The Process Pt. II

I think I’m beginning to realize why I’m having so much trouble writing standards (even with some great suggestions from commentors!). When I first started, I grabbed the textbook for my lower-level chem class (Chemistry in the Community, aka Chem Comm… not a “traditional” chemistry book) and made a rough outline of topics that we cover within the 1st unit. After spending a few hours on that, I thought I was being too specific to one course and that I should try to make my standards more general so that I could apply them to the general (more traditional) chemistry class that I will also be teaching.

So I went to my state standards, which more directly parallel the traditional course outline (though they are still lacking). I started with them, and attempted to break them down into more student friendly “learning goals” (standards?) for each one. Whoof! Because they were awkwardly worded and incomplete, I found this to be even more difficult (which led to my first post of this process) than my original method.

After banging my head against the lab table for a while, I grabbed some of the documents I had created while in a grad class back in June that mapped out a traditional chemistry course (with learning objectives!), and we had come up with 9 topics that I chose to work from to develop the standards. After reading some tips over at the other Jason’s blog, I thought I was all set to start writing standards. But I soon realized (after, once again, some banging-of-the-head) it did not serve as an easy transition to use them as standards for Chem Comm.

Here’s what’s tricky:
The Chem Comm curriculum covers all of the same topics (but uses a different presentation method) that a “traditional” chemistry class does, so you would think the standards should overlap. What that means is the topics in Chem Comm are circular whereas a traditional method is more linear in how it progresses1. This is one of the things that I rather like about Chem Comm, but right now it sucks.

So where does that leave me? Back at square one – topic lists for each unit to come up with standards/learning goals for the year2. What will be tricky is differentiating the standard from one unit to the next; i.e. when a standard reappears later, I shouldn’t expect students to achieve mastery the first time around, right? So even if they only get to the 2.o level, when assigning grades I need to factor that in as “meeting” the standard for the time being. I think that will have to be a challenge that I tackle as it comes, there’s really no way around that.

On a lighter note: the easy part of this process was integrating the IB criteria with content standards – it’s just a matter of placing the content standards as sub-headings of the “Scientific Knowledge and Understanding” criterion. At least that’s one thing done! 🙂

1 Traditional Chemistry Units (roughly):
Properties of Matter, Atomic structure, Periodic trends/table, Bonding, Reactions, Stoichiometry, Solutions, Acids/Bases, Gases
Chem Comm Unit 1 ONLY:
Water explorations (solutions, properties, acids/bases, ionics, basic atomic structure, reactions)

2 This is more analogous to what Mylene had suggested on my last post about starting with assessments – I’ve been using the test review as a checkpoint, to make sure I’m covering everything and to make sure the assessment is where I want it to be. Thanks for the tip, Mylene!

Advertisements

The Process Pt. I

Writing standards is hard. Writing out clear, well-defined, broad-enough-but-not-too-broad standards that will describe an entire year of chemistry in one concise list is hard. The MN science standards for chemistry are not much help. They are definitely broad, but (in my opinion) most are neither clear nor well-defined. Not only that, but I’m trying to mesh them with the IB’s science criteria1.

I think the most difficult part is that at the moment I am trying to formulate all of these standards on my own. Having input from colleagues would make the process much less painful, but as of now I’m the only one that’s been at school working (workshop isn’t until next week, so I can’t blame them). I would love to have district-wide chemistry standards in place; last spring our district science curriculum specialist had asked for volunteers to work on it (which I gladly said I would), but it hasn’t happened yet and the word around the department is that it won’t happen until sometime during the coming year – not exactly great timing for my current preparations!

The perfectionist in me wants to have perfect standards – which I realize is not realistic. I knew this would not be an easy transition, so I just need to be optimistic and keep working at it! I think just working with what I have for the time being will allow me to get more of my daily instruction planned out, and I can adjust as I go – right? Right! (At least that’s what I’ll keep telling myself).

1 Even though I don’t teach IB-specific classes, all of the classes at our school are supposed to be “IB affiliated”. The criteria are the same ones used in biology in 10th grade, so students are already familiar with them.

Goals

As the beginning of the school year draws ever closer, I realize it’s time to put aside my summer books and start getting serious about school. I have been doing a lot of thinking about what I would like to do/change with my classes. I’ve got a lot of new ideas I’ve heard and practices I would like to try, so I wanted to sit down and set some goals for myself and my classes – partially so I know what I still need to do in the next couple of weeks to be ready for school to start, and partially to hold myself accountable by checking in on them as the year goes by. Here they are:

1) Alignment with new district standards of grading and reporting.
At the end of last year, my school district finalized its plan to begin implementing new standards for grading and reporting. There are 5 standards that, over the next 3 years, the district will be expecting teachers to begin implementing and switching from current practices. As a young teacher that isn’t too ingrained and invested in my practices, I feel it will be the easiest for me to jump in as quickly as possible to adjust to these new(ish) policies. It also helps that I know I am not satisfied with my current grading and reporting practices, so these will give me some guidance for constructive changes to make.

The standards are (summarized) as follows:

  • Grades will communicate student achievement based on academic achievement
    So… standards based grading!  I’ve already been looking at the MN state standards for chemistry as well as the MYP science criteria (International Baccalaureate Program standards) and how my classes align with them. I still need to develop some sort of rubric for grading said standards to translate their learning into a grade. The toughest part of this will be working with our current gradebook to easily communicate grades and learning. I know the district is working with the developers (TIES) to make some changes, but I spent a couple of hours yesterday creating a back-up plan spreadsheet in case I need it.
  • Non-academic behaviors will not factor into academic grades
    Easy enough. You can still assess them on “non-academic” behaviors, but it must be reflected separately – just like an elementary school report card. The standard also says grades should be also based on individual assessment and not a group grade. The big dispute that caused a bit of hubbub among teachers was cheating – the standard says that if a student cheats, they still have to do the work “or a reasonable alternative.” A lot of teachers claimed this was punishing them for their student’s indiscretions, but I don’t buy it. Cheating falls under the “non-academic” behavior, and students should still have the opportunity to prove what they’ve learned for a grade regardless of whether it means more work for you, the teacher. Suck it up, it’s your job! (Note: I didn’t actually say that last bit to anyone. Just thought it in my head.)
  • Quality assessments and recorded evidence are used to determine grades
    The toughest part of this is the “quality assessments” part. For me, it means I won’t rely on previously created multiple choice/problem set tests. There are a number of issues at work here, and a lot of what I want to change comes from Dan Meyer’s “problem solving” ideas and development. I also have a lot of work to do in designing assessments that align with and analyze learning of the standards. As I said before, I still need to develop rubrics to use as guides for measuring students’ learning.
  • Grades accurately represent attainment of standards and promote learning
    Biggest change here is grading scale and grade weighting – equal-interval grading scales (a la Doug Reeves), and at least 80% of the grade should be weighted on summative assessments, no more than 20% formative. I will (hopefully) be at 100% summative and have already begun using an equal-interval (4-point) grading scale. Oh, and no extra-credit (I say: duh!).
  • Students are involved in the grading and assessment process
    The first part is that they should know how they will be graded (Once again: duh!). But the other part of it I think has to do with involving students in tracking their progress over time. I realize there is more to it than that, but this is what I want to work on this year.

2) Learning objectives (goals…? targets…?)
This has been the most time consuming thing that I have been working on recently. When I took my first grad class back in June, we focused a lot on developing a course as a whole; part of that being writing out “intended learning objectives” for an entire course. I also attended the Minnetonka Summer Institute, and went to a breakout session about using “learning targets” to promote learning, with many uses of formative assessment and feedback from students to teacher as well as teacher to student. This got me energized and excited to work on writing out my own objectives/goals/targets to use for guiding learning.

Any thoughts on what to call them? I think “objectives” is a decent word, and I think my high school students (should) clearly understand what an objective means. Would students benefit from the use of more “symbolic” terms, like goals or targets (things that you can aim for, or achieve, more concrete?) Still not sure about that yet. The idea is the same for all; maybe I’m over-thinking.

3) Feedback!
This, I believe, will be the most important change that I make. When I was at the Summer Institute, we heard about how students received feedback in the form of constructive comments vs. scores (I think it was Doug Reeves again, but might have been Bob Marzano). Their research showed that the students that had the best attitude/outlook and improved their learning most after an assessment were students that received ONLY feedback (the study also looked at giving only scores, and a score and feedback). I think it really speaks to the power our feedback has to motivate and guide student learning. I really want to put an emphasis on giving students constructive feedback that is aligned with the standards so they have the ability to move forward in the best possible way. Whether they actually do or not, well… I guess we’ll just have to wait and see!

Some Thoughts on Teacher Education

This post was inspired by another post I read by another young teacher.

I just completed my first education class at the graduate level, where we examined the process for developing a rationale for teaching a course (yes, there’s a reason I’m teaching you chemistry!), a theme for the course (yes, the topics in chemistry are all connected!) and developing ALL of the learning objectives for the entire course (categorized into skills and cognitions and aligned with state standards). The whole purpose of this was to lay a firm foundation for the reasoning behind teaching your course – which gives a great amount of perspective and longevity to what drives the instruction, keeping the rationale and theme at the focus of everything, making it much more continuous and (hopefully) easily-digested by students.

I will be the first to admit that I am still a bit “green behind the gills” when it comes to teaching, having only completed 2 full years of teaching. But after this three week course, I feel as though I’ve learned more fundamental skills for my teaching than any single class that I took as an undergraduate. I’m not trying to make the point that the teaching program I enrolled in was sub-par; I just feel as though a class like this that teaches processes involved in laying a theoretical foundation for a course would be extremely beneficial to an undergraduate teacher seeking licensure. As I’m sure it is with many other programs, we learned the basics of lesson planning and then eventually planned a whole unit. But we never addressed how all of the units fit together. We talked about state standards, but didn’t do much to address a common theme for the course that would cover them all. Yes, these are useful* skills, but I firmly believe that understanding how to develop a rationale, theme, and objectives that are all connected within a course is an extremely worthwhile practice as an educator.

The other great benefit of this class was that we were all science teachers, so all of the work that we did was focused around science – what a concept! I realize that the feasibility of having all education classes be subject specific would be unsustainable (especially at smaller, private schools) and would also take away for the development of interdisciplinary themes, which can be beneficial to a certain extent. My argument instead is that there should be more time spent collaborating with teachers of the same discipline; my undergrad program had a single, semester long “science methods” class when all of us were together. Other than that, the only differentiation was between secondary and elementary in the second year of the program, which would be silly not to do. Perhaps it would also be beneficial to spend some time working with the elementary-level science teachers to look at doing scope-and-sequence for all levels, which we (barely) talked about. Just a thought.

Maybe someday when (if?) I become an education professor I’ll make all of these changes at my college/university and have the best, most successful teaching program ever… I can dream, right?