Introduction
This is a fairly long note that is intended
to encourage a discussion among Illinois science educators about the
state's new science Performance Descriptors. For those who are
not familiar with the Performance Descriptors, I begin with a brief
introduction about them. I then follow with my observations
about the science Performance Descriptors, which are currently in
draft form.
Background
This past fall, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) released a series of "Performance Descriptors" in various subject areas. In science (and other subject areas), there are eight distinct sets of Performance Descriptors for the elementary grades, one each corresponding roughly to Grades 1-8. There are two sets of Performance Descriptors for high school, one that roughly corresponds to Grades 9-10 and another for Grades 11-12.
For those that haven't seen the Performance Descriptors, an Adobe Acrobat file with the Performance Descriptors for each subject can be downloaded from the ISBE Web site at the following URL: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/descriptors.htm
(Helpful hint: The science Performance Descriptors were formatted to be printed legal-size paper; you will have to reduce the page setup in Adobe Acrobat if you want to print them on standard-size paper.)
The Performance Descriptors are important
in that they represent an expanded level of detail from the Illinois
Learning Standards (and associated benchmarks) that were developed
several years ago. While the Performance Standards do not
comprise a state curriculum per se, they provide teachers and others
with considerable information about the subject matter ISBE expects
schools to cover in their curricula. A series of assessment
tasks, based on the Performance Descriptors, are supposedly being
pilot tested this year. The topics addressed in the Performance
Descriptors will undoubtedly be used to develop future items for the
ISAT. Thus the Performance Descriptors provide what many
teachers and school administrators have been requesting-a clearer
definition of the "rules" under which they are being held
accountable.
The draft science Performance Descriptors were developed by an outstanding team of teachers, ISBE personnel, and science educators. None-the-less, since the Performance Descriptors will help define what science is taught in Illinois classrooms, they merit careful scrutiny and should be subjected to public discussion before they are finalized.
Comments
I have reviewed the K-5 mathematics Performance Descriptor in some detail and have read the K-12 science Performance Descriptors. I believe that the mathematics descriptors have the potential to advance the teaching of mathematics in Illinois. Unfortunately, I do not see the same potential with the science Performance Descriptors. Rather I believe that the science descriptors have the potential to set science instruction in Illinois backwards.
I will focus my comments on three general areas:
o Too much breadth and not enough breadth
o Not enough growth across grades
o The decision to categorize descriptors as into two groups: knowledge and application
A. Too much breadth and not enough breadth
The draft science Performance Descriptors were developed by an outstanding team of teachers, ISBE personnel, and science educators. None-the-less, since the Performance Descriptors will help define what science is taught in Illinois classrooms, they merit careful scrutiny and should be subjected to public discussion before they are finalized.
Comments
I have reviewed the K-5 mathematics Performance Descriptor in some detail and have read the K-12 science Performance Descriptors. I believe that the mathematics descriptors have the potential to advance the teaching of mathematics in Illinois. Unfortunately, I do not see the same potential with the science Performance Descriptors. Rather I believe that the science descriptors have the potential to set science instruction in Illinois backwards.
I will focus my comments on three general areas:
o Too much breadth and not enough breadth
o Not enough growth across grades
o The decision to categorize descriptors as into two groups: knowledge and application
A. Too much breadth and not enough breadth
If the TIMSS results decried that the
content of U.S. science curricula was a "mile wide and an inch
deep," the draft science Performance Descriptors might be
described as many kilometers wide and only a few millimeters deep.
Apparently the authors of the science Performance Descriptors were
under a mandate to address all of the Illinois Learning Standards at
each grade. This requires the study of a dizzying range of
topics in every grade and means that it is difficult, at best, to
cover any topic in any reasonable amount of depth. Despite lots
of talk in the document about the importance of inquiry, the array of
topics listed in the performance descriptors will make it difficult
for teachers and districts to make inquiry the centerpiece of any
curriculum.
B. Too much repetition of content and not enough growth across grades
The problem of listing too many topics is
complicated further by the way in which the topics are described.
Rather than developing a continuum of learning that builds and grows
within and across grades, the draft Performance Descriptors
consistently describe the same content in successive years, only
introduced by a different verb in different years. In one year
students may "classify natural resources as renewable and
non-renewable;" the next year they "list natural resources
as renewable and non-renewable;" the following year they
"identify resources and renewable and non-renewable."
They may then progress to "classifying and discussing" or
"discovering" the same topics in succeeding grades.
The pattern of studying the same content with a different verb is
surprisingly typical throughout the document - often beginning in
first grade and continuing through fifth grade; sometimes extending
into eighth grade or even occasionally into high school.
Even assuming that one can identify some sort of cognitive hierarchy among actions such as identifying, listing, discussing, classifying, and discovering, why would one develop a curriculum that studies the exact same topic each year for many years? Aside from boring children, repeating topics in this way means that there will be many topics that could be studied in some depth but will only be touched upon. A key indicator of a well-developed curriculum is one that grows naturally and logically both within and across grades. There is little sense of such growth in the science Performance Descriptors. Reading the science Performance Descriptors across grades, one can't help but be discouraged by the "flatness" of the expectations and the repetitiveness of the topics.
C. The decision to categorize descriptors as into two groups: knowledge and application
The developers of the science Performance
Descriptors elected to include two categories of descriptors: one
reflecting the knowledge that children need to learn; the other
reflecting how that knowledge can be applied. Descriptors
generally occur in pairs, with one descriptor reflecting
"knowledge" and a correlating descriptor reflecting
"application." The distinction between the
"knowledge" descriptors and the "application"
descriptors is often opaque, at best. "Explaining the water
cycle" is categorized as "knowledge."
"Summarizing the water cycle" is listed as
"application." Sometimes the distinction between the
two categories is clearer but the real question is whether it is
necessary. I assume the reason for the two categories is to
stress the importance of hands-on inquiry in science. The end
result, however, is silly and repetitive, and it only adds to the
general confusion about the document. Even the most thoughtful
and diligent of teachers will find the hundreds of descriptors
overwhelming. Why confound the confusion by splitting hairs over
"knowledge" and "application?" "Doing"
and "applying" are essential elements of good science
instruction. Let's not imply that they are distinct from
"knowing."
There are many additional questions I could raise here about the science Performance Standards, including discussion about specific topics that are included. However, my guess is that relatively few in the Illinois science education community have actually reviewed the ISBE documents. Thus, raising more details at this point would serve much purpose.
The science Performance Descriptors hold great importance for the future of science education in Illinois. I urge others to review them carefully and add their perceptions to a public discussion about the draft documents.
Marty Gartzman
--
================================================
Marty Gartzman
Institute for Mathematics and Science Education
University of Illinois at Chicago (m/c 250)
950 S. Halsted, Room 2075
Chicago, IL 60607-7019
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: (312) 413-2971
fax: (312) 413-7411
================================================
================================================
Marty Gartzman
Institute for Mathematics and Science Education
University of Illinois at Chicago (m/c 250)
950 S. Halsted, Room 2075
Chicago, IL 60607-7019
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: (312) 413-2971
fax: (312) 413-7411
================================================
