High School Course Mapping

[Eric Brunsell]

Course mapping at the high school level involves some very difficult curricular decisions in order to help students meet all of the standards while still providing enough flexibility for electives and advance coursework.  How might you approach this at your school?  How were you able to organize the standards into courses in "non-traditional" ways?

[kristen_keenan]

It will be interesting to see if NY adopts NGSS and how they will map the courses.  It will be difficult due to how they have the regents courses set up and teacher certification.  I like the idea of splitting up the standards into 2 general courses, if possible, for 9th and 10th grade, and then in 11th and 12th students could focus more in depth in biology, physics, chemistry, or earth science.  Maybe those more in depth courses could be 1/2 year courses since they would have already learned the "basics," and students would be able to take all 4 in the 2 year span if they wanted.  Otherwise, students wouldn't have room in their schedules to take all of them depending on other graduation requirements.  Again, due to certification requirements, I don't know how NGSS could be clumped into 2 years, unless even in those 2 years, students take 1/2 year courses.  That could work, but NY would have to offer each regents in January and in June.  Not sure if people understand my rambling as I had new thoughts as I typed, but let me know your thoughts!

[Connie Farmer]

4 of our department members cut apart all of the high school statements and spent an hour 2 separate days grouping and regrouping.  The first day was an interesting idea, but it made me uncomfortable to consider the reality of teaching the courses fully integrated in topics.  We grouped the statements into "molecular/cellular small ideas", "macroscopic/concrete tangible size concepts, and global and larger.  This was a cool way to fully integrate, thinking the first class would be the concrete ideas and the other two would go down and up from there.  Lots of side-discussion about us recognizing what content is taught etc, in the discipline areas that we do not teach.  As a chem teacher, I learned a lot about which topics of earth science, and bio could in fact be threaded into my core area.  I was comfortable with the chem and physics already from teaching physical science, but with no background in teaching the other areas, I don't see those connections very naturally.

The second day, we took a more realistic approach with what we know, bouncing off of your idea to incorporate ES topics in the 3 already in place courses.  What we came up with is a 4 semester idea of the 4 core areas, but when we set out all of the content, there were 2-4 big statements, that seemed to fit in 2 areas, so we put them in between.  What we came up with is a transition unit at the beginning and end of each semester, for those "standards" that overlap, so that you finish a semester of bio, with a lead in to earth science in terms of how they connect, then you start earth science semester in the same place, likely with a different teacher, and then finish the ES semester with a unit leading into PS, then PS into CS, and CS into BS.  We envisioned all kids taking the 4 semesters, but could start anywhere, keeping the sequence of them the same for how they weave together.  Teachers would teach the semester of their special area, and team up to weave them together.  

Our department can't stop talking about the possibilities are starting from scratch.  What a GREAT activity for us.  We have been contemplating what to do for years about ES, and now everyone is discussing the possibilities centered around the NGSS which is so awesome!

[kfarris-renner]

I think this change offers some exciting possibilities for change and I like your ideas for how to go about it.  I do have questions about certification requirements.  We only have one teacher certified in earth.  So what does this mean - will our DPI have to make adjustments for that as well.  Could academy's be used as a way to group students based on career interests and meet standards.  Lots of possibilities -

On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:24:36 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[sare...@yahoo.com]

The circular course sequence is a clever way to deal with the physics first versus BCP sequencing for science classes at the HS level.  In your plan biology would be both 1st and last to take advantage of student background knowledge and development of reasoning and math skills.  

[sare...@yahoo.com]

[Theresa Stockel]

My first discussion about restructuring courses on the high school level involved considering 2 years of  integrated courses with physical science, life sciences and earth sciences, engineering woven in.  In the sophomore level, electives in ES/environmental and biology would be available for those students interested.This would be good for motivated students who wish to take a minimum of 4 years of science.  Those students who only wish to take 3 can pick up one of these electives in their junior or senior year.  

 Our current advance electives of chemistry, adv. chemistry, physics and advanced bio would continue to be offered, but that would depend on available staff. 

As I look through the DCI, and after discussion tonight with another teacher, I am starting the task of applying the NGSS to the integrated portion of the course load. I am not quite done with that yet, but one idea that emerged tonight was to call a 6th grade course "Change" including topics such as weather (changing air masses and temperature differentials), chemical reactions, senses, plate tectonics, cells and cell differentiation.  I think then, building on this in the freshman year might be a possibility, adding some math to the mix as well as more abstract ideas.  This is just a beginning.  I have to add some flesh to the bones over the next couple of days. 'Change" in 9th grade could e followed by a "Energy" in 10th grade.  

On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:24:36 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[cobrien]

At the high school level, I believe we should wait to see if the university system makes any changes to their graduation expectations due to NGSS.  If no changes occur, we are definitely at their mercy for any advanced level coursework and much will need to remain the same.  Currently, the state of Wisconsin only requires 2 years of science for graduation and only specifies that one must be Biology.  After that, it is the student’s choice.  I would not be surprised if the DPI did not take some sort of stance on the whole idea of course mapping at the high school level and change the graduation requirements.  As much as I’d like to jump in and change up how we teach science, I think we would be more. prudent to wait and see if the state/CESA’s offers any leadership on this.

On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:24:36 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[sare...@yahoo.com]

I agree that there should be more clarity before we commit to one approach or another.  However we also need to advocate for our students, schools and colleagues.  I'd like to know who you feel needs to be given the task of making the next move?  If it is the DPI ro CESA are there specific individuals or advisory groups to contact?

[Eric Brunsell]

1.  The state does not control curricular decisions.  That is the responsibility of the district.

2.  Universities are adaptable -- We see lots of different types of transcripts that list science in different ways.  I wouldn't worry about that.  Plus, we are not talking about "advanced" courses -- NGSS defines what all students need.

3.  Moving from 2 to 3 years requires legislative action.  These discussions are happening in Wisconsin.  Currently 1 year must be biology and 1 year must be "natural" science (physical or earth).

4.  I wouldn't advocate that you make changes to what you teach quickly -- although this module is only 1 week...any district changes to curriculum should involve months of discussion!  This is just a tool for you to think about how you might be able to do things differently.

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 3:28:02 PM UTC-5, cobrien wrote:

[Eric Brunsell]

If you want to advocate for a 3rd year of science, I would strongly encourage you to contact members of the state legislature.  They make this decision.  DPI makes the decision regarding the adoption of NGSS.  CESAs provide support to districts, but are not empowered to make curricular or statutory decisions.

DPI does not mandate curricular decision (e.g. integrated vs discipline specific).  That is a district decision.

[Theresa Stockel]

Although I still feel 2years of integration would be the most efficient, convincing administration of this may be difficult. Planning project based learning in the traditional course sequence would be another way to weave missing elements into existing structure. In biology, cell structure and function could led to a project about environmental genetics or stem cell research advances. A unit on energy in physical science, could branch out into biofuels, nuclear energy or even pull in a comparison of cellular respiration and engines (?). That may be stretching it, but projects do seem like a great way to integrate NGSS. Another benefit of considering project based learning is that they can be used before the "official" implementation
Of NGSS is required, and redesigned as we move forward.

[Amy Murphy]

In Alabama, we currently require students to take 4 years of science to graduate. Based upon this, I decided to focus on arranging the standards into the four core courses of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Earth/Space Science.The organization I came up with was similar to the versions provided by the NGSS writers in an earlier draft of the standards. I did notice that of the four courses, chemistry has the least number of NGSS PE's. However, I reminded myself of something I have heard several times: the standards/PE's are things that ALL students in a chemistry (or other) course should be able to achieve. Teachers can add content topics into the course once ALL students have mastered the PE's suggested by the NGSS document and the Framework. I think that was probably my biggest lesson during this process.

 

On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:24:36 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[dbea...@wausauschools.org]

I was part of the group that worked with Connie on the spiraling idea...as a life science teacher I noticed how many core ideas there were for biology relative to the others. We would be hard pressed to cover all that content in a semester. Our next step would be to look at how some of the bio might be able to be moved to some of the other areas. ie the chemistry of photosynthesis/respiration could be taught in chem. That said, it was still an exciting exercise that gave us some ideas that have real potential.

There seems to be some movement in our district, which has 2 middle schools and 2 high schools, to have there be more uniformity 'across the river' that separates our district. As a result of common core, our math & english departments have now made similar classes for freshmen and sophomores in both high schools. No official edict has yet been made about science. Our school follows a traditional PS, LS, CS sequence, the other school has integrated science 9-10. Both programs are successful in their own way. It would be very interesting, and perhaps a little frustrating, to do this same activity with the staff from both schools. In the end, one of the great values of the exercise is the excellent conversation that comes out of the process. I also feel fortunate that we have the time to go slow and be thoughtful about this. Very unlike my math colleagues who had to make some radical change very quickly. 

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:38:23 PM UTC-5, Connie Farmer wrote:

[nde...@gmail.com]

The high school science teachers got together and sat down to map out curriculum. We began by cutting out the various sections for 3 disciplines. Our strategy was to lay out all the sections for each course and then discover where any overlap occurred.

It took time and some discussion to organize each course while including sections from other disciplines.

We ended up with this scenario as a product (which we would still have to do some continual adjustments).

GENERAL SCIENCE:

Geology, Physics, Solar system, Weather/Climate and (ending with) Environmental.

BIOLOGY;

The start of this course would pick up where General Science ended with:

Ecosystems, Structure/Function, Photosynthesis/Cellular Respiration

CHEMISTRY:

The start of this course would pick up where Biology ended with:

Matter Interactions, Energy,Nuclear Processes.

We wanted to have smooth transitions between courses-ending with a content area and connecting it to the next core course they would be starting.

It was not an easy, comfortable task, and some teachers were not thrilled with the idea of change !

On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:24:36 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[Laura Luckasavitch]

In response to the post below (I was also part of that group).

 

We work in an overseas international school where three HS science credits are required.  Right now we have Gr.9 Earth Science (Changing to General Science next year), Gr. 10 Biology, and Gr. 11 Chemistry.  It was very easy to spread the standards out over three courses, however they were arranged in traditional ways.  Squeezing them into two courses would be tough.  It was nice to see that the content focuses on things they really need to know to be successful out in the real world.  One of our chemistry teachers didn't like that the chemistry was watered down and fundamental concepts were missing.  However, I see how traditional chemistry is not needed by everyone, only those moving on in the field.  For our 3-year program, we would have to step up the chemistry content (especially since we are a university prep school).  Our only advanced courses are AP and I believe the school needs to differentiate between advanced and general levels, for Gr. 11 Chemistry, and possibly for Gr. 10 Biology.  This way would could cover the standards, but also prep those who are moving on in the sciences and prepare them for AP.

 

It is nice to see Earth/Environmental Science making a comeback to the HS system.  I remember only doing the big three when I was in HS.  I have seen this in other curriculum documents and think it's great.

[Timothy Cox]

Our department has discussed the course sequencing.  I would say that if logistics were not a problem we would be looking at two years of science 9 and science 10.  We even discussed science 11 and science 12.  The problem arises with transfer students and courses that universities will accept as meeting their requirements.  To me the ideal under  the current system would be two years of integrated science followed and accompanied by elective courses that probe deeper into the biological, physical and earth sciences. 

On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:24:36 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote: