Systems for State Science Assessment (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 The Centrality of Standards
4 The Centrality of Standards
Pages 54-76
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 54... ...
Under NCLB the word "standards" refers to both content standards and achievement standards. NCLB requires states to develop challenging academic standards of both types, and the law describes them as follows (U.S.
|
From page 55... ...
The chapter concludes with an overview of achievement standards and issues related to setting achievement levels for systems of assessment. STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS To obtain an overview of current state science standards, the committee examined samples of science standards from states that had developed them as of January 2004.
|
From page 56... ...
4) notes, "There is no standard language or model for content standards." State standards vary considerably in terms of features that affect their usefulness for developing curriculum materials, planning instruction, and creating assessments.
|
From page 57... ...
understand the fundamental concepts, principles and interconnections of the life, physical and earth/space sciences."2 Only a few state standards attempt to show how scientific topics are related to material in other disciplines, such as mathematics. New Jersey science standard number 5.3, for example, states: "All students will integrate mathematics as a tool for problem-solving in science, and as a means of expressing and/or modeling scientific theories."3 While most state science standards are limited to descriptions of science content, some go further to describe aspects of content that are relevant to teaching and learning.
|
From page 58... ...
In other words, they must be elaborated. Other Evaluations of State Science Standards Besides conducting our own examination of sample science standards, the committee relied on two comprehensive reviews by other groups that provide a good starting point for thinking about the features of high-quality standards.
|
From page 59... ...
In a paper written for the National Education Goals Panel, Archibald (1998) described the state of content standards as one of "startling variety." Other groups have suggested criteria for developing or reviewing content standards and frameworks (Education Week, 2004; the National Education Goals Panel, 1993; Blank and Pechman, 1995; Pacific Research Institute, 2004, available athttp://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/ac_standards/main.html)
|
From page 60... ...
d. Compare the relative energy output expended by an organism in obtaining food to the energy gained from the food (e.g., hummingbird energy expended hover ing at a flower compared to the amount of energy gained from the nectar, coyote chasing mice to the energy gained from catching one, energy expended in migration of birds to a location with seasonal abundance compared to energy gained by staying in a cold climate with limited food)
|
From page 61... ...
5) proposed that the evaluation of standards needs a "theory of design for content standards that would link purpose, content and organization." While this remains an unrealized goal, the committee suggests that a first step in this direction is to derive a set of guidelines for standards that can help identify the essential features that standards should possess.
|
From page 62... ...
Science content should: · be clear, detailed, and complete; · be reasonable in scope; · be rigorously and scientifically correct; · have a clear conceptual framework; · be based on sound models of student learning; and · describe performance expectations and identify proficiency levels. Each of the characteristics is described below, and examples of current state standards are used to illustrate many of them.5 We were unable to identify any complete set of state science standards that meets all of the criteria we describe.
|
From page 63... ...
We do not suggest that, to be complete, standards should include everything that is known about student learning in this area. That would be both impractical (since it would lead to encyclopedic standards documents)
|
From page 64... ...
Plate Tectonics and Earth's Structure 1. Plate tectonics accounts for important features of Earth's surface and major geologic events.
|
From page 65... ...
The standards should reflect the manner in which scientific knowledge is organized, so that curricula can be structured in appropriate ways. State science content standards should be accurate in describing the nature of science and scientific investigation, and they should be thorough in covering the basic principles in the fields they address.
|
From page 66... ...
Component 1.1 Properties: Understand how properties are used to identify, de scribe, and categorize substances, materials, and objects and how characteristics are used to categorize living things. GLE 6 7 8 9 10 1.1.3 Understand sound waves, water waves, Analyze sound waves, water and light waves, using wave properties waves, and light waves, using including amplitude, wavelength, and wave properties including speed.
|
From page 67... ...
Sound Models of Student Learning Effective standards should reflect what is known about how students learn science. For example, content should be organized in the standards to match the way students actually develop scientific understanding.
|
From page 68... ...
ELABORATING STANDARDS FOR PRACTITIONERS To be effective, state science standards need to be more thorough and thoughtful than most are at present. However, that does not mean that science content standards alone would be adequate to serve the needs of teachers, test developers, students, parents, and policy makers.
|
From page 69... ...
Organizing standards around these central principles and developing learning progressions make clear what could be taken as evidence at different grade levels that students are developing as expected and building a foundation for future learning. Organizing standards around big ideas represents a fundamental shift from the more traditional organizational structure that many states now use, in which standards are grouped under discrete topic headings.
|
From page 70... ...
70 CO be protein the of in also other and enve encoded ling vides among cycles wthorg can from or pro mation vior assemb molecules as (5C/5)
|
From page 71... ...
71 CO nal . e TIONAV TTER to mak repair MA CO SYSTEMS to and OF to DNA CONSER made divide Educatio CO wthorg from INHERITED CTERISTICS are of orf and (11A/1)
|
From page 72... ...
In other settings, more general descriptions of performance that sort students into achievement levels, such as basic, proficient, and advanced, are used. Achievement standards are important for many reasons: · They provide teachers with targets for instruction by specifying what, and how much, students must be able to do to demonstrate mastery of the content standards and the achievement level that is called for.
|
From page 73... ...
that systems of achievement standards should have, as conceived by Hansche, are shown in Box 4-5. Three of the four components of the assessment system -- labels, descriptors, and exemplars -- should be created before assessments are developed.
|
From page 74... ...
. The method chosen to set achievement standards will also have an impact on the standards.
|
From page 75... ...
Researchers advocate that descriptors for the achievement levels be developed before the cut scores are established so that the judges have a clear definition of each of the levels. Evidence of the extent of internal inconsistency, or variability, in judgments is needed as well.
|
From page 76... ...
The most common methods used to set achievement levels, such as the modified Angoff or bookmark methods, were designed for use on a single test. Although the committee did not evaluate them, we identified several methods for setting achievement standards when multiple measures are used.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.