I was contacted by a teacher in a REALLY different and quite far-away state. They were inquiring about a quite-old post about the NGSS PE's that I had made. Here is that post:
It turns out, the post was a question I'd posed in 2018 on a Facebook group called NGSS Educators! 2018! Wow! I was living in another city... it was long before COVID-19... and I had color in my beard and on my head! 😂 Talk about a blast from the past! Apparently, this post had been screenshotted a mere 3 hours after I'd posted it and people are still looking at it today!?
Here is the teacher's question:
Good Afternoon Brian,
I came across this screenshot that was attached to another presentation (see below). I'm wondering if you recall when this might have been from or if you happen to this idea written elsewhere? I noticed you have some NSTA work out there as well.
I'm giving a presentation at our state science convention (WSST in Wisconsin) and think your comment captures the values that a PLC needs to build together when building team capacity for 3D science teaching and learning.
Thanks for any assistance,
⬛
Hi ⬛!
Wow! The internet is forever! LOL
[This is me from the future, ⬛! I uh... I read through the GIGANTIC email I wrote. I'm so sorry! You just asked about a topic I'm passionate about and I really really appreciate that you are talking about it! Now... On to the WAY TOO LONG email! LOL]...
From what I gather from the screenshot (unfortunately, I didn't get a link to a presentation, but would love to see it if you have a working link for me), this was a comment made in the Facebook NGSS Educators group in 2018. Here's a link to the thread so you can see what wisdom people shared.
What I have come to believe is that 3D Assessment tools are distracting and useless to teachers who are not teaching in a 3D context. Teachers end up distorting or misusing the tool to reinforce their own previous beliefs about the focus, depth, and rigor of science lessons; or at worst, they abuse the tools to reinforce their one internally held beliefs about the students they should be serving.
I know that sounds like a terrible thing to say, but I've seen it happen too much since 2018. And I want you to know that I'm not at all fatalistic about things there! 🙂 I think there is some TREMENDOUS learning and some support that teachers can access. But the number one support they need — at all levels — is training and experience in 3-D HQIM that teach them how to facilitate and thereby experience 3-D instruction as a teacher and 3-D learning through their students' experience. Far from being frustrated, I am excited and look forward to the learning available to more and more people now!
Perhaps the biggest shift in thinking comes from understanding the difference between "assessments" (as individual final objects) and an "assessment system" (a process for supporting students in learning).
Some resources that come to mind:
-
NGSS Appendix A, Shift #2
"2. The Next Generation Science Standards are student performance expectations – NOT curriculum. Even though within each performance expectation Science and Engineering Practices (SEP) are partnered with a particular Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) and Crosscutting Concept (CC) in the NGSS, these intersections do not predetermine how the three are linked in curriculum, units, or lessons. Performance expectations simply clarify the expectations of what students will know and be able to do be the end of the grade or grade band. Additional work will be needed to create coherent instructional programs that help students achieve these standards." -
Seeing Students Learn Science (2017)
"Seeing Students Learn Science is meant to help educators improve their understanding of how students learn science and guide the adaptation of their instruction and approach to assessment. It includes examples of innovative assessment formats, ways to embed assessments in engaging classroom activities, and ideas for interpreting and using novel kinds of assessment information. It provides ideas and questions educators can use to reflect on what they can adapt right away and what they can work toward more gradually." -
Washington SAGE
And here is a research project that the state of WA engaged in with UC Boulder and Contextus around the central tenet, "What if assessment was a caring practice?" The project goes on to describe many tools that teachers can use to attend to students along the path of instruction to understand how well they are engaging in the doing of science rather than just performatively completing assessment tasks. -
Using HQIM (like OpenSciEd)
But I will say that to me, the most valuable and paradigm-shifting resources are things like OpenSciEd units. I have heard relatively unaffected and disinterested teachers — at the end of lesson 1 — raving about how excited they were about what they learned about their students. "I would never have expected this out of this kid! Look what s/he did!" I think that supporting teachers in being a part of the students' storylines about figuring out changes a lot for the teachers. There is a terrific book we've been reading here in WA based on a Carnegie report. The Carnegie Report is named "The Elements: Transforming teaching through curriculum-based professional learning" - SITE and the book based on it is called Transforming Teaching Through Curriculum-Based Professional Learning: The Elements BKSHP. I'm not an expert yet, but I think this may help people in their transitions.
And the last of my HUGELY opinionated opinions I'll share (I know, it's been a LONG email already LOL) is this newest talking point I'm trying to refine. We see a LOT of systemic resistance at the HS and it always comes back good intentions! So please don't read that the wrong way. It's the idea that, "we HAVE to get the kids ready for college!" Okay. Fine. Let's imagine that really is the goal of HS (although, many would argue that there are other just as important goals, but for argument's sake, let's work with it). Then where could we look to figure out what that means for kids to be ready for college science classes? I think most of us would agree that the College Board — for better or for worse -- would be a go to source. Well, what do they say?
It turns out that in 2009, College Board released "Science College Board Standards for College Success". I'd seen that referenced before... like... a lot. And I realized it was referenced in almost every single chapter of the 2012 National Research Council's A Framework for K-12 Science Education. In fact, upon looking at the College Board document, I realized it read almost exactly like the Framework! Not identical, but eerily close! And that has led me to speaking with HS administrators and teachers about a very important distinction that we seldom talk about. We usually lump AP and "College in the HS" classes under our "College Prep" sequences to get kids ready for college: but this is exactly WRONG. CIH and AP classes are real college courses. They are NOT college prep. College Prep is your NGSS scope and sequence. Sure, it won't prepare all of your students to take a college course as a junior or senior, but it certainly will prepare them to take a college course as an actual 17- or 18-year-old college freshman on a college campus. We often utterly confuse acceleration with preparation, so we instead pre-teach the college class so they'll "do well" when they're taking it in our high school; and we do that at the expense of 100% of high school aged children who have a right to well-designed, rigorous (meaning engagement the SEP's and the CCC's) and full (all the DCI's) science education. In my humble opinion, when we are in the room designing pathways for our HS students, AP teachers need to take their AP hats off; because that level of acceleration has no place in guiding or informing and designing a GOOD pathway for all students. That's what the NGSS are for.
That's so hard, and I don't know how to help AP teachers do it... I just think it's important to try. I often hear something like, "NGSS aligned curricula don't prepare kids to do well in the AP Chem class." Well... so what? College chemistry (which is what AP is) is hard. That's why it's a college class. Perhaps fewer 16- and 17-year-olds are truly ready for it than our current system pretends? I get why they say it. Did you know that "ratio and proportion" is a middle school math standard? So what is the real problem when — if we don't start drilling kids in dimensional analysis and stoichiometry in chem 1 — they can't do it well enough or fast enough for AP Chem? Significant figures is an issue or error analysis: another middle school math standard. Dimensional analysis is just middle school math with REALLY REALLY BIG or really really small numbers. And if kids don't understand that by HS, no amount of drill and kill calculations will get them to understand it better. And we have decades of research now demonstrating that that's exactly what happens: they pass our tests, then they drop out of more science classes because they were so stressed out by the calculations that they missed out on the coolest and most interesting parts of their chemistry class.
OMG. Okay. I'm stopping here. LOL. Thank you, Aaron, for enquiring! I am absolutely with you: I think these conversations need to live at the PLC level! That's a terrific insight. I think what's hard is how to scaffold the learning for a PLC so that they (A) are focused on student engagement over achievement (I mean, achievement should be the natural outcome of deep engagement, I would think); and (B) maintain a collaborative focus on all students and not just the ones who take the most "highly-valued classes" in a particular school. And even more importantly I think: how can we set up a PLC to want to pursue these topics? I imagine that — just like here in WA -- that's such a highly local and different thing from building to building.
I sure hope something in this brain dump I've given you comes close to what you were looking for, ⬛! Please let me know how your presentation shapes up and how well it is received! Truly! I would love to know! 🙂
All my best,
Brian
