AAAS Conference on Developing
Textbooks That Promote Science
Literacy
February 27-March 2,
2001
American Association for the Advancement
of Science
Washington, D.C.
Supporting Standards-Based
Reform in Mathematics and
Science: Effective Partnerships
and Tools
Prepared by SciMathMN
for AAAS Project 2061 Invitational
Conference: Next Steps Toward
Literacy
How can materials developers
and publishers respond to
the challenge put forth
in the evaluation reports?
Washington DC
February 27-March 2, 2001
Purpose of the
paper
In August 2000, SciMathMN received
an invitation to join with
others to consider what
is needed to improve the
quality of mathematics and
science curriculum materials
to: a) focus on the most
important learning goals
for mathematics and science
literacy; and, b) help students
achieve these goals. The
conveners of the invitational
conference asked us to respond
to two overarching questions:
- What is happening in
Minnesota with respect
to state and local standards
and more specifically,
curriculum adoption and
implementation?
- How are the Project
2061 reports helping Minnesota
teachers, schools, and
districts? What is the
impact and what are the
implications for the future?
As the staff at SciMathMN discussed
these two questions, three
main issues emerged:
- The design, development,
adoption, and implementation
of curriculum materials;
- The development and
strategic use of Project
2061 tools (i.e., materials
evaluation process, curriculum
maps, textbook ratings,
etc.);
- Continued and future
support for widespread
dissemination of exemplary
curriculum materials and
Project 2061 tools with
emphasis on leadership
models that promote professional
growth.
Development and discussion
of these three main issues
will comprise the central
message in this paper. The
paper will be divided into
four major parts:
- Background on SciMathMN and
its work as a statewide
coalition
- Mathematics and science
education in Minnesota
- Use of Project 2061
tools and lessons learned
- Needs and implications
for future work.
Background on SciMathMN and
its work as a statewide
coalition
SciMathMN is
a public/private partnership
that supports improved
student learning in K-12
mathematics and science
via standards-based systemic
reforms for policy and
practice.
SciMathMN’s
vision of standards-based
mathematics and science
education is derived from
the following documents:
- Curriculum and
Evaluation Standards for
School Mathematics (1989) and
the update, Principles
and Standards for School
Mathematics (2000) both
by the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM);
- National Science
Education Standards (1996) by
the National Research
Council (NRC); and,
- Benchmarks for
Science Literacy (1993) by
Project 2061 of the American
Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS).
SciMathMN’s
primary goal is to raise
the performance of all students
in mathematics and science
and eliminate all performance
gaps in student achievement. To
achieve this primary goal,
work is concentrated in
four focus areas:
- Achieve and sustain
state policies and funding
programs that support the
goals of standards-based
reform for K-12 mathematics
and science education.
- Attain a majority of
districts that have aligned
their curriculum, instruction,
and assessment practices
with the standards-based
systemic model.
- Achieve and sustain
state policies and aligned
programs that ensure an
adequate supply of high
quality teachers prepared
to teach in a standards-based
system.
- Achieve and sustain
public support for standards-based
mathematics and science
education.
Implementing the objectives
has led to cooperative work
with various stakeholders
such as state professional
teacher organizations, informal
science organizations, higher
education institutions,
business communities and
national organizations that
have a particular interest
in the improvement of mathematics
and science education. The
following six strategies
have been utilized to accomplish
the objectives:
- Influence and monitor
state policies for standards-based
mathematics and science;
- Advocate for equity
in student/system outcomes;
- Research standards implementation
and impact;
- Provide tools and technical
assistance for program
improvements;
- Build capacity of the
system to implement and
sustain reforms;
- Provide tools for engaging
educator, parent, and business
involvement.
In particular, strategies
two, four, and five led
to SciMathMN’s
interest in and involvement
with AAAS Project 2061 tools
and professional development
opportunities. George “Pinky” Nelson,
Director of Project 2061,
was the statewide annual
Assembly speaker in February
1999 and his main message
has resulted in a new “product,” entitled “Science
and Mathematics Literacy
for ALL” that SciMathMN developed
for use with parents and
the broader Minnesota community.
In August 1999, SciMathMN piloted
Project 2061 Curriculum
Material Evaluation Process
workshops in science (5
days) and mathematics (3
days). Continued conversations
with “Pinky” Nelson
and his staff have helped
SciMathMN provide
resources for Minnesota
teachers and district teams.
Mathematics and Science
education in Minnesota
Minnesota’s content
standards are based on the
1989 NCTM Mathematics Standards
and the 1995 NRC Science
Standards. Reform in Minnesota
is driven by content standards
supported by aligned assessment.
The emphasis in the Minnesota
Profile of Learning is on student
thinking and the ability
to solve problems.
Curriculum and instructional
practices are selected to
align with what children
are expected to know and
be able to do.
Law requires performance
assessment of the standards.
A series of multiple choice/open
response assessments are
used at key grade levels
to monitor implementation
of the standards. The shift
of focus from teacher to
student has been a challenging
process for everyone involved.
The Minnesota State assessment
system is emerging. Currently,
there exists Minnesota Comprehensive
Assessments (MCA) at the
3rd and 5th grades.
The structure and reporting
of the MCA’s is similar
to the National Assessment
of Educational Progress
(NAEP) given nationally
to students over the past
several years. The MCA’s
have been designed to align
with the Minnesota's standards
in mathematics at the primary
and intermediate grade levels,
and are intended to assess
how well students are achieving
the standards. The assessments
consist of both multiple
choice and open-ended items.
A testing company has
been hired to develop the
items, but Minnesota teachers
review all items to guarantee
alignment with Minnesota’s
standards. Items are field-tested
before they are placed on
an assessment. Minnesota
teachers review the results
of each field-tested item
and make a decision about
that item based on the statistics
provided by the testing
company. Most teachers on
these review committees
come from the Mathematics
Best Practice Network and
are thoroughly versed in
the Minnesota Standards.
The next MCA to be implemented
is at the 11th grade.
The development process
for this assessment has
occurred over the last three
years. The 11th grade
Mathematics MCA will be
given for the first time
during the 2001-2002 school
year. A 7th grade
MCA will also be developed
to assure assessment of
the content standards across
all levels of the Profile
of Learning.
The only high-stakes
test in Minnesota is the
8th grade Basic
Skills test. This test is
created in much the same
way the MCA’s have
been developed, but it consists
of multiple choice items
only. Each item must be
situated in a real world
context as much as possible
and must be a problem that
a person might actually
need to solve in everyday
life. The test consists
of eight major areas learned
by students during their
elementary and early middle
school years:
- Problem Solving-Whole
Numbers and Fractions
- Problem Solving-Percents
and Ratios
- Number Sense
- Estimation
- Measurement
- Tables and Graphs
- Chance and Data
- Shape and Space
Several adults in the
greater Minnesota community
have had an opportunity
to try this test and it
has broad general acceptance
by the public.
The assessment system
is evolving from the Minnesota
Graduation Standards, which
are based on the National
Standards; therefore, assessment
aligns closely with NSF-funded
curriculum projects. Wanting
students to do well on achievement
tests requires that the
curriculum, instruction,
and assessment must match
the standards.
Minnesota has a history
of strong leadership in
the areas of mathematics
and science education. The
State of Minnesota Mathematics
and Science Specialists
connected with the professional
organizations in the state
to improve mathematics and
science opportunities for
Minnesota students, even
before the founding of SciMathMN
in 1993. These organizations
included the Minnesota Council
of Teachers of Mathematics
(MCTM), the Minnesota Science
Teachers Association (MnSTA),
and the Minnesota Mathematics
Mobilization (M3).
The University of Minnesota
mathematics and science
education departments were
also actively involved with
Minnesota teachers and school
districts in joint ventures
to improve classroom teaching
and learning. Several other
public and private higher
education institutions were
also working in their regions
of the state to promote
improved mathematics and
science instruction. With
the discussions started
around the draft versions of
the 1989 NCTM Standards,
a need to end teacher and
institution isolation evolved.
A statewide network of
teachers called Project
PRIME (headed by Sharon
Stenglein, Minnesota Department
of Children, Families and
Learning (CFL) Mathematics
Specialist), began to actively
introduce the ideas of standards-based
teaching and learning to
other teachers in their
regions. This effort to
shift emphasis in teaching
toward conceptual understanding
and student ability to apply
knowledge to solve problems
continues today. An extensive
Mathematics Best Practice
Network comprised of K-12
classroom teachers representing
all grade-band levels in
every region of the state
are involved in many aspects
of improved teaching and
learning for students.
A statewide Science Best
Practice Network (headed
by Kathleen Lundgren, CFL
Science Specialist) was
also formed and works with
classroom teachers to promote
inquiry-based approaches
to science education. Currently,
many classroom teachers
are using hands-on, kit-based
science instruction at the
elementary level and a focused
curriculum of life science
and earth science at the
middle level. The high schools
in the state offer biology,
chemistry, and physics with
many other electives available
for student choice. Science
Best Practice teachers are
working with individual
teachers and school district
committees to make thoughtful
curriculum and instruction
decisions. Educators from
both Best Practice Networks
and members of MCTM and
MnSTA joined together to
significantly impact the
development of the mathematics
and science portions of
the Minnesota State Graduation
Standards, known as the
Profile of Learning.
With the creation of
SciMathMN in
1993, additional resources
were made available to help
with the process of designing
and implementing standards.
First, SciMathMN funded
Minnesota's participation
in the Third International
Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) at all three
grade levels (4th,
8th, and 12th).
The lessons learned from
this study are influencing
many decisions that are
being made for Minnesota
students today. The major
lessons were:
- High expectations are
needed for ALL students.
- A focused, coherent
curriculum is necessary.
- Effective instructional
practices are critical.
- Assessment must be
aligned with curriculum
and instruction.
- Support by teachers,
administrators, parents
and the broader community
is important.
Second, SciMathMN created
K-12 Mathematics and Science
Frameworks to help teachers
and school district teams
analyze their own individual
mathematics and science
programs. The K-12 Mathematics
and Science Frameworks are
extensive documents that
show the alignment of national,
state and local standards
and provide resources for
teachers and schools for
implementing the state graduation
standards in mathematics
and science. The documents
delineate the case for change,
identify best practices
in the discipline, provide
focal points and background
for instruction across grade
bands in key content areas,
discuss the importance of
connections within the discipline
and among disciplines, link
to resources needed and
end with strategies for
making change happen.
With the Minnesota Profile
of Learning (based on NCTM
and NRC Standards) in law
and the lessons learned
from the TIMSS results,
almost every district in
the state is in the process
of re-examining curriculum
and instructional practices.
There is an emphasis on
content depth and focus
as opposed to topic coverage.
Teachers are searching for
materials that promote student
thinking and have support
for instructional practice
that encourages this approach.
One model that has influenced
change in instructional
practice in mathematics
is the NSF-funded Minneapolis
and St. Paul Merging to
Achieve Standards-Based
Practice (MASP2) grant
that has supported professional
development for 21 school
districts in the seven-county
metro area. These 21 school
systems have adopted an
NSF-funded mathematics curriculum
at the middle school or
high-school level. Teacher
leaders from these school
districts have provided
guidance to other teachers
and district adoption committees
across the state. Particularly
helpful are the lessons
learned in adoption and
implementation of reform-minded
curricula.
At the elementary level,
a leadership cadre has been
developed by CFL and SciMathMN to
provide initial training
experiences for districts
in NSF-funded mathematics
curricula. Currently, the
cadre has provided initial
training and support to
over 25 Minnesota school
districts. At the middle-school
level, leadership cadres
have been supported by three
publishers through grants
and extended professional-development
opportunities to enhance
the support available throughout
the state.
SciMathMN, MCTM
and CFL cooperated to create
short curriculum awareness
conferences that were held
in a variety of locations
throughout the state. Teachers
using NSF curriculum projects
shared content overviews,
a model lesson, instructional
practices and student responses
to the new curriculum with
their peers. The evening
before each conference involved
teachers and the broader
community in a discussion
designed to make the case
for change in current practices
of teaching and learning.
The curriculum awareness
conferences have influenced
thinking about mathematics
in each region and led to
many districts adopting
NSF-supported curriculum
projects. Discussion with
the broader community has
strengthened public support
for change. The awareness
conferences have now become
an annual summer event to
showcase standards-based
curricula in mathematics
and science.
Another important connection
that affects the climate
in Minnesota is SciMathMN’s
Transforming Teacher Education
(TTE) initiative. The 19
higher education institutions
that prepare teachers meet
regularly to discuss standards-based
teaching and learning and
have built licensure programs
based on national and Minnesota
standards. Many use the
SciMathMN K-12
Mathematics and Science
Frameworks as methods textbooks
for their undergraduate
students. Undergraduate
students are invited to
attend conferences, meet
state leaders and visit
with practicing teachers.
A significant number attended
and actively participated
in the fall MCTM/MnSTA professional
conference. In addition,
TTE members created mathematics
and science licensure frameworks
to help guide institutions
as they prepare teachers
for teaching in a standards-based
system. SciMathMN has
also made grants to several
institutions for research
based on the Salish model,
resulting in tools to assess
the quality and evidence
of standards-based teaching
practice. This has enhanced
K-16 relationships in the
state.
The K-16 linkages are
important to systemic reform
in Minnesota, and all parts
of the system moving forward
together will be critical
for success. SciMathMN has
made conscious use of national
resources to ensure success.
In addition to the NCTM
and NRC Standards as a basis
for its mission and work,
involvement with the NSTA
Building a Presence for
Science initiative, the
NRC TIMSS Professional Development
module and Project 2061
initiatives and products
have enhanced reform efforts.
Use of Project 2061
tools and lessons learned
In February 1999, SciMathMN invited
George “Pinky” Nelson,
Director of Project 2061,
to be the keynote speaker
for its 5th Annual
Assembly. His talk, Science
and Mathematics Literacy
for ALL, was broadcast
from the World Trade Center
located in St. Paul to 10
other sites throughout the
state. Mathematics and science
teachers K-16, along with
other stakeholders, gathered
to hear his message and
discuss implications for
Minnesota. His keynote address
created increased interest
in three publications by
Project 2061:
- Science for All
Americans (1989)
- Benchmarks for Science
Literacy (1993)
- Blueprints for Reform
(1997)
There was also interest
in the Curriculum Materials
Evaluation Procedure (CMEP)
that was designed to identify
textbooks that help students
learn benchmarks/standards
and that also help teachers
to teach toward benchmarks/standards.
In particular, teachers
were interested in the results
from the Middle Grades Mathematics
Textbook Review and the
review of algebra and biology
texts, along with the process
used to reach the ratings
given to each textbook.
As a result, SciMathMN offered
two pilot workshops facilitated
by Project 2061 staff featuring
the Curriculum Materials
Evaluation Procedure in
August 1999. First, a five-day
workshop was created for
K-12 science teachers and
district teams with a special
focus on science. The second
workshop was a three-day
experience for K-12 mathematics
teachers and district teams
focusing on new mathematics
curriculum adoptions. Both
workshops had a similar
structure:
- Study the intent of
a specific learning goal.
- Apply an understanding
of the learning goal to
determine its content alignment
with selected curriculum
materials.
- Study a set of instructional
criteria.
- Apply an instructional
analysis to selected curriculum
materials using these criteria
and a selected learning
goal.
- Follow the procedure
outlined above to apply
content and instructional
analyses to participant-selected
curriculum materials.
Approximately 10 school
district teams attended
each of the two workshops.
Their experience with standards-based
mathematics or science education
ranged from none to considerable.
Each participant received
and utilized Science
for All Americans and Benchmarks
for Science Literacy. We
also provided copies of
the Minnesota Graduation
Standards and the SciMathMN Minnesota
K-12 Mathematics and Science
Frameworks, when needed.
The participants brought
their own curriculum materials
to analyze.
The most difficult portion
of the workshop occurred
during step one of the procedure
when participants were trying
to clarify a learning goal.
Each teacher’s thinking
was stretched during the
complex process of:
- Identifying key ideas;
- Clarifying the meaning
of these ideas by examining
research;
- Identifying the level
of sophistication;
- Describing prerequisite
knowledge; and,
- Identifying difficulties
or misconceptions students
might have about the content
contained in the learning
goal.
Most of the participants
had never examined a learning
goal in this type of depth.
Many people in the room
were unfamiliar with research
available to them that would
help with understanding
student cognitive development
in depth, and examining
difficulties or misconceptions
about mathematics or science
ideas. Many were enthusiastic
about this portion of the
workshop, but wondered where
they could get the time
needed for this kind of
study for each of the standards.
During step two, analyzing
the material for content
alignment, the key question
for most participants was:
Does the lesson/activity
address the key
ideas of the standard/benchmark
or is there only a topic match?
The discussion around this
question led many mathematics
teachers to rethink the
way they examined materials
for content. Secondary teachers
talked about looking at
the “Table of Contents” in
mathematics books as the
way they had previously
made decisions about textbooks.
Examining materials for
depth and focus was a new
experience. Some elementary
mathematics teachers commented
that they didn’t feel
like they knew enough mathematics
to do a good job with this
question.
Step three, analyzing
the material for instructional
alignment, was very helpful
for the teachers. The 24
instructional criteria made
sense to classroom teachers
and were deemed important
to examine. Using post-it
notes to mark citations
of evidence in the materials
was a very visual way to
make comparisons between
different materials. Our
participants did not complete
the step of assigning numerical
ratings, because it would
have required a level of
sophistication with the
process that demands much
more time and training.
The staff from SciMathMN was
interested in learning about
the procedure for themselves,
listening to the responses
from participating school
district teams and asking
how we might use this process
to improve standards-based
learning and teaching in
Minnesota. In addition to
talking to people at the
workshop, we followed one
school district with a team
of nine members when they
reported back to their district
elementary mathematics curriculum
adoption committee.
Prior to attending the
Project 2061 Curriculum
Analysis Workshop in August,
the committee had narrowed
their choices for the elementary
mathematics adoption to
two NSF-funded curriculums.
By sending nine of the committee
members to the workshop,
the district hoped to be
able to distinguish and
document the difference
between the two more clearly.
The instructional criteria
portion of the workshop
was the defining section
for this particular district.
As the nine members presented
their findings to the rest
of the committee, it was
clear that looking for evidence
to support the desired criteria
was an effective tool in
making a decision. The teachers
and administrators on the
committee decided that the
criteria for their selection
needed to be made clear
to all the teachers in the
district and the broader
community as well. The documentation
of the differences allowed
the committee to make a
unanimous recommendation
to district teachers and
the school board.
As a result of the three-day
mathematics workshop in
August, other districts
began to hear about the
value of the Curriculum
Materials Evaluation Procedure
and wondered if it could
be done in one day. Five-day
and three-day workshops
are difficult for school
districts to finance and
manage. At the
request of one school district
that was also in the process
of trying to distinguish
between two elementary NSF-funded
curriculums, it was decided
to pilot a one-day model
using pieces of CMEP from
Project 2061.
After asking for advice
from Project 2061 staff,
three leaders who had been
at the August workshop created
a six-hour session that
they hoped would be helpful
in the curriculum materials
decision making process.
The focus of the six hours
was on using defined criteria
to make a choice and looking
for evidence to support
the specific criteria identified
as important in selecting
curriculum materials. The
curriculum committee members
were introduced to all 24
instructional criteria,
but the process was modeled
with only three of the criteria.
They were encouraged to
examine the additional 21
criteria and decide if any
of the criteria not used
during the six-hour session
was important in the selection
process. If so, the committee
could then follow the procedure
they had learned to examine
the materials more closely.
The need to base decisions
on the specific criteria
selected was discussed along
with the need to be ready
to explain the importance
of the criteria to other
teachers not on the committee
and to the broader community.
Citing evidence used to
support the decision of
the committee was a valuable
lesson for this group and
they found the CMEP very
helpful.
Feedback from the district
where we piloted the one-day
session helped us understand
that the process
is most useful when teachers
have a strong understanding
of standards-based mathematics
instruction and some familiarity
with the curriculum materials
they want to evaluate. This
procedure would not be particularly
useful at the beginning
of a curriculum review cycle.
The participants of this
workshop thought it might
be best used during the
middle of a pilot year.
This response led SciMathMN to
sponsor a three-day workshop
in June 2000 for teachers
from the Mathematics Best
Practice Network. Kathleen
Morris from Project 2061
was the workshop facilitator.
The goals of the workshop
were to familiarize mathematics
teacher-leaders with the
CMEP and to ask for their
advice as to how CFL and
SciMathMN might
effectively use this process
to help school district
teachers and teams improve
student learning.
During this workshop,
participants had access
to a new publication Middle
Grades Mathematics Textbooks:
A Benchmarks-Based Evaluation
(2000) and a CD that
is included with the book.
This resource was also shared
with a group of approximately
35 people at a three-day,
statewide Curriculum Fair
in August 2000. The response
to the resource was very
positive. Most people have
asked for the elementary
counterpart to the middle
grades evaluation. They
would like to know when
it will be completed and
are disappointed to learn
that it has not started
yet due to lack of funding.
SciMathMN teamed
with MASP2 and
invited school district
mathematics teams and a
district assessment specialist
to an assessment workshop
led by Project 2061 staff
in November 1999. For two
days, participants worked
with a draft version of
an assessment alignment
process. We continue to
be interested in the assessment
alignment procedure and
appreciate its complexity.
Assessments in Minnesota
must be aligned with our
Minnesota standards if we
are to provide meaningful
feedback to students, teachers,
parents and the public.
Another resource that
caught the interest of the
Mathematics Best Practice
teachers and SciMathMN staff
was the content strand maps
that will be published in Atlas
for Science Literacy (2001?). We
are already discussing ways
that these maps will be
useful for teachers and
will build on concept mapping
techniques identified in
the Minnesota K-12 Mathematics
and Science Frameworks and
in other resources used
in Minnesota.
Needs and implications
for future work
Mathematics
SciMathMN convened
a group of about 14 Mathematics
Best Practice Network members
who had participated in
either the three-day Project
2061 Curriculum Materials
Evaluation Procedure Workshop
in August 1999 or June 2000,
with the goal of analyzing
how the curriculum materials
evaluation process might
be most effectively used
by Minnesota teachers and
school districts. The team
of practicing K-12 classroom
teachers spent one day discussing
what they had learned by
attending the workshop and
analyzed possible ways the
procedure could benefit
individual teachers and
district curriculum adoption
committees.
The discussion by the
Mathematics Best Practice
teachers further reinforced
the belief that effective
use of the curriculum materials
evaluation process requires depth
of knowledge about mathematics,
standards, best instructional
practices and children’s
cognitive development. Content
criteria questions probed
the idea of substance and
depth of content versus
topic coverage. Use of three
documents, the NCTM Principles
and Standards for School
Mathematics, Project
2061’s Benchmarks
for Science Literacy and
SciMathMN’s Minnesota
K-12 Mathematics Framework helped
teachers examine content
and analyze a benchmark/standard
from three different perspectives
in the process of clarifying
a specific learning goal.
This process required the
study of research about
common misconceptions in
mathematics and led to a
broader discussion of how
children learn.
The 14 teachers involved
in the three-day workshops
described the experience
as meaningful professional
development for themselves
and believe that the process
would be very useful to
school districts as they
make curriculum decisions.
However, these mathematics
classroom leaders think
intensive study of NCTM
Standards, the Minnesota
Graduation Standards and
the K-12 Mathematics Frameworks
would be required prior to
using Project 2061’s
CMEP. The question for the
group became:
How do we build capacity
in districts across the
state to support the use
of Project 2061 criteria
to select and implement
standards-based curriculum
materials for mathematics
and science?
In discussing this question, the
mathematics best practice
teachers agreed that five-day
or three-day workshops
were not feasible for most
school districts in Minnesota. These
teachers decided that the
Project 2061 process should
be embedded in an overall
curriculum adoption model
and they created a plan
that they thought would
be helpful to districts
examining their mathematics
programs and student achievement.
(An Appendix has been added
to describe this plan in
more detail.)
These 14 mathematics
teacher leaders have requested
a two-day session where
they can delve further into
the process and develop
workshop models (using Project
2061’s CMEP) that
will be available when districts
request assistance during
their curriculum review
cycle. With these additional
two days, the teachers believe
they would be ready to assist
curriculum teams who want
to incorporate parts or
all of Project 2061’s
procedure.
Some of the Mathematics
Best Practice teachers who
participated in the three-day
workshops conducted by Kathleen
Morris from Project 2061
have begun to use selected
instructional criteria to
help them with curriculum
writing projects. They have
examined their current curriculum
for strengths/weaknesses
and have used the Project
2061 criteria to select
or create supplemental activities
that will improve individual
lessons or units of study.
This initial experience
with improving mathematics
curriculum materials already
in use highlights another
strength of the CMEP developed
by Project 2061.
At the end of the day,
several questions remained:
- How will SciMathMN and
CFL train more people to
understand and use the
process to help Minnesota
school districts in their
efforts to improve mathematics
achievement for students?
- How can SciMathMN and
CFL evaluate the effectiveness
of different curriculum
adoption models and make
recommendations to school
district leaders?
- Where will the funding
to support the training
of teacher leaders, workshop
developers and researchers
be found?
Science
SciMathMN,
in partnership with the
Minnesota Science Teachers
Association with funding
from the Medtronic Foundation,
has been concentrating their
science efforts for the
past two years on the continued
growth of the Building a
Presence for Science initiative
in Minnesota. This systemic
effort to build a network
of K-12 Minnesota standards-based
science teachers, Points
of Contact (PoC), has been
centered on a series of
regional meetings at 29
sites across the state.
The subject matter for these
meetings focus on a big
idea or concept from each
content area of science:
physics, chemistry, astronomy,
geology, and biology. Because
one of the purposes of these
Building a Presence meetings
was to expand K-12 teachers’ knowledge
of science content, it was
a natural extension for
SciMathMN to
consider the utilization
of the content strand maps
that will soon be available
in the Atlas of Science
Literacy.
A preview of the Atlas
of Science Literacy is
available at www.project2061.org/publications/atlas.
A brief description, taken
from the web site, follows:
To help educators gain
insight into connections
among benchmark ideas,
Project 2061 is developing
the Atlas of Science
Literacy, a collection
of linked maps that depict
how students might grow
in their understanding
and skills toward particular
science literacy goals.
These maps display not
only the sequence of benchmark
ideas that lead to a goal,
but also connections across
different areas of science,
mathematics, and technology,
and how ideas come together
in sophisticated understanding.
The Atlas organizes
maps into the same chapters
as Project 2061's Science
for All Americans and Benchmarks
for Science Literacy. Furthermore, Atlas includes "clusters" of
closely related maps within
chapters that loosely correspond
to the sections in Benchmarks. In
addition to the maps themselves,
the Atlas clarifies
each map with comments
on relevant issues and
a summary of the cognitive
research that relates to
the map's topic. The book
also discusses the intent
and meaning of the maps,
describes some uses for
maps, and considers some
of the implications of
mapping for teaching and
learning.
The initial print volume
of the Atlas of Science
Literacy will include
approximately 50 maps depicting
K-12 growth of understanding
in a variety of science
literacy topics, including,
for example, gravity, evolution
and natural selection,
the structure of matter,
and the flow of matter
and energy in ecosystems.
Each map will indicate
links to related maps in
the set and will be accompanied
by brief descriptions of
the science literacy topic
at hand and relevant text
from Science for All
Americans and Benchmarks. Eventually
a CD-ROM version of the Atlas will
allow users to move conveniently
between connected maps
and will provide hypertext
links that direct the user
to research and other information.
At the March 2001 Minnesota
Science Teachers Association
spring conference, SciMathMN will
sponsor a day-long workshop
using the strand maps to
continue to build content
understanding as well as
promote the use of the Atlas
for Science Literacy by
teachers in their own educational
communities. The goal of
the workshop is to demonstrate
how the Atlas for Science
Literacy can
be used as a tool for improving
teaching and learning. Being
familiar with the strand
maps will enable teachers
to see how their teaching
fits into the “big
picture” of their
students’ growth in
science literacy. These
maps will help teachers
identify what prerequisite
knowledge students possess
and will help guide teacher
decisions about what to
teach students so that student
scientific literacy continues
to grow.
The SciMathMN science
staff sees three ways the
maps can assist us in this
endeavor.
- First, the content
strand maps can visually
connect the big ideas studied
in the regional meetings
to one another. Too often,
content in one science
discipline is taught with
no connection to the content
in another science discipline.
Teachers expect students
to see these links, yet
many classroom teachers
would find it difficult
to state these relationships
themselves. The strand
maps will allow "Building
a Presence" Points of Contact
to better understand these
sometime subtle connections
and relationships.
- The second strength
of the strand map is to
clearly delineate K-12
articulation of a big idea.
So often, elementary teachers
of science do not understand
their crucial role in preparing
students to think critically
about science content,
and secondary teachers
do not recognize the prerequisite
knowledge needed to learn
concepts at a higher level.
The strand maps clearly
show when and where important
concepts should be introduced
and taught. The importance
of science education from
kindergarten through high
school is clearly articulated.
- Third, the strand maps
elucidate the auxiliary
concepts that “feed
in” or “spin
off” from the big
ideas that were covered
in the Building a Presence
regional meetings. Recognizing
the lateral connections
to a big idea, assist the
classroom teacher in planning
and preparing lessons and
materials needed to effectively
help students understand
science. SciMathMN plans
to make the content strand
maps an important part
of future work with science
teachers in Minnesota.
Looking Forward
SciMathMN, in
cooperation with CFL, continues
to explore ways to improve
mathematics and science
education for students in
Minnesota. Support for current
networks and a plan for
building capacity to improve
mathematics and science
in each school district
requires commitment from
every constituency in the
educational process. While
the effort to implement
standards-based mathematics
and science programs in
Minnesota is beginning to
make a difference for students
and teachers, there is still
a significant amount of
work and support needed
to accomplish SciMathMN’s
mission to raise
the performance of all students
in mathematics and science
and eliminate all performance
gaps in student achievement.
Appendix
Fourteen Mathematics
Best Practice members met
to analyze how the Project
2061 CMEP might be successfully
used by school districts
in Minnesota. After a short
brainstorming session, the
group decided that the procedure
should be embedded in an
overall curriculum adoption
process. They split into
two groups to discuss what
they considered to be the
ideal process for a district
to follow in analyzing and
adopting new curriculum
materials.
One Model of
a Curriculum Adoption Process
Who are the stakeholders?
Where do they fit into the process?
How do they contribute?
(teachers, students, parents, administrators, community members and other
staff)
Committee structure recommended:
