week+3+discussion

calendar

In what ways are the High School Content expectations aligned with the Michigan Curriculum Framework? In what ways are they not? What has been the impact of the change to the new content standards on your work?

High School Content - Mathematics High School Expectations other resource links from MI Dept Ed

[due to the intensity of this question, it would have been nice to have a real discussion on these topics with other teachers. Kedmon, I look forward to your response to this question since I am seeking other perspectives. I do not feel I had sufficient time to really delve into the differences of the two documents.]


 * Aligned**

The High School Expectations (HSE) are aligned with the Michigan Curriculum Framework (MCF) in their overarching standards of Constructing, Reflecting, and Using, where the HSE uses the phrases Inquiry, reflection, and social implications. Using and Constructing are terms missing in the HSE, though Inquiry could be interpreted as so. My memory of Reflecting seemed to relate to Inquiry as well.

In terms of knowledge, the HSE is a lot more in depth. Due to how it is organized, the Headings and Subheadings can focus on specific concepts with more relation to the science area. The most significant is the interpretation of Physical Science with Physics and Chemistry. It is in my opinion that by making this distinction in High School, it will better prepare students for success in a post secondary situation.


 * Not-Aligned**

In terms of expectations, the High School expectations (HSE) document organizes the concepts differently than the Michigan Curriculum Framework (MCF). This, in turn, involves addressing the expectations slightly different.

Beginning with Earth Science the MCF breaks down the standards into Geosphere, Hydrosphere, The Atmosphere and Weather, and The Solar System, Galaxy and Universe. The HSE for Earth Science breaks down the standards into Earth Systems, Solid Earth, Fluid Earth, and The Earth in Space in Time. An example of the reorganization addressing the concepts differently is under Geosphere in the MCF where students will analyze effects of technology on earth's resources. The Earth Systems in the HSE would have this concept under Energy in Earth Systems, Biogeochemical Cycles, and Resources and Human Impacts on Earth Systems. The HSE views Earth Systems in a more complex manner, allowing for the expectations to be more elaborate.

In Physical Science the MCF uses Matter and Energy, Changes in Matter, Motion of Objects, and Waves and Vibrations when describing the expectations. The HSE breaks Physical Science into its two differing sciences, Physics and Chemistry. In Physics the HSE uses Motion of Objects, Forces and Motion, and Forms of Energy and Energy Transformations. n Chemistry the HSE uses Forms of Energy, Energy Transfer and Conservation, Properties of Matter, and Changes in Matter. My first thought of the difference in these headings is how HSE standards resemble post secondary topics of Physical Science. The phrase Physical Science is more related to Middle School concept of science, lumping Physics and Chemistry topics together. The consequence of reorganizing these concepts is the ability to be more specific when addressing the expectations.

Life Science in MCF is now referred to as Biology in the HSE, which reinforces how the HSE is more college preparatory. The breakdown in the MCF is Cells, The Organization of Living Things, Heredity, Evolution, Ecosystems. The HSE uses Organization and Development of Living Systems, Interdependence of Living Systems and the Environment, Genetics, and Evolution and Biodiversity. Cells, The Organization of Living Things, and Ecosystems are grouped within Organization and Development of Living Systems and Interdependence of Living Systems and the Environment. Genetics would replace Heredity, and Evolution is broadened with Evolution and Biodiversity.


 * My work**

I regards to my work, I have not taught in Michigan. I can relate the HSE to Ontario standards. As I have tremendous respect for Ontario standards, I am impressed with the HSE. Though I did like the MCF, the HSE is catered towards university preparation.

-

Chris I think it would be helpful if I shared some thoughts from 3 teachers who discussed this topic previously. They have some good insights. Their comments are below

=
=================

The following information is the key thoughts that I have had on this topic of the transition to the new High School Content Expectations compared to the Michigan Curriculum Framework.
 * Kimberly Samson**

In my opinion, the High School Content Expectations are aligned with the Michigan Curriculum Framework in that they include all three of the activities in them to help make students scientifically literate. They have the constructing, reflecting and using concepts in them. They consist of the following four components. 1. Identifying Scientific Principles (Using) 2. Using Scientific Principles (Using) 3. Scientific Inquiry (Constructing) 4. Reflection and Social Implications (Reflecting)

In looking and using both of these documents in my classroom for a guide, I find that the HSCE’s are more focused on the student being an integral part of the world. The HSCE’s focus more on scientific literacy as being a “system approach” to learning useful and connected knowledge. That is that they have taken knowledge of students to a more encompassed level and not just learning for the sake of learning. I could say I see a more thematic approach to learning rather than separate benchmarks.

I do like the layout of the Michigan Curriculum framework as far as including the elementary, middle and high school benchmarks all together. You can see the increased depth of knowledge at each grade with progressively more complex inquiry, reflection and use of knowledge right at your fingertips.

I started the incorporation of the HSCE’s last year in my Science 9 class. I found that it was a great choice to start early, as this year I can really focus more deeply on each area integrating the systems approach, rather than trying to create each lesson matching the essentials as a separate entity. I can also collaborate with others in the same discipline at county meetings to see what they are doing and compare notes on what works and what does not with the students and ways to achieve scientific literacy.

The lack of resources in our school was also a challenge. Our text books do not contain anything about oceans, hydrogeology or the advanced rock cycle. This is an integrated course containing a semester of physics and a semester of earth science.
 * Robert Damery**

Again, I also agree with Kim. The MCF and the HSCE seem to align fairly well with each other and cover the three main activities of science. If anything, I think that the HSCE emphasize them more, in that each content area's companion document gives real-wold examples and activities that students should be able to complete and discuss.

For vertical alignment, however, the MCF was much better. Again, you could see what your students should be able to do when they get to you and you can see what they will need to do at the next level, as well.


 * Karlas Shadonay**

I agree with Kimberly and the power point for week two in that the MCF and the HSCE are aligned in the basic scientific activities of using, constructing and reflecting. I also think that they are aligned in the basic topics covered in each content area for example biology MCF covers: cells, the organization of living things, heredity, evolution and ecosystems. HSCE covers organization of living things, Genetics, Evolution and diversity, and Interdependence of living things and the environment.

However, for the MCF there is a general strand to cover constructing and to cover reflecting. For the HSCE this is built into the first standard for every content area as Inquiry, Reflection, and Social implications.

Regardless of the set up, they are trying to do the same thing- include the three scientific activities.

I also agree with Kimberly on the idea that the HSCE focus is more on teaching science as an integral part of the real world. Another difference is that the HSCE break down each standard to specific concepts or processes that need to be learned by the student. Not only are they more specific, but they also are coded to let you know if it's a core topic, essential topic, or recommended topic to cover. As a teacher, we can use this information to cover what has to be covered and try to fit in what is recommended if possible.

As far as impacting teaching, I have found that the HSCE are more helpful because they are more direct. Working on the science curriculum review team for the district, we were able to look at these standards are come up with usable real world applications other teachers could have access to. Again, the focus becomes hands-on, real world, and inquiry driven.

But like Kimberly said, the MCF have been nice in the past to use due to simplicity of having all the standards in an abbreviated form to see across grade levels. I liked being able to see what students were supposed to come to my class knowing. I also liked the flip charts they used to make. It was a quick easy way to see exactly which benchmark was being taught.