Project Accomplishments

Synthesis Session (English) for June Expert Review Input, August 4, 2006

We had a third of our content development team attend the synthesis session for the June Expert Review input! A BIG thank you to Sharon Straub, Gail Stygall, Mark Fuzie, Marilyn Meyer, Suzy Lepeintre, Susan Smith, Sherry Clark for your excellent work!

As you may recall, there were some extensive changes recommended by the instructors that attended the June event. These were summarized in the last update, but I’ll repeat them here, along with the process and outcome for each.

• With rare exception, most all participants thought the TMP format was preferable, especially if accompanied by a crosswalk of the definitions back to the GLEs. They found there is too much redundancy in the GLE format.
  This was the topic of a long and passionate discussion—to keep the GLE format, or move to the TMP format. In the end, the group chose to move to the TMP format.
  
  
• Include habits of mind. Develop core, cross-curricular habits of mind, and then customize as necessary for the various disciplines. Preferred the term Attributes, since that is the terminology used by TMP.
  The subgroup was glad to hear this, and also to hear about the Joint Student Attributes Working Group on Aug 17th.
  
  
• College values exploring multiple interpretations and not just one or the dominate view.
  The subgroup found a way to include this in their attributes, and it ended up being a core attribute across all three disciplines (Math, Science, English).
  
  
• Call the definitions college-readiness expectations: CREs
  The group (thank you Sherry!) identified several concerns about terminology, that we plan to bring to the final 2-day session for discussion in October.
  
  
• The main change from the grade 9/10 GLEs that needs to be made is a shift in emphasis from literature to rhetoric.
  The subgroup wrote some new, strong and clear language about rhetoric for the new format, and included the points that need to be made in the evidence of learning.
  
  
• A better way to handle the issues of multiculturalism, equity and access.
  There was another long and passionate discussion about how to accomplish this.
  The subgroup worked hard to find the best way to incorporate this into the new format, while taking into account strong and consistent feedback from the Expert Review Team.
  
  
• Develop a common definition of genre.
  This was received in good humor by the sub-group. They recommend that it perhaps be addressed in the prologue, or perhaps it is too complex to tackle in this context.

 

We started with a discussion of the Expert Review Team recommendations. Once all the recommendations had been discussed, the group moved to look at the specific content edits and comments from the Expert Review Team.

The group then moved to the TMP document, and identified the main characteristics of that format. The primary observation was that the content in the math college readiness standards is only that which is in addition to the GLEs.

Next the subgroup reviewed in detail the input form the Expert Review Team. All of the consensus edits and comments from each of the eight tables of educators (plus some individual comments that were submitted) were typed into a consolidated worksheet. In addition, the language in the definitions worksheet was compared word-by-word with the GLE language, and all differences were highlighted so the group could see where we had made changes from the original GLE language. All the changes were discussed.

The subgroup then received an initial preliminary draft structuring of the highlighted material in TMP format. This was completely torn apart and re-constructed, new definitions were written, along with some new attributes.

Following the session, the definitions they drafted were emailed to them for a second round of commentary and editing, to arrive at the current draft of revised definitions. At that time, sherry Clark raised a number of points which we plan to address at our October session including the terminology used by the TMP, using a numbering system versus bullets and making sure we properly cite the GLEs and TMP document.

Click here for the process we used to arrive at the current draft for Student Attributes.

< Back