Learning Progressions to Inform the Development of Standards 2009 AERA Presentation Written by: Charles W. (Andy) Anderson & Lindsey Mohan (Michigan State University) Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy Long Term Ecological Research Math Science Partnership April 2009 Disclaimer: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation: Targeted Partnership: Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy (NSF ). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Learning Progressions to Inform the Development of Standards Charles W. (Andy) Anderson & Lindsey Mohan Michigan State University

LP Research and Standards Development National Science Standards Technical Language Broad Language Iterative Linear Theoretical Framework Indexing/List-Like Depth Breadth Empirical Data Collective Experience Learning Progression Research to Date

Issues that tend to divide: Scale of work Audience & Accessibility Specificity Criteria for validation Impediments to Successful Dialogue What do learning progressions have to offer standards developers and their audiences? Where can learning progression researchers meet developers halfway?

Where can we meet halfway? Scale of Work Compromising between depth versus breadth Creating large-scale frameworks that are useable by standards, assessment, and curriculum developers Moving beyond single-topic or narrow grade span studies Accessible Language Compromise between specificity in language and using broad, but easily understood language Consensus about language among learning progressions researchers

What LP work offers to standards Theoretical Frameworks & Coherence Frameworks need to be clearly defined Frameworks need to seek conceptual coherence Iterative Development Develop rigorous, but sustainable feedback systems Allow for revision based on compatibility with research

Ground-truthing and empirical validation “[We can make] parallels between a learning progression and an ecological model. The steps seem very much the same in that 1) you start with some initial information and you create a framework or model that you think is an accurate representation of how things really are, 2) then you make predictions based on your model and you "ground- truth" those predictions by seeing if what your model predicts is what happens in actuality, 3) then you use that new information about how well your model worked to further refine the parameters of your model, 4) then you ground-truth and adjust parameters again and again until your model becomes a satisfactory representation of reality…In science education, a good model can help teachers predict the development of their students' understanding over time and it can help a curriculum writer or assessor to create developmentally appropriate material in a more efficient way.” Laurel Hartley, personal communication

What kind of “ground-truthing” is needed? The case of empirical validation & teaching experiments Broad survey orientation LP’s (Ex: Anderson, Mohan) Specific instructional orientation LP’s (Ex: Schauble, Lehrer)

Broad Survey Orientation Anderson, Mohan, & Environmental Literacy Group Learning progression hypothesis- that we can develop large-scale frameworks that meet research-based criteria for theoretical and empirical validation Our criteria for validation: Conceptual coherence Compatibility with current research Empirical validation We documented a learning trajectory without special instructional intervention Grounded in written assessments and interviews Students’ starting knowledge Common trajectory that is presently the norm Useful for developing a more desirable trajectory, and materials for teaching experiments

Specific Instructional Orientation Schauble, Lehrer Carefully designed teaching experiments “A learning progression is not something that capitalizes on the usual patterns of children's thinking (under no particular conditions of instruction). Instead, to me, it illuminates the usual patterns of children's thinking UNDER CAREFULLY DESCRIBED CONDITIONS OF INSTRUCTION. In other words, the theory of learning must include an account of the means by which learning is supported.” (Leona Schauble)

Dilemma: Teaching experiments & standards What approaches best inform the development of standards? Standards are not supposed to depend on particular curricula. Standards are supposed to represent goals, not current levels of achievement.

Conclusions 1. LP researchers and standards developers work under different constraints, with different audiences, and different intended uses for their products 2. Learning progressions have the potential to be useful for standards development, but researchers must take into accounts the needs of developers 3. LP researchers must also meet their own criteria for quality research, and must insist on standards for validation that are rigorous, while simultaneously produce useful products

Questions?