Sponsors include the Hewlett Foundation, Pearson Education, and National Science Foundation

1. Developing Learning Progressions in Support of the New Science Standards Aaron Rogat Consortium for Policy Research in Education Teachers College, Columbia University Sponsors include the Hewlett Foundation, Pearson Education, and National Science Foundation

2. Outline • Overview of Learning Progressions • Key Elements • One Example • Overview of project: Give sense of what doing • Key elements of our Learning Progressions • Products of our work [framework and examples] • Feed back, recruit reviewers

3. Panelists Who Informed Report on LPs • Charles (Andy) Anderson, Michigan State University • Alicia Alonzo, Michigan State University • Karen Draney, University of California-Berkeley, BEAR • Ravit Golan Duncan, Rutgers University • Amelia Gotwals, Michigan State University • Janice Earl, National Science Foundation • Joseph Krajcik, University of Michigan • Richard Lehrer, Vanderbilt University • Charles Luey, Pearson Education • Ron Marx, University of Arizona • Mike Padilla, University of Georgia • James Pellegrino, University of Illinois-Chicago • Linda Reddy, Pearson Education • Brian Reiser, Northwestern University • Ann Rivet, Teachers College, Columbia University • Jo Ellen Roseman, Project 2061, AAAS • Leona Schauble, Vanderbilt University • Mark Wilson, University of California-Berkeley, BEAR

4. What Problems & Questions Can Learning Progressions Address? • How do students’ understandings and abilities to use core ideas develop over time? • How can a sequence of instructional experiences be identified to promote optimal progress for most students? • How can students’ progress towards targeted understandings and abilities be monitored and diagnosed? • How can we develop standards that reflect achievable performance expectations?

5. What are Learning Progressions in Science? Empirically grounded and testable hypotheses about how students’ understandings and abilities to use core science ideas develop and become more sophisticated over time (Corcoran, Mosher and Rogat, 2009)

6. Componentsof a Learning Progression Targets of Progressions • Understanding of core science ideas and practices at the levels thought to support postsecondary success; The end points society cares about Starting Points • Children’s initial, or early, ideas and ways of thinking that they bring with them. In between • Hypothesized intermediate levels through which understandings shift towards more sophisticated understandings and serve as leverage to next level of understanding.

7. Other Key Features of a Useful LP • Levels of Achievement • Describe changes in thinking or ability • Progress variables • Capture change in understanding along some key dimensions of understanding and are instantiated by assessment items • [attempt to identify clear areas of progress] • Learning performances • A cross between science content and practice • Assessments • Informed by Learning Performances • Instructional context considered

8. Validation of Learning Progressions:What is being done? Construct validity • Validate hypothesized sequence of partial or intermediate levels of understanding en route to the target understanding or ability • Research groups are collecting evidence to test their hypothesized progressions with data from students • longitudinal or cross-sectional data

9. Questions?

10. Energy: Sunlight Matter: CO2, H2O, and minerals Matter: Organic matter & O2 Photosynthesis Energy: Chemicalpotential energy Biosynthesis, digestion, food webs, fossil fuel formation Movement of CO2, H2O, and minerals Combustion, cellular respiration Energy: Work& heat Flow of Matter and Energy in Ecosystems: Big IdeasAnderson, Mohan & colleagues

11. Progress Variables Identified & Aligned to Scientific Ideas Here progress variables are informed by events that students at all levels can think about (macroscopic events).

12. Testing and Revising Learning Progression • Learning Performances • Accounts: Explanations and Predictions • Assessments for idea • Carbon compound Generation: When an acorn grows into a tree, where does the increase in mass come from? • Assessments for carbon-compound Transformation: Explain how an infant grows. Where does her mass come from? • Cross-sectional study • independent of curriculum • grades 4- 12 • >300 Ss across diff countries

13. Learning Progression

14. Progression Continued

15. Highlighted Features in Review • Focused on core ideas (or big ideas) in science • Levels of understanding informed by a theory of how students learn the core idea [initial hypotheses informed by review of existing research] • Student achievement informed by learning performances reflecting an integration of science content and science practice • Assessment data from students used to inform revision of progression

16. Questions?

17. Developing Hypothetical LearningProgressions in Support of New Science Standards • One year grant from National Science Foundation • Meant to support state science supervisors [and potentially district science supervisors]

18. Main Objective • Develop hypothetical learning progressions that elaborate upon four core ideas from NRC framework • Use existing research inform hypothesized progression • Bring together experts studying learning

19. Purpose Primary Aims: • Help inform the revision of science standards after states receive the new national science standards • Help inform the selection or design of curricula and assessments by states or their local school districts Secondary Aims: • Provide a vehicle (in the form of a learning progression) to bridge research and practice. • Stimulate more discussion and research on learning progressions around the country.

20. Consultants on Working Groups • Life Science: • Brian Reiser, Northwestern Univ., chair • Andy Anderson, Michigan State Univ. • Richard Lehrer, Vanderbilt Univ. • David Kanter, New York Hall of Sci • Jennifer Hicks, Indiana DOE • Physical Sciences • Joseph Krajcik, Univ. of Mich, Chair • Marianne Wiser, Clark Univ. • Fred Goldberg, San Diego State Univ. • Shawn Stevens, Univ of Mich • Jacob Foster, Massachusetts DOE

21. Ideas We Are Addressing • Ideas for Life Sci Working Group to target • LS4.B-D: Evolution • LS 3.B: Flow of matter & energy in ecosystems • LS1.C: Flow of matter & energy in organisms • Ideas for Physical Sci Working group to target • PS1.A&B: Structure and Properties of Matter • PS3.A&B: Energy forms & energy transformations

22. Key elements of Our Hypothetical Learning Progressions For each component idea targeted: • Levels of understanding • Using ideas from NRC framework consider research to review what is appropriate, or may need revision • Articulate students’ use of ideas to form explanations • What is progressing in student thinking between levels? • Student ideas, boundaries, rationales • What should we look for (or not look for) in student thinking? • What difficulties might student face with certain ideas • How might we sequence ideas between and within a grade band? • Learning Performances • cross of content and practice • General features of phenomena and learning experiences • aimed as supporting progression

23. Core Science Practices Identified • Questioning • Find, evaluate, and communicate information • Designing Investigations • Collecting, representing, and analyzing data • Explanation and prediction • Modeling • Argumentation • All (but #2) are consistent with the NRC framework; Taking Science to School/Ready, Set, Science; & College Board Standards for College Success • #2 is consistent with common core reading and writing standards and 21st Century skills.

24. One Representation for LP (table) Note: We will continue to refine the representation

25. Another Representation is To be Determined • Potentially a Narrative description • Articulates connections across columns and rows, and emphasizes what is progressing. • May provide more elaboration of the thinking that guided development of the progressions.

26. Draft Example Hypothetical LP Flow of matter through Ecosystems and Organisms

27. Time Line • Drafts ready for External Review • June 14, 2011 • Final draft ready for distribution • Aug 31, 2011

28. Comments from State Science Supervisor on Project:Jenny Hicks • How could you use this work? • What do you see as potentially most useful? Note: Jake Foster also on Project

29. Questions and Feedback • What would you like to see in the framework (the table representation) that we do not have? • What do you think about these science practices? • With regard to the specific example DRAFT progressions examined: • Could you follow the logic in the columns and rows? • Suggestions on how to better organize or communicate the information? • How do you think you might use this work? Anybody interested in reviewing? Email arogat@gmail.com

30. Questions about Project and work?

31. ThankYou !