[YAPA] Grading science education

[Sharon Shanks]

I posted the original link to get some discussion going on the YAPA list (plus I
found it to be interesting ...) -
If you hit "reply" to answer comes back to me. If you hit "replay to all" or
whatever similar feature your mail reader has, it goes to the list.

Robert: hope you intended this to go to this list ... :)

Sharon


----- Forwarded message from "robert.pendzick" <robert.pendzick at neomin.org>
-----
    Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:07:51 -0500
    From: "robert.pendzick" <robert.pendzick at neomin.org>
Reply-To: "robert.pendzick" <robert.pendzick at neomin.org>
 Subject: RE: [YAPA] Grading science education
      To: Sharon Shanks <slshanks at ysu.edu>

The Key to the grading comes from these and a few other observations:

Do the standards contain clear and fair expectations by grade level for
students?

Are the standards organized in a sensible way, both showing logical
progression from grade to grade and easily navigated so teachers, parents, and
the public can understand?

Is there an appropriate amount of science content, and if so, do the standards
outline the best approach to share that content?

 In working with students coming from all over Trumbull Co., and receiving
work from their schools for the students to do while detained, (This is a
sample of 20+ schools, 100+ students, grades 5 to 12, and lots of teachers
lesson plans)

I would come to the conclusion that:

1)most teachers see logical connections following textbooks

2)most do not set up "learning goals" but target the text content (which means
that if I don't have that text in my classroom, it is difficult to come up
with an alternative materials since the lesson will often say read p. 35 - 45
and do vocabulary and questions.  (Great only if the text is the same)

3) Most students are overwhelmed with CONTENT, but rarely reflect or have time
to think to about a topic prior to going to the next.  (My sample might be
skewed to lower ability students but even the best (I've had some 3.8's)
rarely READ the materials before trying the work)

4)The Ohio content in science is overly broad.  It keeps the teacher from
focusing on what their skills, resources and classroom could become if they
could focus on less, with more depth, time, and ability to show off their own
strengths or lead/follow/create student intrests.

5) Most students have "neutral" experiences with science instructors, neither
wow'ed or bored.  (and that's too bad, since science instruction could be
WOW'ING students)

Robert Pendzick

(Know of anybody that might like to "silent" study of this?, gee sounds like a
project or a self-directed course, (I need some more credits)


>===== Original Message From Sharon Shanks <slshanks at ysu.edu> =====
>Interesting article. Ohio gets a "B" grade - what do you think? Too high? Too
>low? Just right?
>
>http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/about/press_release.cfm?id=20
>Sharon
>--
>Sharon Shanks
>Ward Beecher Planetarium
>Youngstown State University
>
>Facts are not science - as the dictionary is not literature.
>                                             Martin H. Fischer
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>_______________________________________________
>YAPA mailing list
>YAPA at lists.ysu.edu
>http://lists.ysu.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/yapa



----- End forwarded message -----


-- 
Sharon Shanks
Ward Beecher Planetarium
Youngstown State University

Facts are not science - as the dictionary is not literature.
                                             Martin H. Fischer

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.