Message to the Science Team with 1/12-13 Meeting Feedback

 

Dear Science Development Team,


First, thank you Roger Hauge for prompting us to send this message. We have an update for you on the progress of the Science College Readiness Definitions, and it includes the following sections:

  1. Recap of our work at the January 12-13 session.
  2. Current status of the definitions
  3. Next steps regarding the online tool
  4. Next steps in the overall process


Recap of January 12-13 Session

Congratulations on the excellent work you completed on the definitions during the session! Following is a list of your accomplishments in the 2-day session:

  1. An overview of the project and an opportunity to meet other participants was provided.

  2. You received foundational information from David Conley and his group (EPIC) as follows:

    •
    		 Summary of standards development progress and issues in the US today
    •
    		 Update on the TMP and placement testing (Bill Moore)
    •
    		 Potential impact of our project in WA State
    •
    		 Differences between characteristics of English and Science and high school and college cultures
    •
    		 Explanation of the comparative analysis completed by McREL and the standards included in that document
    •
    		 Description of the online rating tool


  3. You identified controllable and uncontrollable factors regarding student readiness for college.

  4. You formed sub groups by discipline (Earth Sciences, Life Sciences and Physical Sciences) and worked in these sub-groups on the Science standards from McREL/EPIC to synthesize and consolidate the language for each standard with multiple definitions (113 items). You selected one of the existing definitions, eliminated the item or wrote new language for the item. You finished this task on Thursday evening, and a revised worksheet was generated with one definition for each item.

  5. The Science team started Friday morning in the same tables-by-topic as the previous day (Earth Sciences, Life Sciences and Physical Sciences), and remained in these sub groups for the remainder of the session. Yvonne Freitas-McGookin provided facilitation for your Friday session.

  6. You discussed the overall session process, and the separation of the Science and English development teams into to rooms. You also discussed the contents of the McREL document. You lacked confidence in the sources used and found the list of McREL standards to be lacking, so you added Washington State standards to the mix, in particular the Washington State Science GLE’s and the Big Ideas Project.

  7. You requested and received copies of the work related to attributes drafted by the Math Transition Project as well as the Big Ideas Project for Biology. You decided to add a personal attributes section to the GLE’s, like the TMP did. To identify attributes, each subgroup worked with the document developed by the Math Transition Project. Two sub-groups made edits directly on the document and another created a Word document that captured their thoughts.

  8. You decided that each sub-group would review the work of the subgroups and suggested a process for doing this. You further decided that this exercise would be viewed as offering commentary and, as such, notes were made either under the topic heading or on the far right space.

  9. After reviewing and discussing them in the sub-groups, the full group accepted the GLEs as a credible and significant tool. The group further determined that the GLEs represent standards up to the 10th grade and additional knowledge may be necessary for students to be college ready.

  10. The large group struggled with this issue, so the conversation went back to the subgroups. Each subgroup handled this issue differently. As some groups proceeded to review their specific content areas on the Comparative Analysis, they compared them to the GLEs and made notes about gaps, etc. on the analysis document. Other groups continued the conversation without making references to the GLEs in each, specific content area.

  11. Final Revision: While checking-in with the large group after lunch, several participants reminded the group that this review process was just a draft and just the beginning. Many in the group were still troubled with the process. However, one participant proposed that they delete anything that is "egregious" or "glaringly inappropriate". The group agreed to this process. As a result, all subgroups succeeded in completing the final revision.


Current Status of Science College Readiness Definitions

The spreadsheet containing the initial list of definitions from your work in the January 12-13 Session is completed. Terryll followed all your instructions regarding the language for the initial list, and then combined the sections into one master list.

Click here to access the list

The summary of the work you did on the Attributes is forthcoming.

Next Steps Regarding the Online Tool

Darya and Kathryn have received your initial list of definitions and are in the process of uploading it onto the tool. They do not have a date yet as to when the tool will be ready, but their early estimate is that it will this week or next.

The Attributes will not be on this first round of the online tool. Our next step with the Attributes will be to discuss them as a group at our next session, and then we can put them on the tool for your comment.

Once the tool is ready, you will receive information on the instructions for using the tool.


Next steps in the overall process

Once you have completed the work on the tool, your input will be analyzed and we will prepare a presentation for you at your next session.

The Science Development Team will meet again two days on March 30-31 to work further with the definitions.

< Back
 
 
 

College Readiness Project