posted by:
|
Gail Paulin
on August 12, 1999
at 11:32PM
|
subject:
|
Response from Gail Paulin-DESERT project
|
Response from Gail Paulin DESERT Project in Tucson AZ Please note, what is suggested here includes personal opinions. We have dialogued with colleagues in district and around the country, the solution to MS sceince curriculum seems unclear. We are anxious to learn what has worked in MS. We will continue to pilot materials in hopes of developing a comprehensive MS program MS students have great untapped potential which appropriate, inquiry based curriculum can nurture. The variability of MS teacher backgrounds creates programmatic 1. YOUR REVIEWS: What instructional materials have you used for middle school science? RESPONSE: We are currently using Science Plus in 6-8 green ,red and blue levels respectively , CHEM (in 6th grade) and selected GEMS 6-8.There are also many teacher developed units which vary in quality from excellent to questionable. While there is a district wide adoption, there is very little in place to enforce universal usage. In addition, most of our adopted materials we chosen in 1992, so there was very little on the market at that time which lives up to what standards based, inquiry science should be. We are in the process of adopting some new materials so this discussion is very timely. We hope to learn what success others have had with particular pieces.
>What is your take on their strengths and weaknesses? RESPONSE: CHEM has been well supported by district pd (study groups and teacher mentors) and is implemented in most schools. The emphasis on real life problems appropriate for this age student is appealing Science Plus addresses the inquiry standard adequately, but content information is very weak. Teachers who use the journaling feature, like it. Many teachers do not feel SP is an adequate resource for the courses they teach. It was not intended to be such, but in absence of other adopted resources, they are unhappy that there is a lack of content resource. We did provide nonconsumable materials to support at the time of adoption, they have been refreshed several times since, but this system does not adequately support programs at sites where little site budget is allocated for science. At present, teachers are asked to select at least 4 of the 8 units each year in Green Red and Blue to present at their grade level. We now have a draft of a scope and sequence aligned with our state standards that uses SP, GEMS and CHEM. All MS teachers will be asked to review this draft and suggest modifications and identify gaps where new curriculum materials are needed. Our current plan is to look at implementation of new materials around a content area or major concept and adopt materials which will support that content development in 6-8. We have been piloting FOSS MS modules the past two years, they were well received, but it remains unclear at this time if a kit based program will be the answer for MS. COSTS will be a factor if modules are housed at every school and at this time, there are insufficient kits available to make a year long program at any grade level.
GEMS units were adopted in 1992. They are not centrally supported by materials, guides are provided at each school > > >> >>2. IDENTIFYING NEEDS: In considering a new initiative for curriculum development, what do you think teachers and administrators want/need in instructional materials to provide high-quality science education to their students? RESPONSE: Materials clearly aligned with big ideas, connections from year to year. Guidance for making student investigations more inquiry based. Suggestions for alternative assessment strategies. Adaptable for a variety of lab settings. Links to technology, both computer and science instrumentation, content resources suggested and in some cases included. >> >>3. SUBJECT, FORMAT, AND DESIGN PERSPECTIVE: Should new curriculum materials for middle school be in earth, life, and physical science, or multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary? RESPONSE: There will be no one model that fits all middle schools. Exemplary materials will support the connection of big ideas, and major scientific concepts across the science fields and will help students integrate this understanding in interdisciplinary application . > >Should they be all modular or year long? RESPONSE: >Given the heterogeneity of our MS teachers and students, I question whether any year long program would be fully implemented. Modular materials will accommodate more MS settings. If these can be constructed to link in several ways to form a year long curriculum that would be ideal for us. > * Should they be integrated across subject domains? RESPONSE: >This will only work in some middle schools. In our district alone of the 20 MS, some have ITOs at one grade or more, but some have none. > * Should they have texts that go along with the activities, as the high school programs have? RESPONSE: They may not need a text per say, but they do need print resources which are age appropriate. They need to learn how to use and interpret this type of information as part of an investigative process. > * Would you recommend a social/societal context, a historical context, or a traditional one? RESPONSE: >Making science meaningful to students of this age is critical. A variety of contexts might work, but the materials must be engaging! >> 4. BARRIERS: What are the primary barriers to implementing such a curriculum (teacher certification/training, facilities, materials)? RESPONSE: yes all of these are barriers. We have a high turnover rate for MS science teachers and their backgrounds vary greatly, so one size all PD does not work. OUR Sceince materials center does not currently support MS science with materials, since our MS all have labs which house year long classes 6,7,8. * We would like the school to house its own materials, but there have been problems at sites where no one takes responsibility for organizing andordering replacements of these materials.
|
|