Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Science, Social Studies, and Reading Math, Science, Social Studies, and Reading
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN
2010 The PAST Foundation The PAST Foundation 1929 Kenny Road, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43210 Phone: (614) 340-1208 Fax: (614) 292-7775 www.pastfoundation.org
iii iii
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Methodology B. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 A. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview ....................... 3 1. Content Audit B. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview ....................... 3 2. Content Comparison 1. Content Audit 3. Achievement Audit 2. Content Comparison 4. Opportunities fudit 3. Achievement A or STEM C. The Design Process ............................................................................................... 4 4. Opportunities for STEM D. The Design .Process ............................................................................................... 4 C. Definitions ........................................................................................................... 4 III. Science Audit by David Haury D. Definitions ............................................................................................................ 4 A. Content by David Haury III. Science Audit Audit ....................................................................................................... 6 B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 9 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 6 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 10 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 9 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 10 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 11 IV. Social Opportunities for DTEM ........................................................................................ 11 D. Studies Audit by S ee Martindale A. Studies Audit ...................................................................................................... 13 IV. Social Content Audit .by Dee Martindale B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 15 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 13 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 16 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 15 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 16 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 17 V. Mathematics Audit bor STEM .Raymond D. Opportunities f y Marcy ....................................................................................... 17 A. Content Audit . y Marcy Raymond V. Mathematics Audit b...................................................................................................... 19 B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 20 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 19 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 21 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 20 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 21 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 23 VI. Reading and Language Arts Audit by Marcy Raymond D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 23 A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 24 VI. Reading and Language Arts Audit by Marcy Raymond B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 27 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 24 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 27 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 27 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 27 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 29 VII. Summary of Columbus City Schools Improvement Plans ........................................ 31 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 29 VIII. SENCER A of Columbus S ity Schools Improvement Plans . Materials ...................... 32 VII. Summary ssessment of CTEM Readiness Through Curricular ....................................... 31 IX. Comparison of Findings with 2009 CCS Turn Around Report .Materials ...................... 32 VIII. SENCER Assessment of STEM Readiness Through Curricular ...................................... 37 X. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 38 IX. Comparison of Findings with 2009 CCS Turn Around Report ....................................... 37 XI. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 41 X. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 38 XII. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 41 XI. Appendices A. Science XII. Appendices Content Matrix ........................................................................................ 46 B. Science Content Matrix ddressed ......................................................................... 47 A. Science GLIs Explicitly A ........................................................................................ 46 B. Science GLIs Explicitly Addressed ......................................................................... 47
iv
Tables I. I. II. I. II. III. I. II. III. IV.II. III. IV. V. IV. V. V.
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN v STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN v SSTEM AUDIT FOR INDEN FFEEDER PATTERN viii TEM AUDIT FOR LLINDEN EEDER PATTERN v
Science Achievement Scores .......................................................................................... 10 Science Achievement Scores .......................................................................................... 10 Social Studies Achievement Scores ................................................................................ 17 Science Achievement Scores .......................................................................................... 10 Social Studies Achievement Scores ................................................................................ 17 Mathematics Achievement Scores ................................................................................. 22 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Social Studies Achievement Scores ................................................................................ 17 Mathematics Achievement Scores ................................................................................. 22 Reading Achievement Scores ......................................................................................... 29 Methodology chievement Scores ................................................................................. 22 Mathematics A Reading Achievement Scores ......................................................................................... 29 SENCER Rubric ................................................................................................................ 33 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Reading Achievement Scores ......................................................................................... 29 SENCER Rubric ................................................................................................................ 33 B. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview ....................... 3 SENCER Rubric ................................................................................................................ 33 1. Content Audit 2. Content Comparison Figures 3. Achievement Audit Figures Figures 4. Framework Pyramid ................................................................................... 3 I. Assessment Opportunities for STEM I. Assessment Framework P.yramid ................................................................................... 3 C. The Design Cycle ................................................................................................... 4 .............................................................................................. 4 II. Design Principles Process yramid ................................................................................... 3 I. Assessment Framework P II. Design Principles ............................................................................................................ 4 Cycle ................................................................................................... 4 D. Definitions III. Transdisciplinary Pyramid .............................................................................................. 4 II. Design Principles C III.III. Science Audit by Pyramid .............................................................................................. 4 Transdisciplinary Dycle ................................................................................................... 4 avid Haury IV. Twenty First Century Skills ............................................................................................. 4 III. Transdisciplinary Pyramid . Diagram ............................................................................... 5 IV. Twenty First Century ...................................................................................................... 6 A. Content Audit . Skills Diagram ............................................................................... 5 IV. Twenty First Century Skills Diagram ............................................................................... 5 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 9 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 10 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 11 IV. Social Studies Audit by Dee Martindale A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 13 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 15 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 16 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 17 V. Mathematics Audit by Marcy Raymond A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 19 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 20 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 21 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 23 VI. Reading and Language Arts Audit by Marcy Raymond A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 24 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 27 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 27 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 29 VII. Summary of Columbus City Schools Improvement Plans ........................................ 31 VIII. SENCER Assessment of STEM Readiness Through Curricular Materials ...................... 32 IX. Comparison of Findings with 2009 CCS Turn Around Report ....................................... 37 X. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 38 XI. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 41 XII. Appendices A. Science Content Matrix ........................................................................................ 46 B. Science GLIs Explicitly Addressed ......................................................................... 47
I. Introduction
A. Rationale for the External Audit of the K-6 Linden-McKinley Feeder Schools
Columbus
City
Schools
(CCS)
requested
that
an
outside
agency
conduct
a
preliminary
audit
of
the
curriculum
being
utilized
in
the
four
elementary
schools
(Linden,
South
Mifflin,
Hamilton,
Windsor)
that
feed
into
the
middle-
and
high-school
Linden-McKinley
STEM
Academy.
CCS
sought
this
audit
to
ensure
that
the
best
curricular
and
pedagogical
practices
were
employed
as
they
establish
the
foundation
for
rigorous
and
transformative
STEM
(Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Mathematics)
education.
The
scope
of
the
study
charged
the
reviewer
team
with
determining
the
extent
to
which
the
four
elementary
feeder
schools
could
accomplish
two
key
goals:
1. Support
the
transition
to
STEM
from
a
curricular
standpoint,
and
2. Create
the
educational
foundation
needed
for
student
success
at
the
Linden-McKinley
STEM
Academy.
This
audit
is
benchmarked
against
four
of
the
six
commonly
cited
STEM
educational
reform
principles:
1. STEM
embraces
a
comprehensive
education
philosophy,
based
on
student
inquiry
and
experience,
2. STEM
schools
thrive
in
a
connected
P-16
education
continuum,
where
students
cultivate
a
passion
for
mathematics
and
science
in
the
early
grades
and
earn
college
credit
and
work
experience
in
the
later
grades,
3. STEM
schools
educate
the
whole
child,
incorporating
the
arts,
languages,
and
humanities
into
student
curricula.
STEM
schools
reflect
an
interdisciplinary
approach,
offering
students
the
opportunity
to
make
sense
of
the
world
around
them,
rather
than
learn
isolated
bits
and
pieces
of
subjects
in
separate
forums,
and
4. STEM
schools
engage
students
in
the
technological
design
process,
using
technology
to
meet
the
challenges
of
life
(Haury
2002;
Morrison
2005
and
2006),
using
the
Science
Education
for
New
Civic
Engagement
and
Responsibility
(SENCER)
rubric
(National
Science
Foundation
2010).
The
purpose
of
the
audit
was
to
streamline
access
from
the
current
kindergarten
through
grade
six
curriculum
used
at
these
feeder
schools
to
transdisciplinary,
project-based
STEM
learning.
II. Methodology
A. Introduction
The
audit
was
conducted
over
the
summer
of
2010
by
a
team
of
educators
representing
higher
education,
high
school
education,
kindergarten
through
grade
six
education,
and
informal
education.
Under
the
direction
of
the
PAST
Foundation,
this
audit
team
systematically
examined
the
materials
provided
by
Columbus
City
Schools
as
well
as
data
publicly
available
from
the
Ohio
Department
of
Education.
By
creating
a
team
that
has
a
working
knowledge
of
STEM
education
and
its
implementation,
PAST
was
able
to
keep
the
projects
scope
and
focus
well
defined.
The
makeup
of
the
team
created
a
vertical alignment of understanding for how STEM must coordinate with all levels of education and how the long-term transformation of STEM must therefore progress. The audit examined Columbus City Schools current K-6 Science, Math, Social Studies, and Reading/Language Arts curriculum to determine how its (1) curriculum scope, (2) intellectual rigor, and (3) instructional practices align with the structure of the program being developed at Linden-McKinley STEM School. Published materials used in the evaluation included the CCS Pacing Guides, website information, textbooks, assessment practices, school improvement plans, and achievement data. Columbus City Schools supplied all materials, or reviewers accessed public documents created for Columbus City Schools. We did not go beyond these parameters for the purposes of this study. Individual reviewers examined each content area separately, using the same matrix and talking points thus providing an independent, yet cohesive audit. In the following sections, each content area is broken down into four different levels, creating an audit of: 1. What currently exists in the curriculum (Content Audit), 2. How the CCS curriculum compares to current reform and pedagogical practices at the state and national educational levels (Content Comparison), 3. The current evidence of student achievement with existing models (Achievement Audit), and 4. How the CCS School Improvement Plans address perceived gaps between instruction and achievement, and what the opportunities are for improvement and implementation of STEM pedagogies (Opportunities for STEM). The Achievement Audit included both Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) data and CCS quarterly assessment data for the four elementary schools, to determine the degree of alignment between written curriculum and performance assessments. Each school improvement plan was also cross- referenced for evidence of strategic goals that address instructional gaps and student deficiencies. In addition, this STEM audit compares itself to the CCS Turnaround Middle School Research Report (Community Research Partnership 2009), which used a different methodology for assessment. The primary difference in methodologies is the predominance of qualitative data in the CCS Turnaround Middle School Research Report, whereas this audit relies solely on quantitative data. Since this audit took place during the summer months, the reviewers were not able to interview or observe instructors and classes in action. As noted, this audit only examined published documents. However, PAST did compare the qualitative findings of the Turnaround Report to PASTs quantitative findings in an effort to confirm the accuracy of conclusions and recommendations from both studies. Finally, PAST synthesized the individual content findings to create a series of recommendations intended to streamline transformation of STEM educational practices and delivery of transdisciplinary, project- based learning in Linden-McKinley feeder pattern schools.
Content Audit The content audit consisted of reviewers examining the information delivered to students throughout the school year, at each grade level. Reviewers utilized curriculum materials, textbooks, and CCS Pacing Guides to determine when Grade Level Indicators (GLI) were being addressed, how often concepts were revisited, and areas of content integration. Each content reviewer developed a matrix to track the focus of content by quarter (See Appendix A). This information was then examined to determine the vertical progression from kindergarten through grade six. Content Comparison The project team conducted a content comparison between the CCS Pacing Guides and various reform initiatives and expectations for student learning published by local and national organizations. The content comparison also involved the examination of pedagogical practices employed by CCS as evidenced by the lessons provided on the CCS Pacing Guides for areas of inquiry, project-based learning and transdisciplinary opportunities. Achievement Audit The project team reviewed each schools state report card data (See Appendix B) and quarterly assessment data to determine levels of student achievement and gauge CCS students performance against their peers within the CCS district and statewide in Ohio. Reviewers also examined each schools Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Value Added data. District quarterly assessment data is embedded within each of the following content area sections. Opportunity for STEM Compiling the Content Audit and the analysis from the Content Comparison, the project team collaboratively created a list of real and relevant STEM opportunities in each of the four content areas that, if adopted, will accelerate a systematic approach to transdisciplinary, project-based STEM learning, as well as close gaps in content, application, and synthesis. Also, the recommended opportunities are intended to enhance the delivery of twenty first century habits and skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009).
The Design Process should be an integral part of all STEM environments, including professional development, curriculum development, school planning, and content delivery. Teachers should model the design process for students and have students identify where they are in the design process throughout instructional activities.
D. Definitions
Curriculum:
For
the
purpose
of
this
STEM
audit,
curriculum
is
defined
as
any
document,
media,
or
device
that
informs
teachers
about
what
students
are
expected
to
learn.
In
short,
curriculum
is
the
sum
of
all
the
activities,
experiences,
and
learning
opportunities.
Figure
3:
Transdisciplinary
Pyramid
Transdisciplinary: The seamless cohesion of all disciplines in the pursuit of understanding problems and issues. A transdisciplinary approach to problem solving is not limited to a single or selected group of disciplines but encompasses all disciplines (Basarab 1996, 1997).
Learning and Innovation Skills: think creatively, work creatively with others and Implement innovations Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills: Reason Effectively, Use Systems Thinking, Make Judgments and Decisions, Solve Problems Communication and Collaboration Skills: Communicate Clearly and Collaborate with Others Information, Media and Technology Skills: Information Literacy, Media Literacy, Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) Literacy Life and Career Skills: Flexibility and Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross- Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, Leadership and Responsibility
The assigned textbooks endorse the discredited notion of a didactic scientific method which has not been endorsed by educational organizations for over 20 years. STEM promotes the holistic approach to inquiry that aligns more with the stance of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that describes science as an enterprise that employs a variety of inquiry processes and methods to gain new knowledge (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989). The science content at each grade level is largely clustered within grading periods according to the traditional structure of the disciplines (life sciences, earth and space sciences, or physical sciences), rather than according to principles that correspond to the daily lives, community resources, or lived experiences of students. In examining the learning progressions through each academic year and across grade levels, there seems to be no discernable pattern in the sequence of topics. They seem disarticulated, both within the science disciplines and across other disciplines. Career awareness is de-contextualized and addressed separately from units and topics organized around the content domains of science, rather than being linked to science and engineering professions associated with the particular content being studied at a particular time. An examination of the CCS Pacing Guides and textbooks for each grade level seems to indicate that the core program of studies is essentially text-based, with occasional activities provided to verify concepts and principles presented in the textbook, or to demonstrate concepts and principles being presented. The CCS Pacing Guides provide no guidelines, resources, or examples for formative assessment of student learning or performance. Neither the CCS Pacing Guides nor the textbooks offer alternative activities or guidance for teachers in support of differentiated instruction. The assigned textbooks and other supplementary materials associated with the Science and STEM CCS Pacing Guides contain factual errors and phrasing that reinforce common misconceptions or likely lead to conceptual confusion. Although the entire text was not examined for these errors, enough existed to be noted. Here are three examples: Example 1 Science (Columbus City Schools STEM CCS Pacing Guides, 2009) The gulping goldfish AIMS Activity for week 7 of the first grading period for Grade 2: An activity using gill movements in goldfish is used to illustrate processes associated with inquiry, and students are directed to notice how a fishs breathing rate changes in response to other changes in its environment or activity level. However, fish have no lungs and thus do not breathe. Use of such inappropriate language engenders misconceptions and is contrary to the careful use of vocabulary terms in science. Example 2 Science (Bell et al. 2006: 126) In the Harcourt Science textbook for level 2, there is inappropriate teleological phrasing in a section on adaptation. In a section titled, How animals and plants adapt, we find this pair of sentences: Over time, animals and plants adapt, or change, to be able to live in their environment. They adapt in different ways to meet their needs. These statements are misleading and imply purpose in evolution. It is true that animals and plants are constantly evolving, and this change is sometimes due to pressure in the environmentbut not always. If teachers are only presenting adaptation as a response to the environment, students will develop misconceptions. Research among college level biology students show that misconceptions introduced at an early age and reinforced over time are hard to change (Nehm and Schonfeld 2010). Our students future learning depends upon us not introducing them to faulty ideas.
These three examples are simply illustrations of many misleading and inaccurate statements found in the Harcourt textbook series, and in many other textbooks as well. A curriculum that is essentially organized around a textbook series could easily become a means of generating misconceptions among students that are very hard to correct as students pass through the educational system. The presence of these faulty narratives is another reason for using something other than textbook narratives and structures as the organizing principle for science units. Further, there are implications here for the sort of professional development that must be provided for teachers when textbooks such as these are an integral component of the curriculum. In addition to the science curriculum outlined by the kindergarten through grad six CCS Pacing Guides, there is separate STEM CCS Pacing Guides for Kindergarten through grade two. There are activities planned for each week of each grading period, and various AIMS modules augment activities in the science textbook. There is uneven correlation in terms of timing or sequencing of the STEM activities with the science scope and sequence. For instance, the kindergarten science CCS Pacing Guides focus on plants and animals during grading period four, whereas the STEM CCS Pacing Guides include attention to earthquakes, volcanoes, and other earth science phenomena. Similarly, in grading period two of grade two, the science CCS Pacing Guides focus on sound and light, while the STEM CCS Pacing Guides focus on phases of the moon and phenomena associated with weather. The same incongruity between the science CCS Pacing Guides and STEM CCS Pacing Guides is found throughout kindergarten through grade two. It is also noted that the science GLIs addressed by the STEM CCS Pacing Guides and the science CCS Pacing Guides differ within grading periods.
10
program lacks coherence. As mentioned previously, this is a generally recognized problem among schools in the United States that hinders development of deep understanding in science.
03/05/10 Gr4 Science: Q3 03/05/10 Gr5 Science: Q3 03/05/10 Gr6 Science: Q3 12/11/09 Gr4 Science: Q2 12/11/09 Gr5 Science: Q2 12/11/09 Gr6 Science: Q2 09/28/09 Gr4 Science: Q1 09/28/09 Gr5 Science: Q1 09/28/09 Gr6 Science: Q1
11
12
would also allow an opportunity both to deliberately cluster the science and STEM units into integrated units, and to invest more deliberate attention to differentiated instruction. Perhaps introducing a core and options approach to unit design would enable deliberate structures that would accommodate the needs of both accelerated students and those requiring more remediation. Such a model would allow a variety of ways to incorporate attention to the same process skills within the context of a unit. Develop a staged process that would begin with a re-visioning process involving inter-school teams of teachers to identify a broad, overall framework for conceptualizing and guiding the re- centering and reorganization process of the basic unit. Establish module or unit development teams that would prototype units, at least one per grade level, which could be piloted to demonstrate proof of concept and establish islands of success in each school. Establish a continuous improvement process that would include three components: professional development to help teachers adjust to the new paradigm (particularly, integrating content and inquiry model), continuous improvement process for piloted units, and process for developing new units. Consider the working draft of the new National Research Council (NRC 2010) framework for science standards in the development process. Because this document will eventually have broad impacts on science programs, attending to the emerging working drafts would put CCS ahead of the curve.
13
14
Most of the learning activities are teacher directed, with little student ownership of learning. There is not much opportunity for inquiry or project-based learning. Although there are hands-on activities, they are usually prescriptive, guiding students step-by-step to a predetermined right answer (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). Enrichment Activities placement is unclear. The CCS Pacing Guides reference Enrichment activities for each unit that are more project based. However, time does not appear to be built into the CCS Pacing Guides to accommodate these projects. All of these activities are highlighted (shaded) on the pacing document, but the document does not explain this formatting. It is not clear whether these enrichment activities are optional or intended to be used with all students (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). Integration of inter- and transdisciplinary content is not aligned. The CCS Pacing Guides make suggestions for areas of content integration, but the areas of content integration do not coincide with the learning targets in the other content areas for that grading period. For example, in grade four, quarter one, week two, student activities involve coordinate grids and mapping, a task which does not appear in the Math CCS Pacing Guides until the end of quarter three (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). Technology plays a small or non-existent role in the social studies curriculum. Technology is mostly referenced in sixth grade with students doing internet scavenger hunts as extension activities (Columbus City Schools Social Studies Curriculum Guide 2010). Time allotment for learning key Social Studies concepts is not sufficient. Classroom time devoted to social studies does not appear to be sufficient for the amount of learning that needs to take place. In kindergarten through grade two, the duration is simply listed as sessions, e.g. grade one, lesson one: How Do We Get Along in School? six sessions. There is no identification of how much time a session entails. In grades three through five, thirty-minute class periods or 150 minutes per week are allocated for social studies instruction. At this grade level, thirty minutes is inadequate for students to truly engage in the content. In grade six, the CCS Pacing Guides is based on fifty-minute periods, which is more desirable (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides provide no guidelines, resources or examples for formative assessment of student learning. Assessments of learning appear to only be summative traditional paper/pencil tests. Questions regarding these assessments are: How are teachers using assessment data? What do they do when students havent met learning goals? When administrators review assessment data, what teachers seem to be having the most success with students? What instructional practices are these teachers using? Are they strictly following the CCS Pacing Guides? What type of feedback are students given and are they afforded the opportunity to revisit concepts not mastered? Grade six is the only level that supplied a Curriculum Guide document in addition to the CCS Pacing Guides. The grade six curriculum guide clearly articulates learning targets and provides multiple resources and lessons to support instruction. The guide provides teachers with background knowledge of each topic covered in the lesson. It also scaffolds information letting the current teacher know the focus in the prior grade and the expectations for the future grade. The guide also points out how lessons build towards student understanding of content on the Ohio Graduation Test. The curriculum guide also lets teachers know how students will be assessed on the content by providing them with sample achievement test items. Although many of the activities in the curriculum guide do not promote higher-level thinking, this guide is a good resource for teachers, especially for a first year teacher (Columbus City Schools Social Studies Curriculum Guide 2010).
15
16
Social Studies programs should provide a connection to the world of work through the exploration of careers and the application of essential social studies skills (NCSS 2008). STEM feeder schools must have staff and students who understand that STEM education is much more than the disciplines included in the acronym; its a way of thinking, a process. STEM strives to build critical thinkers curious, confident and intellectual risk takers who know how to acquire, synthesize, and evaluate information; to adapt and collaborate. The CCS curriculum guide occasionally has students working together on projects, but due to the didactic structure of the curriculum, students are not afforded the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills on a daily basis. Instead of simply reading and answering questions from a textbook, students should be taught to question, evaluate, and challenge information. Students should be involved in debates, simulations, discussions, and projects that require application of content.
17
Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 9.80% 90.20% 4.80% 95.20% 9.10% 90.90% 4.90% 95.10% 8.30% 91.70% 2.20% 97.80% 12.80% 87.20%
0.00% 100.00% 9.90% 90.10% 13.00% 87.00% 7.10% 92.90% 8.30% 91.70% 7.80% 92.20% 17.80% 82.20% 7.30% 92.70% 11.30% 88.70%
0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6.90% 93.10% 5.30% 94.70% 4.40% 95.60% 7.10% 92.90% 9.80% 90.20% 2.10% 97.90% 6.70% 93.30%
0.00% 100.00% 5.60% 94.40% 12.00% 88.00% 0.00% 100.00% 12.10% 87.90% 29.20% 70.80% 2.60% 97.40% 2.90% 97.10% 8.00% 92.00%
18
(Mortenson and Relin 2006). The more experiences students have with the content the more likely they are to retain and truly understand the information. Increase the time allocation for Social Studies instruction. Thirty minutes each day is not enough time for students to think deeply and apply the content. With a strong interdisciplinary curriculum, teachers can promote student competence in social studies, literacy, mathematics and science without trying to find more time in the school day. Incorporate more primary and secondary sources into the curriculum and decrease reliance on the textbook. Allow students to obtain, compare, synthesize and evaluate information from varied sources. The textbooks should be viewed as one of many resources. Integrate more technology into the curriculum. Many of the student projects listed in the CCS Pacing Guides involve the creation of posters, brochures, stories, articles, etc. Many of these could be enhanced with the use of technology (power points, movies, storyboards, pod casts, web- quests). Use the existing text series for ideas on projects that promote student problem solving, higher level thinking, inquiry and collaboration. Adapt the projects as necessary for rigor and inquiry. These projects should be mandatory for all students and not considered enrichment activities they are essential activities. Students must begin to take more ownership of their learning and apply the content in authentic ways.
19
20
computational fluency, and problem-solving skills. This evidence was marked as optional throughout most of the 6th grade materials (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides treat most of the GLIs as discrete conceptual skills. Few text materials provide opportunities for students to apply understanding of mathematical operations, practice executing procedures that would allow effective and efficient methods of problem solving (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides 2009). In all cases, a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals and the operational procedures for using them were reinforced by both the time allotted to the skill through the CCS Pacing Guides and the practice opportunities provided through the text materials. The CCS Pacing Guides affords sufficient time on task to ensure acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions. Proportional reasoning as a result of more open ended or guided inquiry is addressed, but in limited scope or complexity. Evidence of proportional reasoning in contextual situations relevant to the student was limited in grades five and six. Teachers regular use of formative assessment was evidenced through the short cycle assessment process described in the curriculum guide. It is not clear if the assessments can be changed if a decision is made to offer benchmarks at a time different than the current CCS Pacing Guides (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides 2009). It was not apparent whether teachers have additional guidance on using the assessment to design and individualize instruction through differentiation or small group work. Although mentioned in the introductory materials and suggested in the teacher notes of the text, the practice is not addressed as an emphasis from the district perspective based upon the materials supplied (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). There was no evidence of performance assessment requirements for student achievement via the materials provided (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). The use of real-world contexts to introduce mathematical ideas is evidenced throughout the materials provided. There are two working definitions within the materials regarding the term real world. One definition is that real world included exposure to the students to word problems that could actually be needed by someone some day. A second definition found only in the kindergarten and grade 1 materials is that real world included hands on contexts that students could see, feel or need to know the answer (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). Assessment of real world contexts through performance assessment practices was not evidenced. The presence of design challenges or the design process integrating mathematics with other content areas was not evidenced in the materials provided. Integration of other content areas was suggested in many of the text materials provided, but not required. However these suggestions lacked depth and the problems associated with these suggestions were not robust enough to encourage transdisciplinary instruction (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009).
The Content Comparison for Mathematics involved the examination of the CCS Mathematics curriculum and practices in comparison to the curricular practices endorsed by reform documents and professional organizations representing mathematics (Ohio Mathematics Standards 2010, National Core Standards 2010, National Council for Teachers Mathematics Standards 2010).
21
The following standards are the summaries for the Mathematics published by the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and should be the benchmark by which kindergarten through grade six CCS Mathematics curricula is gauged (National Council for Teachers of Mathematics 2010): Numbers And Operations Students are expected to have a basic understanding of numbers and their relationships, and to be able to read and write numbers. Further, they should understand the meanings of operations, and be able to compute fluently and make reasonable estimates. Algebra students should be able to sort, classify, and order by size and other properties; recognize, describe, extend, and analyze patterns; use algebraic symbols to represent and analyze mathematical situations; use mathematical models to represent and understand quantitative relationships; and analyze change in various contexts (e.g. growing taller over a specified period of time). Geometry students should engage in analyzing characteristics and properties of two- and three- dimensional geometric shapes, and develop mathematical arguments about geometric relationships; describe spatial relationships using coordinate geometry and other representational systems; apply transformations (i.e. slides, flips, and turns) and use symmetry to analyze mathematical situations; and use visualization, spatial reasoning, and geometric modeling to solve problems. Measurement students should understand measurable attributes of objects and the units, systems, and processes of measurement. They should able to apply appropriate techniques, tools, and formulas to determine measurements. Data Analysis and Probability students should engage in formulating questions that can be addressed with data and in collecting, organizing, and displaying relevant data to answer those questions. They should be able to select and use appropriate statistical methods to analyze data. Students should also develop and evaluate inferences and predictions that are based on data, and understand and apply basic concepts. Problem Solving students should be guided to build new mathematical knowledge through problem solving, apply and adapt a variety of appropriate strategies to solve problems in math and other contexts, and reflect on those processes. Reasoning and Proof students should be able to recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental to mathematics; and to develop, investigate, use, and evaluate appropriate conjectures, arguments, and proofs. Communication Standard students should be learning to organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking and to communicate that thinking coherently, clearly, and precisely to peers, teachers, and others; they should be able to analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others. Connections students need to be able to recognize and use connections among mathematical ideas; understand how those ideas interconnect and build on one another to produce a coherent whole; and recognize and apply mathematics in other contexts. Representation students should create and use representations to organize, record, and communicate mathematical ideas; and then select and apply those representations to solve problems and to model and interpret physical, social, and mathematical phenomena.
22
Mifflin
are
each
year
in
school
improvement
regarding
AYP
and
are
currently
listed
in
Academic
Emergency.
In
mathematics,
between
2006
and
2009,
grades
three
through
six
underperformed
their
district
peers
by
an
average
of
22
percentage
points
and
underperformed
the
state
averages
by
as
much
as
50
percentage
points.
Linden
Elementary
and
Windsor
Elementary
are
in
Academic
Watch
and
are
designated
as
school
improvement
regarding
AYP.
In
mathematics,
both
schools
score
within
close
proximity
to
their
peers
in
the
district.
However
the
performance
averages
19
percentage
points
below
the
state
in
each
grade
level
(See
Appendix
B).
Quarterly
assessment
data
for
2009-2010
also
indicates
that
students
are
struggling
throughout
the
year
to
meet
grade
level
expectations
(Table
3).
Table
3
Mathematics - Percent of Students Proficient on 2009-10 Quarterly Assessments Hamilton Linden S Mifflin Windsor PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 03/05/10, Gr1 Math: Q3 Proficient 48.10% 16.40% 11.90% 42.90% NotProficient 51.90% 83.60% 88.10% 57.10% 03/05/10, Gr2 Math: Q3 Proficient 31.50% 44.60% 16.70% 9.50% NotProficient 68.50% 55.40% 83.30% 90.50% 03/05/10, Gr3 Math: Q3 Proficient 10.80% 16.00% 15.10% 27.80% NotProficient 89.20% 84.00% 84.90% 72.20% 03/05/10, Gr4 Math: Q3 Proficient 12.20% 15.10% 4.70% 4.70% NotProficient 87.80% 84.90% 95.30% 95.30% 03/05/10, Gr5 Math: Q3 Proficient 9.30% 1.40% 4.20% 2.60% NotProficient 90.70% 98.60% 95.80% 97.40% 03/05/10, Gr6 Math: Q3 Proficient 5.30% 20.40% 41.40% 37.50% NotProficient 94.70% 79.60% 58.60% 62.50% 12/11/09, Gr1 Math: Q2 Proficient 37.50% 53.70% 62.50% 55.80% NotProficient 62.50% 46.30% 37.50% 44.20% 12/11/09, Gr2 Math: Q2 Proficient 30.60% 13.50% 11.40% 10.20% NotProficient 69.40% 86.50% 88.60% 89.80% 12/11/09, Gr3 Math: Q2 Proficient 3.00% 21.60% 13.50% 25.70% NotProficient 97.00% 78.40% 86.50% 74.30% 12/11/09, Gr4 Math: Q2 Proficient 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 0.00% NotProficient 100.00% 98.60% 100.00% 100.00% 12/11/09, Gr5 Math: Q2 Proficient 6.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NotProficient 93.20% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 12/11/09, Gr6 Math: Q2 Proficient 0.00% 13.00% 37.00% 20.00% NotProficient 100.00% 87.00% 63.00% 80.00% 09/28/09, Gr1 Math: Q1 Proficient 13.60% 20.80% 53.70% 32.70% NotProficient 86.40% 79.20% 46.30% 67.30% 09/28/09, Gr2 Math: Q1 Proficient 56.80% 48.60% 36.10% 27.10% NotProficient 43.20% 51.40% 63.90% 72.90% 09/28/09, Gr3 Math: Q1 Proficient 12.70% 20.90% 10.40% 34.30% NotProficient 87.30% 79.10% 89.60% 65.70% 09/28/09, Gr4 Math: Q1 Proficient 0.00% 10.00% 2.80% 0.00% NotProficient 100.00% 90.00% 97.20% 100.00% 09/28/09, Gr5 Math: Q1 Proficient 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NotProficient 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 09/28/09, Gr6 Math: Q1 Proficient 10.30% 0.00% 3.30% 4.30% NotProficient 89.70% 100.00% 96.70% 95.70%
23
The current curriculum, CCS Pacing Guides and methods of instruction are not meeting the educational needs of the students. Students are not obtaining the necessary skills and content for success in their current grade level which helps establish the foundation for success in future years.
24
24
VI.
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN
Reading and Language Arts by Marcy Raymond and Dee VI. Reading and Language Arts by Marcy Raymond Martindale Reading and Language Arts: Content Audit
The
following
content
analysis
specifically
examined
the
instructional
resource
materials
for
K -6
Reading
and
following
content
analysis
specifically
ange
of
print
aind
non-print
resource
materials
for
K -6
Reading
The
Language
Arts.
Students
read
a
wide
r examined
the
nstructional
texts
to
build
an
understanding
of
texts,
of
themselves,
tudents
he
cultures
of
the
United
Sand
non-print
texts
to
bacquire
understanding
of
and
Language
Arts.
S and
of
t read
a
wide
range
of
print
tates
and
the
world;
to
uild
an
new
information;
to
respond
to
the
needs
aof
tdemands
of
sf
the
United
he
workplace.
Among
the
reviewed
texts
are
texts,
of
themselves,
and
nd
he
cultures
o ociety
and
t States
and
the
world;
to
acquire
new
information;
fiction
and
t on-fiction
as
nd
demands
of
society
and
the
workplace.
Among
the
the
K-6
curriculum
to
respond
no
the
needs
awell
as
classic
and
contemporary
works
ranging
across
reviewed
texts
are
as
evidenced
both
through
twell
as
classic
and
contemporary
and
associated
tcross
the
K-6
curriculum
as
fiction
and
non-fiction
as
he
curriculum
CCS
Pacing
Guides
works
ranging
a exts.
evidenced
both
through
the
curriculum
CCS
Pacing
Guides
and
associated
texts.
The
materials
provided
through
the
textbook
series
are
directly
correlated
to
the
CCS
Pacing
Guides.
The
materials
provided
through
the
textbook
series
are
directly
correlated
to
the
CCS
Pacing
The
text
materials
supply
a
rich
cultural
spectrum
and
relevancy.
Guides.
The
text
series
uses
upply
a
rich
cconsiderate
texts
aembedded
support)
for
students
who
are
materials
s elements
of
ultural
spectrum
( nd
relevancy.
second
language
learners,
enabling
access
to
tcomprehension.
support)
for
students
who
are
The
text
series
uses
elements
of
considerate
exts
(embedded
The
teacher
support
materials
are
robust
ato
cencourage
the
teacher
to
modify
instruction
for
second
language
learners,
enabling
access
nd
omprehension.
differentiation
by
ability
and
for
visual
learners.
The
reviewer
eacher
to
modify
instruction
for
The
teacher
support
materials
are
robust
and
encourage
the
t did
not
find
instances
of
specific
differentiation
by
ability
and
ther
learning
styles.
differentiation
strategies
for
ofor
visual
learners.
The
reviewer
did
not
find
instances
of
specific
The
text
series
strategies
for
other
lf
strategies
to
fill
schema
gaps
for
students
who
struggle
with
differentiation
includes
a
variety
o earning
styles.
Reading
ceries
includes
a
variety
of
strategies
to
fill
schema
gaps
for
students
who
struggle
with
The
text
somprehension.
The
teacher
materials
include
strategies
for
individual,
small
group,
and
large
group
strategies.
Reading
comprehension.
However
it
is
up
to
teacher
discretion
to
d or
individual,
small
group,
and
large
group
strategies.
The
teacher
materials
include
strategies
fiscern
the
frequency
and
structures
for
instruction.
Intervention
strategies
are
discretion
tthe
iscern
nstructional
materials
reviewed.
iThe
text
series
However
it
is
up
to
teacher
present
in
o
d core
i the
frequency
and
structures
for
nstruction.
promotes
three
tiers
of
intervention
n
the
c(ore
instructional
materials
reviewed.
The
text
series
Intervention
strategies
are
present
inoted
Beck
et
al.
2008):
1. Basic
Intervention
scaffolding
of
core
instructional
m promotes
three
tiers
of
intervention
noted
(Beck
et
al.
2008):
aterials
through
leveled
readers
and
1. literacy
centers.
scaffolding
of
core
instructional
materials
through
leveled
readers
and
Basic
Intervention
2. Strategic
enters.
literacy
c Intervention
extra
support
and
Reading
practice
for
below-level
readers
for
2. mainstreamed
classroom
environments
primarily
through
before,
during,
and
after
Rfeading
Strategic
Intervention
extra
support
and
Reading
practice
for
below-level
readers
or
strategies
and
tclassroom
environments
primarily
he
same
bheme
while
increasing
RReading
mainstreamed
he
placement
of
texts
that
are
in
t through
t efore,
during,
and
after
eading
levels
as
the
theme
lacement
mf
texts
that
are
in
the
same
theme
while
increasing
Reading
strategies
and
the
p becomes
o ore
complex.
3. Intensive
Intervention
stand
ore
complex.
levels
as
the
theme
becomes
m alone
programmatic
implementation
in
which
basic
technical
skills
are
entervention
or
non-mainstreamed
students
with
learning
din
which
basic
technical
3. Intensive
Imphasized
f stand
alone
programmatic
implementation
ifficulties.
The
CCS
Pacing
Guides
of
the
unon-mainstreamed
students
with
learning
difficulties.
as
that
of
skills
are
emphasized
for
pper
elementary
are
not
formatted
in
the
same
manner
primary
Prades.
Tuides
of
the
upper
elementary
are
not
who
does
niot
thave
access
to
Microsoft
of
The
CCS
g acing
G his
could
pose
a
problem
for
a
teacher
formatted
n
he
same
manner
as
that
Publisher
rades.
This
ll
ould
pose
aormatted
fsor
a
teacher
wser
does
not
have
be
a
consideration
primary
g at
home.
A c should
be
f
problem
imilarly
and
u ho
access
should
access
to
Microsoft
(Columbus
t
home.
All
should
be
formatted
similarly
and
user
access
should
be
a
consideration
Publisher
a City
Schools
LACES
Pacing
Calendar
2009).
The
introduction
of
phonics
and
phonemic
awareness
is
emphasized
in
the
text
series.
In
some
(Columbus
City
Schools
LACES
Pacing
Calendar
2009).
cases,
the
CCS
Pacing
Guides
does
not
emphasize
strategically
the
need
fhe
text
series.
In
some
The
introduction
of
phonics
and
phonemic
awareness
is
emphasized
in
t or
some
of
the
letter- sound
the
CCS
Pacing
Guides
does
the
year.
As
an
strategically
the
need
for
some
eek
12
lof
the
cases,
knowledge
early
enough
in
not
emphasize
example,
/b/b
and
/k/k
are
in
w of
the
etter- pacing
knowledge
early
enough
in
the
year.
uch
an
example,
VC
words
/Beck
re
ial.
2eek
12
of
the
sound
calendar
and
should
be
introduced
m
As
earlier
for
C /b/b
and
(k/k
a et
n
w 008).
The
progression
of
the
instruction
for
Reading
is
logical
and
sequential
however
2here
is
an
pacing
calendar
and
should
be
introduced
much
earlier
for
CVC
words
(Beck
et
al.
t 008).
overemphasis
of
lower
ilnstruction
for
Reading
is
logical
iand
sequential
however
there
is
an
City
The
progression
of
the
evel
performance
expectations
n
the
CCS
Pacing
Guides
(Columbus
Schools
LACES
Pacing
Calendar
2009).
overemphasis
of
lower
level
performance
expectations
in
the
CCS
Pacing
Guides
(Columbus
City
Schools
LACES
Pacing
Calendar
2009).
25
Opportunities for analysis, synthesis and evaluation through real world contexts are not frequently present in the textbooks and do not lend themselves to be regularly integrated to STEM focused curriculum. In many cases, the teacher would need to supplement materials both fiction and non-fiction examples of context rich texts for students to learn from. Example 2 Reading (Beck et al. 2008: 4.3 4.5) In lesson 4.3, the targeted benchmark is compare and contrast two characters within the Danitra Leaves Town story. The next two lessons reinforce that benchmark with more specificity, and, with only one exception (question 2, 4.4), do not encourage students to extend beyond the concepts of comparing and contrasting to the higher levels of evaluation and decision-making. The emphasis from the textbook perspective based upon the suggestions from the curriculum CCS Pacing Guides, (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009), is development of basic Reading strategies. There is not a concentration on thinking skill development within the text examples supplied nor is there an emphasis on critical thinking strategies within the curriculum outlined in the CCS Pacing Guides other than those listed in the teacher editions of the series as extensions or differentiation activities. The primary focuses of both are Reading skills in isolation (Beck et al. 2008). Students read a wide range of literature from many contexts and a variety of genres to build an understanding of the multiple dimensions (e.g. philosophical, ethical, aesthetic) of human experience. However, the literature rarely addresses science and technology (Beck et al. 2008). Instructional practices in the CCS Pacing Guides are limited to the textbook materials. There is little evidence of literature projects that promote transdisciplinary inquiry (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). Vocabulary instruction resides primarily through the initiation of themes. There was no evidence of synthesis of vocabulary that a student may need from other content areas such as math or science. Rarely were examples within the text materials focused on vocabulary acquisition in other content areas (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). The text materials enable students to apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. However the curriculum CCS Pacing Guides does not require that the student have experience and exposure to this variety. The suggested activities are generally skill based. The activities for extension and analysis available are optional. These optional activities encourage students to draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure,
26
context, graphics). These could easily be modified to encourage exploration in STEM (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). There is an over emphasis on fiction within the materials provided. Attention to difficult texts that are non-fiction or informational is somewhat randomly dispersed through the curriculum with more emphasis in the grades five and six CCS Pacing Guides. (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009) The majority of the non-fiction references were located in the teacher materials under the cross-curricular notes (Beck et al. 2008). The instructional materials and CCS Pacing Guides show adequate examples of the opportunity for students to apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create, critique, and discuss print and non-print texts (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). There was limited emphasis on the students ability to conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. The CCS Pacing Guides indicated that students should gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and non- print texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience. The focus of most activities included in the guides related to this standard emphasized information, not necessarily data. Explicit connections to the interpretation of data in other areas (math, science, social studies) were not evident in the materials provided (Beck et al. 2008). Technology connections, when included in many of the guides, are often loosely connected to objectives. There was no evidence of a specific set of spiraled skills students were to develop across the grades from the materials provided (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). A survey from kindergarten through grade six reveals that the majority of assessments are of the knowledge/comprehension type, according to Blooms Taxonomy. Virtually all of the tests sampled from kindergarten through grade five were of this type, while a little more than half of the grade materials focused on comprehension. Sampling included only those activities suggested by the CCS Pacing Guides and did not include optional extension/enrichment activities. Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation assessment examples are the least frequent type of assessment in the sample. Performances focusing on application in real world contexts are found in only three instances of the kindergarten through grade five materials provided (Beck et al. 2008). While auditors recognize that this is a small sample, to the extent that it typifies work found at these grade spans in Reading, the comparatively heavy emphasis on knowledge and comprehension is inconsistent with CCS goals for increasing the rigor of instruction and is disproportionate to the relative emphasis placed on these types of cognition in the objectives. (Further validation of this observation could be obtained by collecting and analyzing a larger sample of student artifacts from across the feeder system.) The focus among assessments collected in kindergarten and grade one is predominantly on general Reading Processes. Emphasis on Reading Process is highest in kindergarten and lowest at grade four, with a decrease seen at each successive grade, with the exception of grade five (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides and text materials give the least amount of emphasis to Comprehension of Informational Text. It was found most frequently among samples from grade four and infrequently, if at all, among other grade levels (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). The emphasis on Writing is lowest at grades two and three, highest at grades four and five, and not observed among the assessments collected for kindergarten (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009).
27
Since 2006, the Linden feeder pattern schools have generally underperformed their peers across the district and the state on the Ohio Achievement Assessments in Reading. Hamilton and South Mifflin Elementary Schools are designated in School Improvement status regarding AYP data and are currently listed in Academic Emergency. Of particular note, Hamilton Elementary was 19 percentage
28
points below the district average in grade five for the 2008-2009 time frames. This is countered by a rebound of performance in grade six when, from 2008-2009, students performed at or slightly below the district averages. The Value Added Measures in 2008-2009 reveal that Hamilton failed to make adequate annual gain in Reading in grades three and four, correlating to the longitudinal performance data. This may indicate a systems implementation problem in grades four and five that is addressed in the instructional practice of grade six. This trend substantiates the analysis of pacing and text materials that found an over- emphasis on Reading process at knowledge and comprehension cognitive levels in grades four and five. In contrast, the Ohio Achievement Test Item Analysis emphasizes assessments in application and analysis in grades four and five. This incongruity between content pacing emphasis and assessment may, in part, account for the low test scores. STEM-focused instruction may assist in the transition in critical thinking skills, however without further data study, these correlations are limited. South Mifflin and Linden Elementary Schools experienced a similar dip in grade five performance and then rebound in grade six Reading during the 2008-2009 school year. Windsor Elementary is in Academic Watch and was designated as school improvement regarding AYP. For Reading, Windsor Elementary averaged 13 percentage points below the district in 2008-2009. However, there is a distinct performance difference from the other elementary feeder schools, in grade five Reading, the students at Windsor outperformed the district average by 7.7 percentage points. This is the only school in the feeder pattern for which the grade five Reading performances improved over that of the district. With the same materials and curriculum guides, this performance improvement indicates that there must be a delivery difference in the instructional practice of grade five. More study should be conducted through observation and examination of student artifacts to determine the cause of this anomaly for potential replication across the feeder pattern. Windsor Elementary also met or exceeded its value added targets for Reading during the same time frame. The quarterly assessment data from 2009-2010 listed below further indicate a deficiency in student Reading achievement (Table 4). Instructional practices must be examined to better develop student fluency and comprehension.
29
Windsor PK-6 37.80% 62.20% 7.00% 93.00% 12.80% 87.20% 20.00% 80.00% 25.00% 75.00% 23.10% 76.90% 3.00% 97.00% 36.00% 64.00% 10.80% 89.20% 17.60% 82.40% 25.00% 75.00%
30
contexts outside the classroom. a. When selecting texts for student assignments, remember that the difficulty of a Reading text is less a function of the language, and more a function of the conceptual difficulty and the task(s) that students are expected to complete. Simplifying a text by changing the language often removes natural redundancy and makes the organization somewhat difficult for students to predict. This actually makes a text more difficult to read than if the original were used. b. Rather than simplifying a text by changing its language, make it more approachable by eliciting students' existing knowledge in pre-reading discussion, reviewing new vocabulary before reading, and asking students to perform tasks that are within their competence, such as skimming to get the main idea or scanning for specific information, before they begin intensive reading. 2. The Reading purpose must be authentic: Students must be reading for reasons that make sense and have relevance to them. "Because the teacher assigned it" is not an authentic reason for reading a text. a. To identify relevant Reading purposes, ask students how they plan to use the language they are learning and what topics they are interested in reading and learning about. Give them opportunities to choose their Reading assignments, and encourage them to use the library, the Internet, and foreign language newsstands and bookstores to find other things they would like to read. 3. The Reading approach must be authentic: Students should read the text in a way that matches the Reading purpose, the type of text, and the way people normally read. This means that reading aloud will take place only in situations where it would take place outside the classroom, such as reading for pleasure. The majority of students' Reading should be done silently. Instructional reading material should be expanded beyond that of the text series, incorporating texts, especially non-fiction material, that relate to other content areas. Within the text series, reading strategies are thoroughly addressed; however the texts do not establish a purpose for reading, which would help students realize the importance of reading strategies and skills in all content areas. Incorporate higher-level thinking opportunities into the reading curriculum, which can be accomplished through the development of transdisciplinary projects. Extension activities should not be optional. Provide more opportunities for student inquiry and ownership of learning by allowing student to research issues that are important to them. Increase the amount of time spent on non-fiction reading, especially in grades five and six. Early exposure to nonfiction and informational texts may be the best preparation for the increase in academic rigor that students will encounter in the intermediate grades.
31
32
Professional Development: Although one of the foundational pieces of the SIP involves support for teachers and students, the plans lack specifics for assisting principals in their roles as educational leaders. Only Linden Elementary acknowledged the importance of common planning time and teacher collaboration. There is also a lack of focus on teacher professional development. As STEM schools, teachers need to be comfortable with inquiry and project based learning, and afforded the opportunity to develop and enhance these skills throughout the school year. Convergence of Resources and Plan: Evidence of the convergence of resources in support of innovative solutions is not evident through the materials provided. However, participation with the OSLN indicates that this is a direction of movement for this feeder pattern.
33
The project or course is then gauged as to whether the specific criteria is: Not observed The element was not observed in the material reviewed Basic The review showed evidence of the presence of the element Advanced The review showed evidence of the presence of the element at a level that would promote advanced understanding of STEM Transformative The review showed evidence that was so advanced so as to be transformative according to the application of the rubric The reviewers used the SENCER rubric to compare the overall curriculum materials of Columbus City Schools, based on the Pacing Guides and textbooks, to STEM readiness. The highlighted blocks represent the level of overall CCS readiness for the specific criteria (Table 5). Table 5
Criteria
Not
Observed
The
item
was
not
observed
in
the
material
reviewed
Basic
Advanced
Transformative
Fully achieves institutional goals for learning at the course level Promotes contextualized knowledge Demonstrates STEM connections to civic issues
Addresses multiple learning goals Advances the institutions civic mission Engages students in specific interdisciplinary activities and learning
Promotes and enables knowledge transfer Increases probability that students will use scientific knowledge or thinking in other situations or problems
Identifying Interests and Motives: Establishing the Basis for Choosing the Curricular Focus/Foci
Not Evidenced
Civic issues/problem-based opportunities in the curriculum are identified Civic issues/problem-based discussions, activities, and projects are dependent upon the teacher selection, interest, and access to understanding of PBL
Routinely develops an inventory of student interests and assets to be used in the course Routinely employs formal and informal assessment strategies to determine interest in the course and course topics Curriculum is organized so that selected civic phenomena serve as the master narrative for the course Curriculum encourages learners to connect specific scientific and civic narrative elements to other questions and issues
Actively engages students, faculty colleagues, relevant community, and other assets in planning course format, delivery, and content
Not Evidenced
Frequent evidence of selected problem contexts to aid in the achievement of learning goals Shows the connection of learning in the discipline at times to context outside of the instruction/school
Advances understanding of the connection between STEM content with civic phenomena Advances an institutional public service mission and/or impacts a matter of civic consequence or identified public need in a way that is especially noteworthy
34
Criteria
The
Content:
Choosing
STEM
or
Other
Transdisciplinary
Goals
to
be
Taught
Not
Observed
Not
Evidenced
Basic
Provides
core
disciplinary
content
expected
of
curriculum
by
the
Ohio
Department
of
Education
Advanced
Leads
students
to
be
interested
in
pursuing
more
sophisticated
(or
higher
level)
learning
within
the
discipline
(increases
students
intellectual
stretch)
Learning
goals
are
integrated
with
explicitly
stated,
broader
STEM
learning
objectives
Learning
goals
are
integrated
with
explicitly
identified,
broader
institutional
learning
outcomes
Learning
goals
are
linked
to
students
goals
for
personal
and
career
development
Transformative
Mirrors
and
reflects
contemporary,
interdisciplinary
intellectual
challenges
in
the
discipline,
including
connections
to
other
disciplines
Pedagogy: Matching Instructional Strategy to the Curricular Goals Through Learning Objectives
Not Evidenced
Instructor and students collaborate in developing learning goals Linkage of curricular goals to goals of other related or complementary courses is made explicit Individual student learning goals are explicitly taken into account in establishing curricular objectives
Pedagogy: Matching Instructional Strategy to the Curricular Goals Through Instructional Strategies
Not Evidenced
Instructor provided with a variety of pedagogical techniques Based upon choice, instructor matches pedagogical approach to student needs
Engagement with learning is demonstrated in practice, performance, and/or portfolio Instructor uses assessment findings to validate and/or modify pedagogical techniques Undergraduate research in the course is linked to a civic or community need (e.g., through community- based research or academically-based service learning)
Assessment findings lead dynamically to invention and use of new pedagogical strategies
Pedagogy: Matching Instructional Strategy to the Curricular Goals Through Knowledge Production
Not Evidenced
Research results strengthen existing knowledge base and are made available for others to use (especially to community stakeholders, if applicable) Results of research efforts are maintained in a way that makes use of prior work and expansion of research possible
35
Criteria
Pedagogy:
Matching
Instructional
Strategy
to
the
Curricular
Goals
Through
Preparation
for
Future
Engagement
and
Responsibility
Not
Observed
Not
Evidenced
Basic
Curriculum
develops
skills
that
are
useful
to
students
in
multiple
courses
or
fields
Advanced
Pedagogies
and
experiences
in
courses
are
tailored
to
students
and
help
them
meet
specific
civic
or
workforce
needs/challenges
Transformative
New
pedagogies
emerge
from
efforts
to
address
civic
or
workforce
needs
Action: Answering the Question Now That You Know Something, What Can You Do About It?
Not Evidenced
Identifies opportunities for putting knowledge in action, provides opportunities for rehearsing the application of knowledge within the context of the course
Students are empowered to make decisions about the civic actions they wish to take Provides opportunity or structure for students to engage in some form of public education pertinent to STEM and Problem- Based Learning Employs frequent assessments with feedback to students at both individual and group levels Uses assessments as teaching tools Instructor is responsive to assessment results in adjusting course materials, delivery, and content; assessments are stepping stones, not milestones Employs assessments that are directly and appropriately tied to particular pedagogical strategies Promotes instructor self- assessment
Curriculum provides opportunities for students to design their own actions in response to new learning
Not Evidenced
Measures effectiveness of content delivery through state tests, short cycled assessments, and formative assessments Assessment methods are consistent with state benchmark systems
Assessment is used as a tool for promoting and ensuring student achievement Assessments inform differentiated delivery of instruction and utilization of materials and resources, matching students needs and capacities
Not Evidenced
Uses methods that encourage students self-assessment (meta-cognitive reflection) Employs continuous formative assessment to permit adaptations in instruction
Demonstrates transferability of learning to other situations Assesses how the learning in this course affects learning in other courses
36
Criteria
Promoting
Transdisciplinary
Learning
Not
Observed
Not
Evidenced
Basic
Connections
to
other
disciplines
as
sources
of
knowledge
valuable
to
understanding
the
subject
matter
of
the
course
are
made
explicit
Advanced
Intersections
among
disciplines
are
organized
to
show
connectedness
and
encourage
collaborations
Assignments
and
other
activities
demonstrate
interactions
between
science
and
social
science,
science
with
other
sciences
and
math,
science
and
other
pre- professional
and
humanities
programs
Transformative
Curriculum
introduces
and
engages
students
with
an
advanced
multidisciplinary
problem
of
project
Sequence
of
courses
(learning
community
or
similar
strategy)
is
used
to
organize
learning
both
across
the
curriculum
in
any
given
semester
or
year,
but
throughout
the
curriculum
over
several
years
Recognition
of
interdisciplinary
focus
is
formalized
in
a
certificate
program
or
other
symbol
of
accomplishment
Builds
curriculum
around
the
development
of
these
skills
in
parallel
with
other
learning
objectives
Provides
students
with
opportunities
to
demonstrate
how
they
are
preparing
themselves
to
continue
to
develop
twenty
first
century
skills
Not Evidenced
Identifies twenty first century skills in curriculum materials and indicates where they will be incorporated
Explicitly includes lessons in developing skills and opportunities to practice skills in the course or program At least one curricular outcome is a portfolio demonstrating skills and learning
37
38
From the results of these focus groups came a number of recommendations. From the CCS Turn Around Report, the following recommendations most closely align with this audits recommendations for instructional redesign transformation. Repackage the curriculum to allow more time for in-depth learning and critical thinking (Garber et al. 2009:7). Allow buildings to deviate from a one size fits all curriculum and adapt instruction to meet the needs of their students (Garber et al. 2009:ii). Allow greater flexibility in scheduling to accommodate interdisciplinary learning, common team planning, and intervention (Garber et al. 2009:ii). Develop integrated, problem-based units that promote inquiry, are relevant to students lives and their communities to increase student engagement and motivation (Garber et al. 2009:10). Provide teachers with the training necessary to deliver instruction in a way that best meet the needs of students (Garber et al. 2009:10). Increase the availability of technology in the schools and provide teachers with the flexibility and training necessary to best utilize these tools (Garber et al. 2009:12). Provide principals with training to be instructional leaders, establish a clear vision, and set high expectations for students and staff (Garber et al. 2009:18).
X. Recommendations
Listed below is a series of recommendations for short and long-term implementation of STEM-based learning in order to transform the Linden Feeder pattern into a high performing, well integrated, model system for other school feeder patterns to follow. It is important to note that the CCS curriculum is comprehensive in scope and includes all or the majority of content needed by the school to provide excellent preparation to every student in STEM. It is also important to note that each school has the staff to enact change. The key components of successful and sustainable change lie in the following areas: The district leadership, Individual school leadership, A holistic or systematic approach to STEM transformation, Intellectual freedom for the instructional strategies, Integrated curricula across all content areas, Commitment to rigor, and Commitment to success. Leadership, adaptability, and commitment will enable successful and sustainable STEM transformation. STEM feeder schools require a solid foundation to be established in critical and creative thinking, collaboration, and communication. Students need to realize the process of learning is just as important as the end product. They have to know to acquire, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information. In order for the foundation to be established, the following recommendations are noted:
39
Short Term: Autonomy: Columbus City Schools has a vast amount of instructional resources available. Give teachers more autonomy to select which resources best meet the needs of their students and determine the pace of instruction based upon student readiness. Professional Development: Help teachers understand how to modify current lessons and instructional practices to promote more student ownership of learning and create lessons and activities that are more inquiry-based activities. o Devote district professional development release time to teacher training in the areas of content and pedagogy (inquiry, problem based learning, formative assessments, standards based grading). o Utilize district resources/personnel to support teachers with the desired instructional change. Design Principles Instructional Strategies: Introduce and use the technological design process in kindergarten through grade six. Post this in all classrooms and constantly refer to it during the learning process in all content areas. Have students self-assess where they are in the design cycle during different phases of the learning process. Coordinated Projects: Determine a series of coordinated design challenges to engage students in the design process and help develop problem solving and collaboration skills. Teamwork: Have students work in groups weekly to solve problems utilizing the design process. Have students keep a scientific journal that is used in all content areas to keep track of data, research, vocabulary, questions, reflections, etc. Planning Time and Integrated Assessments: Grade level teams should have common planning where they constantly monitor student progress, plan integrated lessons and projects. Performance-based Assessments: Develop more performance-based assessments that require application of content rather than memorization. o Conduct an assessment audit to determine alignment between what is written, taught, and tested. Look at the cognitive level of the questions in comparison to state expectations for those skills and content. Examine the quality of the multiple choice item distracters to be sure all choices are equally viable. o Have students write daily in all content areas to articulate their learning. New School Concept: Expand the curriculum beyond the school walls, utilizing the vast resources of the community and nearby businesses. Long Term: Transdisciplinary Approach: Implement true transdisciplinary lessons to reinforce content and skills and increase the rigor and relevancy of the learning. Students need to see the connectivity between what they are learning and not view content as silos of information. Use authentic contexts for the development of units. Alignment between Content and Assessment: Alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum is essential; students must be taught that on which they are tested. Embedding a wide variety of assessment strategies into classroom instruction will prepare students for the many types of evaluations they will meet. The processes for assessing student achievement must be broad enough to include all forms of evaluations that students will experience from commercially designed tests to real life situations. Pacing Guide: Use formative assessments to monitor student progress and determine the pace of the lessons, rather letting the CCS Pacing Guides determine the course. These should be interdisciplinary in design and should enable the teacher to become much more efficient while personalizing the educational program for more students.
40
Technology: Integrate technology into the curriculum. It should not be viewed as an add-on, but as an essential component of learning (how participants acquire and share information). Professional Development: On-going, focused professional development is key. Simply giving teachers a CCS Pacing Guides or curriculum guide is not sufficient. If teachers dont know how to effectively use the guides, or how to best meet the instructional needs of the student, optimal learning will not take place. Teachers need to utilize district professional release days to continue this work and stay the course, year after year.
41
XI. Bibliography
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science.
Benchmarks
for
Science
Literacy.
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
Inc.,
1994.
Basarab,
Nicolescu.
La
Transdisciplinairite.
Lexington:
Watersign
Press,
1996.
Basarab,
Nicolescu.
The
Transdisciplinary
Evolution
of
the
University
Condition
for
Sustainable
Development.
Bangkok:
International
Congress
of
the
Association
of
Universities,
1997.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Blast
Off.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Breaking
New
Ground.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Dive
Right
In.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Make
Your
Mark.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Reach
for
the
Stars.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Ride
the
Edge.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Rolling
Along.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Spring
Forward.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Twists
and
Turns.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Watch
This.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Winning
Catch.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
Beck,
Isabel
L.,
Roger
C.
Farr,
and
Dorothy
S.
Strickland.
Story
Town:
Zoom
Along.
New
York:
Hartcourt,
Inc.,
2008.
42
Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 2. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 3. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 4. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 5. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 4. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 5. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 6. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Boyd, Candy Dawson, Geneva Gay, Rita Geiger, James B. Kracht, Valerie Ooka Pang, C. Frederick Risinger, and Sara Miranda Sanchez. Communities. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Charles, Randall I., Janet H. Caldwell, Mary Cavanagh, Dinah Chacellor, Juanita V. Copley, Warren D. Crown, Francis Fennell, Alma B. Ramirez, Kay B. Sammons, Jane F. Schielack, William Tae, and John A. Van de Walle. Envision Math Ohio 1. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Charles, Randall I., Janet H. Caldwell, Mary Cavanagh, Dinah Chacellor, Juanita V. Copley, Warren D. Crown, Francis Fennell, Alma B. Ramirez, Kay B. Sammons, Jane F. Schielack, William Tae, and John A. Van de Walle. Envision Math Ohio 2. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009.
43
Charles, Randall I., Janet H. Caldwell, Mary Cavanagh, Dinah Chacellor, Juanita V. Copley, Warren D. Crown, Francis Fennell, Alma B. Ramirez, Kay B. Sammons, Jane F. Schielack, William Tae, and John A. Van de Walle. Envision Math Ohio K. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Charles, Randall I., Warren Crown, and Francis Fennell. Mathematics. Vol. 3. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2004. Charles, Randall I., Warren Crown, and Francis Fennell. Mathematics. Vol. 4. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2004. Charles, Randall I., Warren Crown, and Francis Fennell. Mathematics. Vol. 5. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2004. Christensen, Barbara J., Patricia Rae Clayton, Catherin Collins, Camiele Papagianis, and Tom Shessler. Scott Foresman Social Studies Ohio. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Columbus City Schools. LACES Curriculum Calendar. 2009. Columbus City Schools. Science Pacing Guides, Kindergarten Through Grade Six. 2009. Columbus City Schools. Social Studies Pacing Guides, Kindergarten Through Grade Six. 2009. Columbus City Schools. Social Studies Curriculum Guide, Grade Six. 2010. Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Donald Cronkite, Jan Jenner, Linda Cronin Jones, and Marylin Lisowski. Life Science. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Daniel, Vesta A.H., Lee Hanson, Kristen Pederson Marstaller, and Susana R. Monteverde. Art Express. Vol. 3. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1998. Daniel, Vesta A.H., Lee Hanson, Kristen Pederson Marstaller, and Susana R. Monteverde. Art Express. Vol. 4. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1998. Garber, Roberta F., Gary Timko, Kerry Beckwith, Jung Kim, David Norris, and Alicia Jackson. Columbus City Schools Turnaround Research. Columbus: Community Research Partners, 2009. Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, and Ann Johnson. Designing Curriculum for the 21st Century. Alexandria: ASCD, 2009. Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, and Michael L. LeVasseur. World Studies: Eastern Hemisphere. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, and Michael L. LeVasseur. World Studies: Western Hemisphere. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Larson, Ron, Laurie Boswell, Timothy Kanold, and Lee Stiff. Math: Course 1. Evanston: McDougal Littell, 2004.
44
Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 3. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 4. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 5. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 6. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Mortenson, Greg, and David Oliver Relin. Three Cups of Tea. New York: Penguin Group, 2006. National Center for History in the Schools. http://www.nchs.ss.ucla.edu (accessed July 22, 2010). National Council for the Social Studies. http://www.socialstudies.org (accessed July 10, 2010). National Council for the Social Studies. 2008 Position Statement: Curriculum Guides for Social Studies Teaching and Learning. http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/curriculumguidelines (accessed July 28, 2010). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. http://www.nctm.org (accessed July 28, 2010). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence- Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. National Research Council. Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards (draft). http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html (accessed July 20, 2010). National Science Teachers Association. Position Statement. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions.aspx (accessed July 20, 2010). Nehm, R.H., and I. Schonfeld. The future of natural selection knowledge measurement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47, no. 3 (2010): 358-362. Ohio Department of Education. Social Studies Revised Academic Content Standards. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1 706&ContentID=76598&Content=88263 (accessed July 25, 2010). Ohio Department of Education. Inquiry Primer. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1 705&ContentID=63298&Content=79756 (accessed July 20, 2010).
45
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Curriculum and Instruction: A 21st Century Skills Implementation Guide. Tucson: Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009. Rutherford, James, and Andrew Ahlgren. Science for All Americans. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989. Schmitt, Conrad J. Como te va? Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2007. Schmidt, William H., Curtis C. McKnight, Richard T. Houang, and HsingChi Wang. Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum and Learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2001. Schneps, M.H., and P.M. Sadler. A Private Universe: Minds of Our Own. DVD Program. Program 2: Lessons from Thin Air. Cambridge: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 1997. Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibility. http://www.sencer.net (accessed July 22, 2010).
46
XIII. Appendices
APPENDIX
A
SCIENCE
CONTENT
MATRIX
Life
Sciences
A1
A2
C3
C4
B5
B6
A1
B2
B3
A4
B5
A1
B2
B3
C4
A5
B6
B7
B8
B9
A1
B2
B3
C4
C5
C6
A1
B2
B3
C4
A5
B1
B2
B3
C4
C5
C6
A1
A2
A3
B4
B5
B6
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
Grade
K
x
x
x
x
Grade
1
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
4
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
GP3
x
x
x
GP4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Physical
Sciences
A1
A2
A3
B4
B5
A1
A2
A3
A4
B5
B6
C7
C8
C9
B1
C2
B3
C1
C2
C3
C4
A1
A2
B3
B4
D5
D1
D2
E3
E4
F5
F6
F7
A1
A2
A3
A4
B5
B6
B7
B8
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
Grade
K
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
2
x
x
x
Grade
3
Grade
4
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
6
GP3
x
x
x
x
GP4
Earth
and
Space
A1
B2
C3
C4
C5
D1
D2
B3
A1
A2
A3
C4
C5
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
B8
B9
B10
A1
A2
A3
A4
C5
C6
D1
D2
D3
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
Grade
K
Grade
1
Grade
2
Grade
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
4
Grade
5
Grade
6
GP3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
GP4
47
Life Sciences
Scientific Literacy
6 0 3 3
10 1 9 0
3 0 3 0
5 0 4 1
8 0 8 0
9 0 9 0
3 0 3 0
5 0 5 0
9 1 1 7
4 0 4 0
10 5 5 0
4 4 0 0
48
6 0 6 0
6 0 6 0
5 0 5 0
6 0 6 0
5 0 5 0
10 0 10 0
5 0 2 3
3 0 0 3
6 0 1 5
4 0 1 3
6 0 6 0
6 0 6 0
3 0 1 2
6 0 0 6
6 1 2 3
NA NA NA NA
20 0 15 5
5 0 5 0
4 0 2 2
5 4 1 0
49
B2
B3
B4
C5
D6
A1
A2
B2
B3
C4
C5
D6
A1
A2
B3
B4
B3
C4
50
B3
B4
C5
D6
A1
A2
A3
A4
A2
B3
A4
A1
B2
B3
C4
C5
B5
B6
B7
B8
C9
D10
A1
A2
A3
B4
C6
A1
B2
B3
B4
B5
C6
A1
A2
x
x
x
x
x
B5
B6
B7
C8
D9
A1
B2
B3
B4
C5
B3
B4
D5
x
x
x
x
C6
D7
People
in
Societies
A1
B2
A1
B2
B3
B4
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
Grade
K
x
x
Grade
1
x
GP3
x
x
x
x
x
GP4
x
x
x
x
x
x
Citizenship
A1
B2
B3
B4
A1
B2
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
Grade
K
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
1
x
x
GP3
x
x
x
GP4
x
51
Economics
A1
A2
B3
A1
B2
C3
A1
B2
B3
B4
C5
A1
B2
B3
B4
C5
C6
C7
A1
A2
B3
C4
C5
C6
A1
A2
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
GP3
GP4
Grade
K
x
x
x
x
Grade
1
x
x
x
Grade
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
5
x
x
Government
A1
B2
C3
A1
A2
B3
C4
C5
A1
A2
B3
B4
B5
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A1
A2
B3
B4
A1
A2
B3
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
GP3
GP4
Grade
K
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
1
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
2
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
4
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
52
A1 A2 A3 C4
x x x x
Measurement
53
GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x GP3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GP4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
54
Reading
Applications:
Informational
and
Technical
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
Grade
K
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
1
x
x
x
Grade
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
3
x
x
x
x
Grade
4
GP3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
GP4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Reading
Applications:
Literary
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
GLIs
Addressed
GP1
GP2
Grade
K
x
x
x
x
Grade
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grade
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
GP3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
GP4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
87
88
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
89
90
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
91
92
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
93
94
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
95
96
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
97
98
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Linden STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
99