Inspire Science Grade 8 Teacher Edition Pdf
Kena Sugrue
The instructional materials reviewed for McGraw-Hill Education Inspire Science Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations for Alignment to NGSS, Gateways 1 and 2. Gateway 1: Designed for NGSS; Criterion 1: Three-Dimensional Learning does not meet expectations. The materials do not consistently include three-dimensional learning opportunities and opportunities for student sensemaking with the three dimensions. Learning objectives are present at the lesson level and module level but are only consistently three dimensional at the lesson level; the formative and summative assessments do not consistently measure the three dimensions for their respective objectives. Criterion 2: Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning does not meet expectations. While multiple problems are present, they are not consistently connected to DCIs or presented to students as directly as possible. Phenomena are not present in the program. Content focused questions consistently provide context for the student learning at the lesson and module level and the stage for one- or two-dimensional learning, presenting a missed opportunity to drive learning and use of the three dimensions to figure out phenomena and/or solve problems within and across lessons.
The instructional materials reviewed for McGraw-Hill Education Inspire Science Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations for Gateway 1: Designed for NGSS; Criterion 1: Three-Dimensional Learning does not meet expectations and Criterion 2: Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning does not meet expectations.
The instructional materials reviewed for McGraw-Hill Education Inspire Science Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations for Criterion 1a-1c: Three-Dimensional Learning. The materials include few instances for students to use the three dimensions and across the series, students typically engage in learning opportunities that are two-dimensional. Few opportunities for student sensemaking with the three dimensions are present. However, there are frequent opportunities in lessons for two-dimensional sensemaking, with SEPs used to meaningfully support student sensemaking with DCIs. The materials provide three-dimensional learning objectives at the lesson level, but the formative assessment tasks neither consistently reveal student knowledge and use of the three dimensions related to the respective objectives nor consistently provide guidance to support the instructional process. The materials provide objectives for the larger learning sequence (module), but are not consistently three dimensional. The materials include summative assessments within and across the larger learning sequence that in some instances measure the three dimensions, but do not consistently assess the dimensions of the respective objectives in the learning sequence.
The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations that they are designed to integrate the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs), Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs), and Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs) into student learning opportunities.
Throughout the series, few lessons include all three dimensions and the materials do not consistently integrate SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs into student learning. Full lesson sequences frequently include SEPs and DCIs; integration of CCCs and their elements occurs less frequently. In multiple lessons, students engage with DCIs, SEPs, or CCCs from below the middle school grade band.
The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 partially meet expectations that they consistently support meaningful student sensemaking with the three dimensions. Across the series, the materials do not consistently engage students in the use of SEPs and CCCs to meaningfully support student sensemaking with the other dimensions.
The materials provide frequent opportunities to engage students in the use of SEPs or CCCs to meaningfully support student sensemaking with the other dimensions. Frequently, sensemaking occurs as the SEP is used to deepen understanding of the DCI. This occurs during investigations and laboratory activities and/or during the Explain section of a lesson when students use evidence from their observations and from provided text to apply their learning to a new context and support a claim.
There are few instances where students use CCCs for student sensemaking; instead, students engage with CCCs that are associated with the DCI or SEP, missing the opportunity to purposefully build understanding of the CCC or use the CCC to increase sensemaking. Further, there are multiple instances in which students engage with elements of DCIs, SEPs, and/or CCCs below the middle school grade band.
During the lab activities, students are frequently provided with potential solutions to problems and detailed instructions for investigations. While students are provided opportunities to consider concepts and brainstorm ideas to solve problems and design solutions, the answers are frequently located in the Student Edition in close proximity to the problem. This detailed information in the materials results in missed opportunities for students to develop their own investigations or design their own solutions.
Examples of lessons with three-dimensional objectives, in which the formative assessment tasks assess student knowledge of the dimensions in the learning objective, but the materials do not provide guidance to support the instructional process:
Examples of lessons with three-dimensional objectives; the formative assessment tasks do not assess student knowledge of all dimensions in the learning objective and materials do not provide guidance to support the instructional process:
The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations that they are designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of the three-dimensional learning in the instructional materials.
The modules across the series of materials do not consistently provide three-dimensional learning objectives. Module summative assessments are occasionally three dimensional, but do not consistently assess the dimensions of the targeted objective. There are four types of summative assessments in each module: Three Dimensional Thinking, Lesson Check, Module Test, and STEM Module Project. Three Dimensional Thinking assessments contain one to three multiple choice items found at the end of each lesson; all of these assess DCIs. Lesson Checks are found in the digital teacher resources and assess content knowledge. These typically include multiple choice, true/false, or fill-in-the-blank questions. Additionally, there are one to three constructed-response items. In many instances, answers from selected-response items can be used to answer the constructed-response questions that follow. Lesson Checks and Module Tests typically assess DCIs and SEPs. The assessed SEP elements are consistently from below the middle school grade band. STEM Module Projects are introduced at the start of each unit and students revisit them after completing each lesson. These culminate at the end of modules with a variety of performance tasks that require students to use content knowledge to solve problems, build models, and construct arguments. SEP elements assessed in these projects are often from below grade band. Student understanding of CCCs is not explicitly assessed. Instead, the CCC elements are implicitly assessed as they are embedded within the DCI.
Examples of modules that have three-dimensional objectives; the summative assessment task(s) do not assess student knowledge of all three dimensions in the targeted learning objectives:
In addition to module-level assessments, a Unit Test is provided as a summative assessment for each unit. In the Teacher Edition, the Performance Expectations at a Glance section lists all the performance expectations students are expected to perform during the unit; each PE might be associated with a single module or multiple modules in the unit. The number of PEs associated with each unit varies, ranging from two to ten PEs in each unit. The unit tests include discrete selected-response questions and performance tasks with extended responses. In Grade 6, none of the four unit tests are designed to assess all of the targeted PEs in the unit. In Grade 7, two of the four unit tests are designed to assess all of the targeted PEs in the unit. In Grade 8, three of the four unit tests are designed to assess all of the targeted PEs in the unit. Additionally, five of the 16 unit tests are designed to partially assess one or more targeted PE.
Examples of units that have three-dimensional objectives (PEs); the summative assessment task(s) do not assess student knowledge of all three dimensions in the targeted learning objectives:
c80f0f1006