From standards to units...

[Eric Brunsell]

What are your thoughts about using the approach described in the lecture to move standards to units?

[emq...@gmail.com]

You made it seem so clear as to how each part of the NGSS relates to the UbD template sections.  We are currently building some science units at the elementary level in which the teachers are looking at model curriculum units based on the UbD design.  This approach is going to make it easier to explain the different pieces and how they all fit together.

[fende]

I think using a UbD framework is a great way to envision how NGSS can be used within our own curricula.  The structure of the PEs, and the inclusion of the foundation boxes make it "easier" to work backwards as we think about instruction based on these standards.  I also recommend that folks do a crosswalk/gap analysis to see specifically what aligns/does not align well with NGSS.  Doing this for the second draft (we have not yet revised with the final version) was extremely helpful in considering potential writing time, focus, and where we will need to seek additional resources.  I posted the gap analysis we completed under last week's forum (the elementary one).  Feel free to take a look and let me know what you think.

On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:09:27 PM UTC-4, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[Eric Brunsell]

I would love to see examples!  I'm going to be working with the template over the next few months to better integrate other areas.

[deanna...@veep.org]

Hi Eric,
Yesterday I worked with 6-8 teachers in a Vt district using your strategy for creating possible course maps. It not only helped them/us dig deeper into and become more familiar with the NGSS DCIs, but it also lead to lots of valuable conversations and energized us because we came up with out of the box ideas at this starting point. Thanks for sharing the strategies!

I look forward to using UbD with NGSS when we get to that stage....later. The process of adjustment to NGSS will take time. Thanks for your thoughts on learning cycle/5Es too!

Deanna

[srschaefer]

I think you did a great job showing the process of UbD as well as how nicely NGSS fits into the UbD model.  UbD is all about those big ideas, and it seems NGSS is as well.  

When I think about UbD, I like to think about the 40-40-40 rule.  A few different UbD resources mention this and the frame is nice.  The idea is that there are things that are important to know and do for about 40 days, other things for about 40 months, and finally some things that are important to know, do, and understand for 40 YEARS.  I think in school we spend a lot of time with the 40 day stuff and some time with the 40 month stuff...not enough time with the 40 year stuff.

Some UbD templates help categorize these ideas in different ways.  One of my favorite is via assessment.  Assessments that use multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and other declarative type responses are probably after the 40 day and 40 month stuff.  Performance assessments, that are real world, complicated, messy, creative, many right answers, etc...those are the 40 year type assessments.  Another way I like to look at it is through the Google lens.  If you can Google it and understand it within a click or two or minute or two, it is probably a 40 day level learning.  This is not to say that these things are not important, but in all reality, this type of knowledge can literally live in someone's pocket.  Using that knowledge, thinking critically and creatively, asking questions, communicating ideas, analyzing data...you can't Google that.  NGSS and UbD seem to have their sights set on those things.

With that said, I would put all three dimensions (practices, CCCs, DCIs) into the "big idea/enduring understanding) category.  The box lower down that says "do" I think are more discrete skills that are needed in order to do something else.  I think of these as skills that are needed to, say, analyze data.  The essential questions, in my general practice, take the big ideas/enduring understandings, and create questions out of them that lead to the assessments.  Again, the awesome thing about NGSS is that the assessment piece is already started for us through the performance expectations.  I am really excited to start digging into this more.

[bril...@meta4edu.org]

I love the simplicity of taking the standards and putting it together on a page for focusing! There is alot of information to apply but it offers a starting place and opportunity to build better assessment and activities from it.

For the teachers familiar with the UbD, this makes NGSS more approachable. Those not familiar with the UbD then this can help them get into more depth with the lesson planning. Thank you for connecting it this way. 

On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:09:27 PM UTC-4, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[Tammy Huenink]

The UbD model that was used allowed for a clear correlation from an individual performance expectation and the foundation boxes to form a unit.    My district currently doesn’t use UbD but I think this would help teachers see how all components on the page are important not just the PE.   I think this process could also help in unburdening the curriculum to see what truly belongs and what needs to be removed or rethought.

On Monday, May 6, 2013 2:09:27 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[Deborah Hilscher Middle School]

I think  this process really clarified the components of the NGSS.  I tried an example on my own and felt that after the planning I had a more defined purpose for my instruction.  Oshkosh  strongly encourages the GANAG format for lesson and unit planning.   How to integrate the two methodologies is something I need to explore.

 

On Monday, May 6, 2013 2:09:27 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[Eric Brunsell]

Deb-

I think GANAG is a good format for the actual instructional / lesson portion of the unit.  So, it is "stage 3" in UbD!

Eric

[Kirsten Wiesneski]

At our high school there are only three science teachers and (for the most part) we all teach different classes.  I think this method of analyzing the performance expectations (along with the technique from last week for organizing a course sequence) will help us all have something in common.  During our weekly meetings we are supposed to be working together on a SMART goal that would benefit our students, but it's so difficult to find something in common to tackle as a team.  These standards have provided that opportunity, because we can have a deeper discussion about how to possibly rearrange what we're teaching in each class to better serve our students.

[nde...@gmail.com]

At my school, we already use UBD's for each unit in our curriculum. Our UBD's seem more complex. It is very refreshing to see it simplified. It was much more clear to me while I watched your video. It all makes sense as to why we should use the UBD format when building our units.

I like to focus on the big ideas and essential questions as I develop my units. I am excited to start rebuilding my units in hopes that using the practices and performance expectations--it will all mesh together perfectly.

On Monday, May 6, 2013 2:09:27 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

[Kathryn Fedel]

Next year we are incorporating a new 6-9 week light and sound unit into our sixth grade curriculum (it used to be taught in 8th grade). I think I will try these templates as we begin to dig through the information, activities, and assessments. It will help keep me focused on the essential questions and evidence for understanding.

On Monday, May 6, 2013 2:09:27 PM UTC-5, Eric Brunsell wrote:

What are your thoughts about using the approach described in the lecture to move standards to units?

This email is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under the law. If you have received this message in error, please inform me promptly via reply email, delete the mail, and destroy any printed copy.