineering practices, the crosscutting concepts, and the disciplinary core ideas (science content).
As we have embarked on implementing the standards, it has become increasingly clear that, while we have been clear on communicating and assessing the disciplinary core ideas, we have been more challenged in assessing and providing feedback on the science and engineering practices. The Science and Engineering Practices include:
At the same time we were implementing NGSS, we have also been creating Student Learning Objectives (SLO’s) that focus on the Science and Engineering Practices that run through all science courses. We have realized that to honor the nature of science as a process, the ideals of the NGSS, and the spirit of SLO’s (growth over time), we need to develop learning targets that focus on teaching, assessing, and giving feedback on these Science and Engineering Practices. This includes shifting our focus more to the verbs of science (practices) while continuing to honor and appreciate the nouns of science (disciplinary core ideas). Our learning journey has been informed by site visits to several schools who are currently using standards-based grading practices in science, such as in Solon, Iowa and Portland, Maine. In addition, our science teachers have read and discussed many related books, including “Rethinking Grading,” “A Repair Kit for Grading,” “The End of Average,” “Most Likely to Succeed,” etc. These resources and experiences have shaped our thinking on how we might be able to better focus our instruction, feedback, grading and reporting on science practices and not solely on disciplinary core ideas. In addition, we have learned a great deal by discussions with colleagues in other departments who have led the transition to EBR. Finally, we are reflecting on the work of the SEL Committee and how that might factor into our thinking. As we move toward EBR, science teams will consider including one SEL scaled target. The teams will teach and asses the target as well as measure growth over time.
This spring, Ken O’Connor, internationally-recognized expert in grading and reporting, lead the math and science staff development in April 2017. Our learning focused on best practices in grading, as well as connecting instruction to learning targets that thread throughout our courses. Ken answered questions with science and math teachers throughout the day and in lunch time conversations. Since the April staff development, we have had two lunch meetings to allow teachers to interact and ask questions of mathematics colleagues who have implemented EBR into their classrooms; these have been rich and informative conversations.
We have several science teams taking the lead on this work, re-imagining how our grading practices can promote clarity on skills-focused learning targets, link feedback the learning, and allow multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery.
Our College Prep Physics team has been grading and reporting on the disciplinary core ideas of physics, and is leading the transition to bringing the science practices to the forefront. This team has refined and reduced the number of learning targets it uses during the year
and has created scaled learning targets for transitioning to EBR. Other science teams are joining the conversation, with the following teams beginning Phase I EBR conversations with Tony Reibel: CP Physics, CP Biology, AC Chemistry, AP Biology, and Earth Science HN. This represents thirty of our science teachers! We are targeting the 2018-2019 school year for our first teams to make the conversion to EBR....and the journey will continue!
Shortly after we began reviewing/creating learning targets in 2009, there were rumblings on the national scene about new science standards. In 2012, the National Research Council published “A Framework for K-12 Science Education.” Soon after, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released, and Stevenson H.S. set out to implement these standards across the consortium beginning in 2013. One of the biggest shifts in the NGSS was the focus on “3-Dimensional” science learning, weaving together the science and engineering practices, the crosscutting concepts, and the disciplinary core ideas (science content).
As we have embarked on implementing the standards, it has become increasingly clear that, while we have been clear on communicating and assessing the disciplinary core ideas, we have been more challenged in assessing and providing feedback on the science and engineering practices. The Science and Engineering Practices include:
- Asking questions (Science) and Defining problems (Engineering)
- Developing and using models
- Planning and carrying out investigations
- Analyzing and interpreting data
- Using mathematics and computational thinking
- Constructing explanations (science) and designing solutions (engineering)
- Engaging in argument from evidence
- Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
At the same time we were implementing NGSS, we have also been creating Student Learning Objectives (SLO’s) that focus on the Science and Engineering Practices that run through all science courses. We have realized that to honor the nature of science as a process, the ideals of the NGSS, and the spirit of SLO’s (growth over time), we need to develop learning targets that focus on teaching, assessing, and giving feedback on these Science and Engineering Practices. This includes shifting our focus more to the verbs of science (practices) while continuing to honor and appreciate the nouns of science (disciplinary core ideas). Our learning journey has been informed by site visits to several schools who are currently using standards-based grading practices in science, such as in Solon, Iowa and Portland, Maine. In addition, our science teachers have read and discussed many related books, including “Rethinking Grading,” “A Repair Kit for Grading,” “The End of Average,” “Most Likely to Succeed,” etc. These resources and experiences have shaped our thinking on how we might be able to better focus our instruction, feedback, grading and reporting on science practices and not solely on disciplinary core ideas. In addition, we have learned a great deal by discussions with colleagues in other departments who have led the transition to EBR. Finally, we are reflecting on the work of the SEL Committee and how that might factor into our thinking. As we move toward EBR, science teams will consider including one SEL scaled target. The teams will teach and asses the target as well as measure growth over time.
This spring, Ken O’Connor, internationally-recognized expert in grading and reporting, lead the math and science staff development in April 2017. Our learning focused on best practices in grading, as well as connecting instruction to learning targets that thread throughout our courses. Ken answered questions with science and math teachers throughout the day and in lunch time conversations. Since the April staff development, we have had two lunch meetings to allow teachers to interact and ask questions of mathematics colleagues who have implemented EBR into their classrooms; these have been rich and informative conversations.
We have several science teams taking the lead on this work, re-imagining how our grading practices can promote clarity on skills-focused learning targets, link feedback the learning, and allow multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery.
Our College Prep Physics team has been grading and reporting on the disciplinary core ideas of physics, and is leading the transition to bringing the science practices to the forefront. This team has refined and reduced the number of learning targets it uses during the year
and has created scaled learning targets for transitioning to EBR. Other science teams are joining the conversation, with the following teams beginning Phase I EBR conversations with Tony Reibel: CP Physics, CP Biology, AC Chemistry, AP Biology, and Earth Science HN. This represents thirty of our science teachers! We are targeting the 2018-2019 school year for our first teams to make the conversion to EBR....and the journey will continue!