310 likes | 467 Views
Science Curriculum Review Team. April 11, 2011. Agenda. Introductions (those new to the group) Science Data Part II Review/analyze the audit report Begin to draft recommendations for Board
E N D
Science Curriculum Review Team April 11, 2011
Agenda • Introductions (those new to the group) • Science Data Part II • Review/analyze the audit report • Begin to draft recommendations for Board • Homework: Submit additional recommendations for consideration by the group. Bring these to our 4/26 meeting.
Introductions If you are new to the group, please be ready to share your: • Name • Connection to Oakwood (teacher, parent, alumnus, etc.) • If your work/career is related to a STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) field, please explain. • A science-related book, movie, TV show, experience, field trip, etc. that influenced your feelings about science.
Group’s Purpose & Composition • Purpose: To utilize the review process to strengthen Oakwood’s K-12 science programming. • Provide input • Propose ideas • Serve as watchdog/accountability check • Involve stakeholders • Composition: K-12 science teachers, administrators, content experts, and parents and community members.
Group’s Scope of Work • Review the K-12 science audit report commissioned by Oakwood and conducted by an outside Audit Panel of content experts (university professors). The audit evaluated Oakwood's current K-12 science program and identified strengths and suggestions for growth. • Review Oakwood's science data (ITBS, OAA, OGT, AP, ACT, etc.). • Consider recommendations for changes from internal and external stakeholders. • Make recommendations for changes to the Board of Education.
Science Data • Part I (last meeting) • Ohio Achievement Tests • Ohio Graduation Tests • Part II (today) • ACT • Iowa Test of Basic Skills • Advanced Placement exams • College Connection Data • Gender Data
ACT Data Percent of ACT-Tested Students Ready for College-Level Coursework
Iowa Test of Basic Skills Data Fall, 2010
College Connection Data* * Data from 2005-2007 (2005: Miami; 2006: OSU; 2007: UD)
College Connection Data* * Data from 2008-2010 (2008: OU; 2009: WSU; 2010: Denison)
College Connection Data* • Qualitative data regarding science preparation: • Astro easy with physics background (D) • Good teachers (D) • AP bio helped a lot (D) • The science department teachers approached students exactly the same as the college professors do. (W) • Bio training under tough--but--fair Teacher’s Name left me ready for the biology trilogy. (W) • Everything we learned in my…science classes I have learned about from my time at Oakwood. (W) • I had trouble in this when I was there, classes run with the most advanced rather than slower. (O) • Awesome, our program at Oakwood was very helpful. • I’m not good at science, but I did okay in nutrition because I studied a lot. • I took Chem 121. I got an “A” in the course. Chem made more sense the 2nd time I took it. * Data from 2008-2010 (2008: OU; 2009: WSU; 2010: Denison)
Audit Process • Purpose: To have an external panel identify strengths and areas of growth in the Oakwood K-12 Science program. • Audit Team: • Al Fratini, UD • Bob Kearns, UD • Carl Friese, UD • Elizabeth George, Wittenberg • Lalitha Locker, Sinclair • Douglas Bradley-Hutchison, Sinclair • Lisa Kenyon, WSU (ex officio) • Data: • Grade level/course artifacts • Teacher survey • Classroom observations and informal mini-interviews of teachers • Report will be sent to team members and posted on our website.
Audit Report • With your group, identify: • Key findings • Strengths • Areas for growth • Recommendations to consider making to the Board • Questions that remain • Capture your ideas on chart paper • Be ready to share with the whole group
Homework • What recommendations do you have for improvements to our K-12 science programming that have not been considered? • You will receive via email sometime this week a template to use to document your recommendations. • The Curriculum Review Team will review these recommendations at our next meeting.
Next Steps • April 26, 2011 • Review recommendations submitted for consideration • Finalize recommendations to the Board • Identify next steps/timeline for working groups (teacher/admin members of the Science Curriculum Review Team).