Reflections On An NGSS Field Test

My first field test with NGSS based curriculum has concluded.  By the numbers, I had fifty-six classroom teachers and around 1100 students participate (demographic breakdown below).  This represents five percent of the total K-2 population. It included students in behavioral programs, severely disabled students, and approximately 40%  FaRMS.  

  So, what do I know now:

1. Teachers need to understand the performance expectations.  Without the "why" they focused on the "what".  See my previous post on unpacking the standards down to learning goals and success criteria.  
2. Creating videos of teachers implementing the curriculum is time consuming, but highly valued.  Being able to watch another teacher do what you are about to do builds confidence.  I need to work on quality control, but it is a start.  
3. Online assessments don't work very well when students are just learning to use computers.  While every student in the field test had a computer, it took them three months to get agile with it.  There are also significant technical challenges that need to be overcome before these assessments are truly viable.  
4. Performance assessments get the most "bang for the buck".  They are also a great way to keep students engaged in learning when they know they get to apply what they have learned to solving a real-world, local problem.
5. Don't expect teachers to be comfortable with NGSS based curriculum the first time they teach it.  It will have to grow on you.

 What do the kids think?  I took a risk this year and created a survey to allow students to comment back about their experiences in the curriculum.  Keep in mind that these were K-2 students.  The majority of responses came from grade 2.  I copied the text based responses into Wordcloud .

What do you want to change? 

Note: The word "nothing" was removed as it overshadowed the other words

What did you like? 

The words beach, wall, and flower are referencing the three units for grade 2.  You can get a full overview of all the K-2 units in my previous post.

What's next?  

The field test for grades 3-5 is next.  I just wrapped up the professional development for that on Thursday.  Great group of teachers hung out with me in a rather sultry and odoriferous elementary school. We covered the big parts to the first two units.  This included a large amount of time discussing scientific argument using the CER model and the KLEWS strategy.  We used the spandex model of the universe as our scientific phenomena.  That's right I introduced General Relativity to elementary teachers and it is part of our grade 5 unit on space.  I blame the folks who developed the NGSS.  They are the ones who put gravity in with the motion of objects in the universe.  I had to find a way to connect the two to maintain a good storyline.  I encourage you to build this model for yourself.  It is awesome!  

A subsequent professional development will occur in December for the last two.  I will have roughly equivalent numbers of teachers participating this year but with a lot more students.  In grades 3-5, almost all the teachers departmentalize.   

Next, I move forward with K-2 for the entire system.  Our board of education saw fit to approve the purchase of materials for all K-2 teachers.  That will be the largest purchase order I have ever signed. My thanks to them for their support.  

In July, a small group of K-2 field test teachers will update the curriculum based on feedback from this year.  That will be a very interesting two-week process.

  

Lastly, I will also be conducting professional development en masse in August.  1200 teachers in one day.  I provided an outline of the plan in a previous post.  The reality of PD at this scale is just now setting in.  

Articulating Expectations into a Personalized Learning Environment

I missed my monthly update so I guess I will have to do two in October.  I wanted to talk about some new attributes to my curriculum that have really altered how teachers and students engage in answering the age old question “Where am I?”.  I touched on this idea in July when I discussed "I can" statements.

Once we have the “I can” statements established, they are then used to form a proficiency table.  These table have filled an important void that existed in my previous curriculum.  We have always offered pre and post assessments to teachers.  Ostensibly, the resulting data was to assist teachers in differentiating the curriculum.  However, it quickly became apparent that most teachers did not have a clear view of how to make that happen.  The proficiency tables are a way to fill in that blank.      
Shown below is an example for grade 3 :

LEVEL	DESCRIPTION BASED ON PRE-ASSESSMENT RESULTS	UNIT SPECIFIC STUDENT EXPECTATIONS	SUGGESTED CURRICULAR PATH
4	Pre-assessment data which indicates students master prior knowledge/processes and current content/process (via performance) are level 4.	I can: Use scientific evidence to explain how a design solution reduces the impact of weight from a weather-related hazard such as a blizzard Design and build a structure to withstand the impacts (weight and wind of a hurricane and/or a blizzard.	Students at this level build  their own structure from scratch to withstand an additional weather-related hazard such as wind from a hurricane and/or blizzard.  They are given the parts to build the structure and may also bring parts from home to build the structure within the construction parameters.
3	Pre-assessment data which indicates students master prior knowledge/processes and on grade level content are level 3.	I can: Explain and interpret data presented in a table, graph, or chart Compare weather v. climate Predict weather based on information presented in a graph, table, or chart Evaluate information from print and nonprint resources Describe and explain how climates vary in different regions of the world Use patterns of change in climate to predict typical weather conditions in different regions	Students at this level should be given more time to conduct the investigations.   The teacher should spend less time modeling the investigation.  Students can also be given more time to design, build, and refine their structural designs.
2	Pre-assessment data which indicates students have mastered the prior content but does not demonstrate understanding of on grade level content and processes are a level 2	I can: Use print and nonprint resources Use data presented in a graph, table, or chart Identify and describe types of weather Identify and describe impacts from weather-related hazards Describe ways weather affects our everyday lives Work with other students to conduct an investigation	Students are ready for grade level appropriate content and processes with modifications as needed.
1	Pre-assessment data which indicates students who do not understand the prior content are a level 1.	I can: Not identify types of weather Not understand how weather changes from season to season Not identify weather-related hazards Not identify impacts from weather-related hazards Not understand data presented in graphs, tables, or charts	Students at this level should be given the opportunity to access digital data from the weather unit from kindergarten to build background knowledge about weather, climate, and visual data representations.

As you move from bottom to top, students expertise increases.  Ultimately, students should be ready for level 4 by the end of the unit (transferring learning to a new solving a new problem).  This idea is very new to me and to my teachers. It will take a lot of refinement over the next several years to get this process "perfected".

Here is the new problem that has developed.  While we are finally able to determine student levels of mastery after pre-assessment, the problem is "then what".  

To be specific,  imagine a classroom where you have students spread across all four proficiency levels.  Three students do not have the prior knowledge necessary to engage with the grade level content (Level 1).  There is one student who spent a summer at meteorology camp and is past level four.  Fifteen students are ready for the curriculum as is (level 2) and the remaining nine pretty much know the content (level 3) and just need time to work on their prediction skills.  That's a class of 29 if you are keeping count.  What do multiple needs groups look like in science?  It is very different than reading where we litterally have moving parts.  If we are working towards a personalized learning environment for students, we need to develop strategies for teachers to manage it.  Anyone have ideas or good references for what this might look like in the elementary classroom?

As always,  keep the comments and questions coming.  We are in this together.

  

Coming to a Classroom Near You!

I dropped a surprise on the curriculum teams this summer when I asked them to present an overview of their unit for video.  They turned out so well, that I thought I would share them with you.

Kindergarten Units

First Grade Units

Second Grade Units

Rough Estimates of Unit Lengths

Based on my last post, I figured out that I could estimate the length of each unit based on some assumptions:

• Unit opens with one day for preview/preassessment
• The second lesson requires students to develop a prototype/solution and reflect on preassessment data
• Each performance assessment needs at least three lessons in order for students to demonstrate mastery
• One lesson to understand the practice by having students apply it to prior knowledge
• One lesson to understand the DCI (content)
• One lesson to combine them together
• A lesson where students revise their prototype/solution as a culminating event

Using this logic, just for the purposes of estimating unit lengths, I can quickly deduce the range of teaching time based on a 30-60 minute per day structure.  

Grade-Unit	PEs	Lessons	Days
K-Forces	2	9	9-18
K-Relationship	4	15	15-30
K-Weather	4	15	15-30
TOTAL	10	39	39-78
1-Light	4	15	15-30
1-Function	3	12	12-24
1-Space	2	9	9-18
TOTAL	9	36	36-72
2-Structure	4	15	15-30
2-Interdependent	3	12	12-24
2-Earth	4	15	15-30
TOTAL	11	42	42-84
3-Forces	4	15	15-30
3-Ecosystems	4	15	15-30
3-Traits	4	15	15-30
3-Weather	3	12	12-24
TOTAL	15	57	57-114
4-Energy	5	18	18-36
4-Waves	2	9	9-18
4-Structure	3	12	12-24
4-Earth	4	15	15-30
TOTAL	14	54	54-108
5-Matter	4	15	15-30
5-Ecosystems	3	12	12-24
5-Earth	3	12	12-24
5-Space	3	12	12-24
TOTAL	13	51	51-102