Project Accomplishments

Synthesis Session (Science) for June Expert Review Input, July 28, 2006

Fully one third of our content development team attended the synthesis session for the June Expert Review input. A BIG thank you to Tira Hancock, Judith Kjellman, Norah McCabe, James McDougall, Jennifer Sorensen and Roxanne Trees for your excellent work!

As you may recall, there were some extensive changes recommended by the instructors that attended the June event. Following are those recommendations, 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.
  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, and English).
  
  
• Call the definitions college-readiness expectations: CREs
  We have identified several concerns about terminology that we plan to bring to the final 2-day session for discussion in October.
  
  
• Regarding EALR 1 -- Science Content: The content from the 9/10 GLEs is sufficient. One table suggested that the 9/10 GLEs without evidence of learning/definitions would be best, as it would allow for greater local curriculum development.
  The synthesis group discussed this at length. They explored adding some content definitions and determined that the best course of action is to keep with our original decision to define college readiness by the GLEs through grades 9/10 plus new definitions in the areas of attributes, investigating systems and the nature of science, quantitative analysis, science and society, technology, and communication.
  
  
• Regarding EALRS 2-3 – Inquiry and Application: With some edits, the definitions from the content development team were essentially approved.
  The synthesis group reviewed these edits and incorporated them into the new version.
  
  
• A third year of math and science in the senior year was unanimously recommended for all college bound students.
  Our project advisory committee, consisting of representatives from Baccalaureate institutions, community and technical colleges and high school, as well as WEA and other professional associations advised us to avoid treading in these waters, which fall significantly outside the realm of our college readiness scope. They also informed us that the third year of math is in progress. Our synthesis team determined that the third year of science will better be addressed in Phase 2 of this project.

 

We started with a discussion of the Expert Review Team recommendations. In addition, comments from Dave Conley of EPIC were reviewed. 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 from the Expert Review Team. All of the consensus edits and comments from each of the four 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 in orange 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. They also revisited the national science standards which were provided at the January kick-off session. They drew heavily from these standards for the math and the communications definitions. The preliminary draft was revised and re-constructed, and new definitions were written, evidences of learning were revised, and new attributes were developed.

Following the session, the definitions drafted were emailed to the participants for a second round of commentary and editing, to arrive at the current draft of revised definitions.

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

< Back