1. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Cooperative Agreement EHR-0314866 PROM/SE Science Associates Winter Institute SMART Consortium February 23, 2006 Corporate College East, Warrensville Heights, Ohio

2. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Christina Mazuca, MSU PROM/SE Team George Viebranz, SMART program director Lee Cogan, MSU PROM/SE Team Kathy Wight, MSU PROM/SE Team Marty Couretas, PROM/SE Site Coordinator, Ingham Dave Grueber, MSU PROM/SE Team Natalie Lenz, MSU PROM/SE Team

3. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Goal To use assessment and opportunity-to- learn data to make curricular decisions about Earth/Space Science, K-12

4. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Objectives Participants should have: Deeper understanding of student learning as a function of the intended and enacted curriculum Content areas where you need to expand your own understanding Content areas in which your students have particular difficulty Basic ideas in Earth/Space Science

5. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Overview of the day: Using data to make curricular recommendations: introduction Bedrock School District What do our students know about Earth/Space Science: small groups by grade band LUNCH Analysis of district reports and strategic planning Critical friends review and report

6. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 USING EVIDENCE AND DATA DEEPENING CONTENT KNOWLEDGE BECOMING A LEADER © 2005 MSU PROM/SE Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education, Supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement EHR-0314866 PROM/SE Capacity Building: Associates

7. © 2006 Michigan State University, P-TEDSSupported by NSF Grant REC-0231886 The PROM/SE Process Gather Data Analyze Data Interpret Data Design Solutions Implement Changes Identify Challenges Conjecture Reasons © 2005 MSU PROM/SE Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education, Supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement EHR-0314866

8. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 The questions we are exploring today: What are the intended, implemented, and attained curricula in the area of Earth Science within PROM/SE grades and districts, and how are they related? What questions and hypotheses does this raise for us, and how will we take next steps in our district?

9. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 The Many Aspects of Curriculum …. intended implemented attained standards, benchmarks, indicators student performance what teachers do in classrooms

10. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Intended Curriculum: system-wide policies, plans, & goals Implemented curriculum: goals, strategies, & practices carried out in classrooms Attained curriculum: pupil knowledge, skills, & attitudes Tripartite Model of Curriculum

11. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 From School Districts –Topic Trace Maps From Systems –Textbooks From Teachers –Teacher Content Goals From Students –Student Assessment Sources of Data in PROM/SE Intended Implemented Attained Potentially Implemented

12. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 An Earth/Space Science Item

13. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866

15. Performance types: 1. Knowing simple information; using apparatus 2.Simple data collection activities 3.Integrating information 4.Designing and conducting investigations 5.Interpreting data, formulating conclusions, reasoning and problem solving

16. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866

17. What do the data tell you about the intended, implemented, and attained curriculum? What questions does the data raise for you? How would you pursue the answers? Do you have any hypotheses?

18. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Looks like from district data more is happening in 7th than in 8th, even though Ohio calls for 8th grade. Under earth/universe only 2 grade levels (2nd, seems early) and 4th, yet in TIMSS it’s heavier at higher grades, done more abstractly (but attended not addressed at 6-7- 8) What is intended by district differs from what is intended by the state Achievement seems unrelated to time spent on topic Expectation doesn’t match time

19. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 intended implemented attained

20. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Green Sheet Questions: What does it look like to be a science student in a particular grade across schools within a district in a particular subject area? What does it look like to be a student in a particular district in a particular subject area?

21. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 Task: Create a map identifying intended,implemented, and attained curriculum for students in Bedrock School District

22. © 2006 Michigan State University, PROM/SESupported by NSF Grant EHR-0314866 What prior knowledge is needed to progress in understanding of Earth Science? Has prior knowledge needed for understanding the concepts been addressed and assessed in earlier grades? Where?