Where's Waldo?

Because I had set up this blog specifically for Technology PD at my school, I will not be posting new things here. I do have a (somewhat) regularly updated blog on wordpress:

mrolsonchem.wordpress.com

Screencast-O-Matic

Solid. I can definitely see this coming in handy, not only for giving directions when I am absent, but also for recording lessons for students who are absent, keeping a nice digital record of lessons. I wonder what it would look like to record class daily...? Hmm. Maybe I'll have to try that out next year.

Here's a quick video I made giving instructions on using some different PhET simulators for comparing solid, liquid and gas properties. I like that I can quickly demonstrate some of the features of the video, as well as showing them exactly how to access them from the student save drive.

I thought about writing a snarky comment about not being the next Sal Kahn, but I thought I'd rather give it a positive spin, and hope to be more like Aaron Sams or Brian Bennett (both of whom are pioneers utilizing their own flipped science classes). I am considering doing some flipping next year for general chemistry, and screencast-o-matic would be extremely helpful.

Diigo

Our 4th tool for the 5TTT journey is diigo, which I have found to be quite excellent! It's a bookmarking tool, but it has lots of great features - easy organization of bookmarks, the ability to share bookmarks, screen capture, highlighting, sticky notes - and its all saved to online and can be accessed anywhere. Here's a page I highlighted and added some sticky notes to. I also took a screenshot of Dhaivyd's blog to play around with a  few other features (I love that you can blur!).

Overall, I think diigo is a useful tool. I'm not sure how much I will use the bookmarking (I already have a system of bookmarks set up through chrome) but perhaps if I can get going with them through diigo it will be helpful to be accessed from anywhere rather than just from my computer. I'll have to work on that this summer! I think my favorite feature is the screen capture; it's not perfect - I had some issues with the images moving after selecting them - but it will definitely be helpful for classes as well as for adding stuff to the blog!

Google Docs & Forms

With Dhaivyd talking about the end of the 5TTT timeline, I realize that I need to play a bit of catch-up with my updates on my tech tools. Fortunately, I've got a bit of experience with Google Docs, and I've already been playing around with Google Forms.

Tool #2: Google Docs
I've used Google Docs a number of times for student projects. It is quite convenient for students to share their progress with me (as well as each other), to be able to access it easily from outside of class and for me to efficiently leave them feedback. As Colin had also noted, it is much more streamlined for turning projects in without the worry of losing things. Most recently, students put together some research on the different types of energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Here are some examples of student work via Google Docs:

Student Research 1
Student Research 2
Student Presentation


Tool #3: Google Forms
After the science lab demo gone wrong over at MGJH back in December, I have been a part of  a district-wide group of science teachers that have been discussing how to modify our policies in order to prevent another incident like that from occurring in our district in the future. One of the things that we decided was that any new demo that a teacher would like to add to their curriculum that involves hazardous (i.e. corrosive, combustible, or volatile) chemicals must approved by your building's CHO (chemical hygiene officer) who then works with the teacher and the other CHOs in the district to approve the demo or deem it not safe for school. As the CHO here at Park Center, I thought a Google Form would be a perfect way for a teacher to easily submit a demo for approval, and also create a simple, digital record of what the demo is in order to quickly share it with other CHOs in the district.

Hazardous Demo Approval Form

For anyone that is not a science teacher, this doesn't have much impact on you. To be perfectly honest, most of the demos that are done in our science classes don't involve any hazardous chemicals, and I would be surprised if there were many more that are added to our curriculum. But if/when there are, I'll be ready!

Review of MN Science Standards

Corresponding to my last few posts about standards, I came across an interesting review (via Jack Hassard's blog) called, "The State of State Science Standards" that was done by the Fordham Institute. According to the review, MN's science standards are only worth 5/10 (which according to their standards is a C). I didn't pay much attention to the score, but was much more interested in the analysis:

In the comments about "clarity and specificity" the reviewer made the following comment:

For the most part, the presentation of Minnesota’s standards is clear—but specificity sometimes suffers. With respect to the latter, the main weakness lies in the physical sciences and the all-too-common mismatches between the standards and the examples given... A tendency toward needlessly befuddling language is another failing, particularly when straightforward mathematical concepts are at hand. Consider this demand in the chemistry material: Use the kinetic molecular theory to explain the behavior of gases and the relationship among temperature, pressure, volume, and number of particles. (high school chemistry) This expectation could be much more compactly presented
as, “Manipulate the equation PV = nRT.”

2 big issues that I have:
1) I would agree that the standards are not very specific. However, I see a lack of specificity as an excellent feature that allows creative flexibility to offer students a variety of possibilities for demonstrating their understanding. Standards that are too specific are very constraining, and MN gets much more specific when providing "benchmarks" (the "mismatched examples" he mentions). For reference, here's the chemistry standard  that deals with the ideal gas law:

States of matter can be described in terms of motion of molecules and the properties and behavior of gases can be explained using the kinetic molecular theory.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least half a dozen ways that we could address and investigate this standard. Lacking specificity - yes, and that's a good thing. I don't need the MN Dept of Ed trying to teach my class for me.


2) The reviewer also makes a serious misstep by equating "manipulating the equation" and a scientific explanation. Apples and oranges! Calculating a number using a formula is NOT the same as understanding what the calculated number means, and explaining its relation to scientific phenomena. Ever hear of the Force Concept Inventory?? There are many students who could perform the basic algebra necessary for physics, but that doesn't guarantee that they understand the concepts that are connected to those mathematics.

I think this sums up the unreliability of the review:

A curriculum founded on these materials would be a hodgepodge that fails to convey a sense of system to the student. Indeed, it would be an invitation to science by memorization.

This seems to be contradictory to his previous statements - lacking specificity, but somehow also failing to see the big picture... hmmm... not quite sure I see that, nor how it would invite memorization. Making standards more specific, in my opinion, would lead to a tendency to memorize and not worry about the "system" and how it all relates.

You can find a much more thorough discussion of some of the biases and issues with the review, ultimately giving the review a (generous) D.

Developing Standards for SBG II

As I mentioned in my last post, all of the chemistry teachers in our district recently got together to flesh out our standards as we move forward in our implementation of standards-based grading. Before we get to the goods, I want to clarify the specific terminology that we've been using, as defined by the district. Each class basically breaks down into three levels, starting with big ideas and narrowing down to more specific ideas.

Reporting Standards 

Reporting standards will appear in the gradebooks, and reflect a combination of priority standards (big picture). We based these on the MN state standards.  

Priority Standards

Priority standards are "absolutely essential for student success". These are a bit more specific, but still general enough that they can be assessed in a variety of ways, and will cover a variety of learning objectives. I'm thinking I may put these into my gradebook as well (or at least have some method of tracking them/having students track them). 

Learning Objectives 

Specific nuggets of information, tailored to individual or sets of lessons. These are set by each individual teacher (although each level should have similar ones) so they were not included in our work, even though they are expected to be used to further clarify the priority standards.

Now that we've got that aired out, here's what we came up with for our standards. These will be continuous for all levels of chemistry (conceptual, general, and HP/AP), with the thought that higher levels may add extras or go more in depth.

The first reporting standard (Nature of Science) will be a continuous thread throughout the entire year, and the others will be only in certain trimesters that we cover that particular standard (probably at least two others per tri). The district would also like us to map out exactly which standards (both reporting and priority) are being covered each trimester, so that theoretically a student could transfer from one HS to another within the district and be in basically the same area of the course... still not sure about that idea.

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions, critiques, etc. are more than welcome!

Developing Standards for SBG

One of the most difficult things that I've had to deal with this year is trying to figure out a set of standards to use for chemistry. As I was preparing last summer, I wrestled with our state standards (which, at the time, seemed too "big") and the-slightly-less-daunting learning targets for each (series of) lessons that would be taught.

I spent quite a bit of time reading through lots of SBG tips and ideas, but I was still having a hard time wrapping my head around how it would look for my class. I tried grouping targets by topic (such as "atomic structure", or "chemical reactions") and used a lot of Jason Buell's structure for designing rubrics (or topic scales, as he calls them) and set up checklists similar to what Mylene had done.  When all was said and done, I went about 3 weeks into the year before realizing that the grouping I had done and all of the rubrics I had created were not working the way I wanted them to - so I scrapped them and started over¹.

My intentions were to fully use SBG this year, but the initial setback (without much time to gather the pieces) made it difficult to move forward. I have been utilizing learning goals (targets) for each section/unit and making the targets clear and assessments based on those targets. However, the big ideas (standards?²) are being loosely strung along while we plod through the year and not as clearly tied to the targets as I would like them to be. I'm hoping that by the start of our 3rd trimester in a few weeks, I will be able to have a bit more structure to end the year on a high note.

As our district moves forward with our SBG implementation plan, we are meeting with all of the other chemistry teachers tomorrow to finish developing our standards for next year. I'm hoping that this collaboration will give me a better sense of the "big idea"-"learning target" connection and make it a much easier transition to full SBG next year, and I will have a later post that details what we come up with.

[1] Although at first I felt as though I had wasted a ton of time by doing this, I've come to realize that I learned a lot about how to design useful rubrics through this process - even though I didn't use the rubrics I created.

[2]  I haven't settled on the preferred verbiage just yet (standards? targets? objectives? blah?) but I usually think of standards as being the "big ideas".