Meeting NCLB Performance Expectations In Science

1

• Meeting NCLB Performance Expectations In Science
  
• Ed Meyen, Diana Greer, and John Poggio
• eLearning Design Lab
• Center of Educational Testing and Evaluation
• University of Kansas
• Council of Exceptional Children Conference
• April 4th, 2009

2

• Presentation Objectives
• Share an overview of the Blending Assessment with
  Instruction Program (BAIP)
• Share what we are learning from work in math
• Share the BAIP lesson model for science
• Demonstrate online science tutorials

3
Purpose of BAIP

• To enhance student performance through aligning
  instruction with Curriculum and Assessment
  Standards
• To provide teachers and students resources for
  grades 3 through high school

4
Vision for BAIP

• The reality.
• All students benefit when instruction is aligned
  with curriculum and assessment standards
• Alignment is essential for students with
  disabilities
• Teachers need help in the alignment process
• Technology enhances alignment of instruction,
  curriculum, and assessment

5
Vision for BAIP

• BAIP
• focuses on what all students need to learn
• designed to fulfill an instructional vision of
  alignment/assessment
• strengthens the practice of evidence based
  decision making
• generalizes across content areas

6
BAIP Development Partners

• Center for Education Testing and Evaluation
  (CETE)
• BAIP Support
• Alignment with Assessment Standards
• eLearning Design Lab
• Design and development
• Validation and evaluation
• Kansas Schools
• Content developers
• Validation

7
BAIP Resources

• Includes lessons for teachers that
• Align curriculum with assessed standards
• Assist teachers in translating standards into
  instruction
• Enhance teachers content knowledge
• Includes tutorials for students that are aligned
  with lessons
• Available 24-7
• Provide immediate feedback to teachers and
  students

8
BAIP Mathematic Field Test

• 276 Lessons
• Two instructional lessons for each assessed
  mathematics indicator for grades 3 through 8 and
  high school
• 417 Tutorials
• Two instructional tutorials for each assessed
  mathematics indicator for grades 3 through 8 and
  high school

9
Lesson and Tutorial Designs

• Researched literature
• Reviewed best practices
• Engaged Subject Matter Experts
• Subjected prototypes to review
• Evaluated design with content

10
Validation

• Alpha testing completed by internal staff
• SME review
• External review
• Teacher feedback
• Field-test

11
Programmatic Status

• BAIP planning began during the Spring of 2005
• Beta testing of math occurred in the winter of
  2007 in 9 districts with 2000 students in grades
  5, 6, 7, and 8
• Implemented BAIP in math at scale in grades 3
  through high school 2007-2008

12
Programmatic Status

• 2007-2008 Data
• 187 districts became active users
• 83,551 students were enrolled
• 3,777 students with IEPs
• 1,206 school buildings participating
• 80,114 lessons accessed by teachers
• 554,217 tutorials were completed
• 94 of the tutorials attempted were completed
• Performance of students
• 4 items per tutorial
• Average correct 2.34 for students with
  disabilities/ 3.52 students without

13
Programmatic Status

• 2008-2009 Data to date
• 208 public schools districts and 6 private became
  active users
• 44,761 students enrolled
• 605 school buildings participating
• Teachers have accessed the lessons 150,000 times
• 781,402 tutorials completed

14

• BAIP in Science

15
Rationale for Science

• Broad support for creating a science version
• State assessments in science began in 2008
• Teachers need content knowledge
• Teachers at the elementary levels receive
  comparatively less science preparation
• Special education teachers have particular needs
  for content knowledge
• BAIP development/production process generalizes
  to science

16
Lessons Learned During Science Exploration

• Content structure in science differs from math
• Science standards are more process oriented
• Alignment with standards more complicated
• Historically, science has not been emphasized at
  the elementary level
• Instruction in science requires content knowledge
• Tutorials in science will require a different
  model

17
Science Development

• Engagement of local coordinators
• Team approach to lesson design
• Scientists as reviewers
• Content and methods audit
• Iterative review process
• Template/production - process

18
Organization of Science Lessons

• Lessons are organized according to five
  frameworks
• Contextual
• Teaching
• Lesson
• Application
• Extension

19
5 Es Instructional Model

• Modification of model created, designed, and
  researched by Biological Sciences Curriculum
  Study (BSCS)
• Based on a constructivist view of learning
• Inquiry-based Learning

20

• Students redefine, reorganize, elaborate, and
  change their initial concepts through the 5 Es
• Engagement
• Exploration
• Explanation
• Elaboration
• Evaluation

21
Science Standards

• Physical Science
• Life Science
• Earth and Space
• Science and Technology
• Science in Personal and Environmental
  Perspectives
• History and Nature of Science

22

• Science Lesson Demo

23
Tutorial organization

• Each tutorial
• Brief introduction
• Indicator concept(s) applied to
• real life application
• 8 practice problems
• 6 multiple choice
• 2 open ended response
• Instruction and feedback
• Reports on performance to teachers

24

• Tutorial Demo

25
BAIP Parent Resources

• 138 mathematic activity sheets
• 2 structured activities
• 2 ideas for teachable moments
• General Strategy Support Sheets
• Online animated Glossary

26
Contacts

• Ed Meyen
• meyen_at_ku.edu

• Diana Greer
• dgreer_at_ku.edu