week+1+presentation

calendar

Benchmarks Revealed

(Expectations Examined)

Goals, Objectives, Frameworks, Benchmarks, Expectations??

This certainly can be confusing.

Why so many different terms?

Why even have these things at all?

Goals and Objectives

Goals in education are general statements of intended achievement. They are broad enough in scope that they are of little utility for classroom teachers and are instead more useful at the national, state, or maybe district level. Goals are stated in such a way that they cannot be directly observed or evaluated.

Objectives on the other hand are very specific statements of intended achievement that can and should be evaluated. Objectives are the

Goals and Objectives (continued)

tools of the classroom teacher and are found in daily lesson plans, unit plans, and subject/grade level planning documents.

Two primary types of objectives are those written to reflect behaviorist learning theory, behavioral objectives; and those written to reflect cognitive learning theory, intended learning outcomes (ILOs).

Frameworks/Benchmarks/Expectations

This distinction is more of an issue in Michigan than in other states. The reason is historical.

In the mid-90s, the Michigan department of Education attempted to consolidate all the different objectives documents written by the different content areas. The resulting single document consisted mostly of objectives organized in table format. The document was then called the curriculum framework (tables).

Frameworks/Benchmark/Expectations (continued)

The “objectives” that were taken from the Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives in Science Education (MEGOSE) document and inserted in the Frameworks tables were renamed, “benchmarks”.

Benchmarks is probably a better term for these “objectives” since they are written to reflect what students should know and be able to do at the end of elementary, middle, and high school development levels. They are broader in scope

Frameworks/Benchmarks/Expectations (continued)

The summer of 2006 has seen additional changes for standards at the high school level. Michigan created content expectations in science, mathematics, and language arts to meet the requirements of the Merit Curriculum. These “expectations” specifically describe required performances on the part of students, and in that respect, are almost a return to the original “objectives” that were first written in 70s.

Start with Michigan

We will spend most of time in this module examining the Michigan science frameworks/expectations that have been developed over a considerable period of time and are used as the basis for state-wide science assessment.

It will be productive to examine both the history of these frameworks/expectations and the mechanism of their development. It will also be worthwhile to examine these frameworks/ expectations in terms of their function.

Benchmarks/Frameworks/ Expectations in Michigan

Did you know? Michigan has had one of the first (and arguably the best) state science standards document based on national standards. Michigan has had innovative state-wide science assessments based on state science standards that have been in continuous development since the mid-70’s.

Benchmarks/Frameworks/Expectations in Michigan (continued)

Michigan's science assessment (MEAP science) was designed so that every fifth and eighth grader was asked to: conduct a hands-on investigation, construct responses (not just do multiple choice items), analyze real world situations, and interpret and critique a popular science articles from newspapers or magazines. This was very progressive (and alas, expensive…).

Benchmarks/Frameworks/Expectations in Michigan (continued)

Michigan schools have in the past been able to choose an assessment topic to focus on over a 2-3 year period and monitor progress using the MEAP science area-specific assessment. Again, very progressive in comparison with other states’ assessment programs.

Benchmarks / Frameworks in Michigan (continued)

The Michigan science standards and assessment program are a result of broad-based collaboration among the Michigan legislature, State Board of Education, business community, Department of Education, professional organizations of science educators, school district science leaders, teachers, and university science educators.

Benchmarks/Frameworks/Expectations in Michigan (continued)

MEAP science assessment results reveal that we still have a long way to go to help a large majority of students to become scientifically literate. The Merit exam results will likely not be any different. Michigan teachers need ongoing standards-based professional development opportunities, time to plan, discuss, and reflect on their teaching, professional learning communities, and more adequate instructional materials if we are to meet the challenges represented by our standards and assessments.

The last 6 points courtesy of Dr. Edward Smith

Fall, 2007 Notes

As of September 4, 2007, the following must be noted:

The new high school mathematics and language arts expectations documents have been approved by the Michigan State Board of Education, the high school science expectations (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Earth Science) were finally approved at the very end of 2006. The U.S. Department of Education has approved the use of the Michigan Merit Exam/ACT as a replacement for the High School MEAP exam. This year’s 9th grade is officially under the auspices of the new curriculum and will take the MME/ACT as juniors. The MME that was offered to high school juniors in the spring, 2006 and will be offered next spring is essentially a repackaged high school MEAP exam (i.e., old curriculum). At the 6, 7, and 8th grades new grade level content expectations have been approved in mathematics. The science grade level content expectations are on track to be approved this November.

=quiz=

Quiz 1 1. Which of the following is a framework most closely similar in function?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. goal B. benchmark 100% C. objective D. daily lesson plan

Score: 2/2

2. Why is "benchmarks" better terminology for what Michigan has for many years called "objectives" in its curriculum documents?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Benchmarks come to education through cognitive learning theory, while objectives are the result of behavioral learning theory. B. Benchmarks are more easily understood by teachers. Objectives are more theoretical and are best understood by university researchers. C. Benchmarks have a much longer history in Michigan and also have a reputation of being teacher friendly. Objectives are a relatively new idea that is much harder to understand. D. Benchmarks imply broad leaning goals than need to be achieved when reaching well-defined developmental levels, while objectives are more specific to daily classroom learning activities. 100%

Score: 2/2

3. Which of the following is a general goal of the Michigan Curriculum Frameworks?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. literacy of individuals B. coordination of effort between districts and the state 0% C. elaboration of annual learning goals in several content areas D. development of assessment instruments that can be used by teachers, Re: Rosters: administrators, and state school officials

Score: 0/2

4. What is the relationship between the Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (MEGOSE) and the Michigan Curriculum Frameworks?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. MEGOSE serves as an interpretation tool for the frameworks. B. There is little relationship since MEGOSE is about science and the Frameworks is about general literacy. C. The science objectives in MEGOSE are contained in the science section of the Frameworks as benchmarks. 100% D. MEGOSE and the Frameworks were written by the same people so that they could show how important science ideas could be taught in the classroom.

Score: 2/2

5. How does a goal differ from an objective?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. A goal is more specific in intent and immediacy of action than an objective. B. Goals and objectives are generally considered to be the same thing in education. C. Goals are long-term statements of achievement; objectives are more short-term statements of learning. 100% D. Goals are written and used by teachers on a day to day level, whereas objectives are written by national or state planning committees.

Score: 2/2

6. How long has Michigan been developing objectives and assessments in science for K-12 schools?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. About 30 years 100% B. Since the No Child Left Behind Legislation 2 years ago C. About 10 years D. Since the Michigan Department of Education was first formed over 100 years ago

Score: 2/2

7. According to the Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives in Science Education (MEGOSE) the objectives in the document were written in a way that "attempts to reduce content coverage", rather that increase it. Why was this done?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Lessening the content in the curriculum means that more emphasis can be placed on depth of understanding. B. Lessening the content is consistent with national attempts simplify education and make it accessible to all students. 0% C. Lessening content has been a trend that has occurred over the past 75 years in all curriculum documents of this type. D. Since it is imperative that all state agencies hold down costs, it is only natural that producing a slimmed down curriculum document would be perceived as reducing expenses.

Score: 0/2 New score: 2/2 This score has been adjusted by the grader.

8. Describe how well written science objectives can be used to promote scientific literacy.

Student Response: Promoting scientific literacy can sometimes be diluted by the measurement tool. Well written science objectives guide educators to the potential of a valid assessment on how students are using, constructing, and reflecting science knowledge. Objectives provide the framework for which educators can design their courses to promote the literacy. I question most assessments since students don't fail tests, but tests fail students. We must be careful on how we evaluate our success.

Sample Correct Answer If the objectives promote understanding and emphasize learning that is useful and relevant to the world outside the school then students will see that what they have learned is both useful and connected. Literacy is also promoted if emphasis is placed on reaching all students rather than just a select few. General Feedback: If the objectives promote understanding and emphasize learning that is useful and relevant to the world outside the school then students will see that what they have learned is both useful and connected. Literacy is also promoted if emphasis is placed on reaching all students rather than just a select few. Score: 4/6 Comments: You have chosen to primarily focus on standards as a tool for guiding assessment. That is important, but the principal goal is to promote understanding. You do make that point but somewhat tangentially.