Goal Focus from Educator Profile:
Learning Constantly and Getting Better
Attitudes/Actions Chosen for Goal Setting:
Innovating/Experimenting/Taking Risks
Seeking Constructive Help and Feedback
Goal Statements:
*Goal: To experiment with two different unit planning approaches to determine feasibility and effectiveness in both the process and the end result.
I have been reflecting recently on the importance of having a structured unit planning system for developing new units in science. We have always used UBD as a basic planning framework, but the three-dimensional approach of the Next Generation Science standards lend themselves to a more nuanced step-by-step process. Last year, we were introduced to the Project Based Learning framework for unit planning, in which learning is based around the idea of solving a collective problem with real world applications. To design a unit that is driven by a project, one must follow a key set of steps described to us by visiting expert, Suzie Boss.
This year, we were introduced to what one might call a “phenomena-based” planning process by Paul Anderson. In this process, one begins by introducing the students to a scientific phenomenon that they must explore and try to figure out. The end result of this process isn’t necessarily a project as an assessment, but can be. As one plans the unit, the NGSS practices (science skills) are used strategically throughout to ensure that students are thinking and acting as scientists do. In addition, the Cross-Cutting concepts of NGSS are embedded throughout.
In both unit planning systems, backwards design is an essential component, in that standards and essential concepts are highlighted before planning. In the first process, however, the driving thread is a collaborative project. In the second, the driving thread is a scientific concept that students seek to understand.
I can see the value in both of these models. To better understand the benefits of each, I plan to do my own comparative study of both the planning process and the result in the classroom. The science department has already committed to planning one unit in the “PBL” style. I plan to work with my co-teacher to plan the others in the “phenomena-based” style. As I go through the planning of each, I will blog and reflect about the pros and cons.
Ultimately, I do not plan to select one as “better” than the other. Instead, I would rather explore the potential benefits of each in different contexts. As the EY5- 12 Science vertical alignment facilitator, I feel that it would also be helpful to share my findings with the science teachers throughout the school, to potentially guide them in their own planning choices.
Steps:
Work on PBL unit during Early-Release Strand days with Clayton Filter.
Revisit PBL with Suzie Boss when she arrives this year, perhaps signing up for a one-on-one meeting to share work with her.
Continue to communicate with Paul Anderson around planning and units.
Work on Phenomena-based unit planning with co-teacher and science department team.
Reflect on the blog about experiences, both positive and negative, throughout the year. Include in the blog examples of student thinking, outcomes, and progress against the reporting and content standards.
Create a final comparative summary of both approaches, highlighting key differences and benefits of each.
Share experience with Dan Love and EY5-12 Vertical Science team
Learning Constantly and Getting Better
Attitudes/Actions Chosen for Goal Setting:
Innovating/Experimenting/Taking Risks
Seeking Constructive Help and Feedback
Goal Statements:
*Goal: To experiment with two different unit planning approaches to determine feasibility and effectiveness in both the process and the end result.
I have been reflecting recently on the importance of having a structured unit planning system for developing new units in science. We have always used UBD as a basic planning framework, but the three-dimensional approach of the Next Generation Science standards lend themselves to a more nuanced step-by-step process. Last year, we were introduced to the Project Based Learning framework for unit planning, in which learning is based around the idea of solving a collective problem with real world applications. To design a unit that is driven by a project, one must follow a key set of steps described to us by visiting expert, Suzie Boss.
This year, we were introduced to what one might call a “phenomena-based” planning process by Paul Anderson. In this process, one begins by introducing the students to a scientific phenomenon that they must explore and try to figure out. The end result of this process isn’t necessarily a project as an assessment, but can be. As one plans the unit, the NGSS practices (science skills) are used strategically throughout to ensure that students are thinking and acting as scientists do. In addition, the Cross-Cutting concepts of NGSS are embedded throughout.
In both unit planning systems, backwards design is an essential component, in that standards and essential concepts are highlighted before planning. In the first process, however, the driving thread is a collaborative project. In the second, the driving thread is a scientific concept that students seek to understand.
I can see the value in both of these models. To better understand the benefits of each, I plan to do my own comparative study of both the planning process and the result in the classroom. The science department has already committed to planning one unit in the “PBL” style. I plan to work with my co-teacher to plan the others in the “phenomena-based” style. As I go through the planning of each, I will blog and reflect about the pros and cons.
Ultimately, I do not plan to select one as “better” than the other. Instead, I would rather explore the potential benefits of each in different contexts. As the EY5- 12 Science vertical alignment facilitator, I feel that it would also be helpful to share my findings with the science teachers throughout the school, to potentially guide them in their own planning choices.
Steps:
Work on PBL unit during Early-Release Strand days with Clayton Filter.
Revisit PBL with Suzie Boss when she arrives this year, perhaps signing up for a one-on-one meeting to share work with her.
Continue to communicate with Paul Anderson around planning and units.
Work on Phenomena-based unit planning with co-teacher and science department team.
Reflect on the blog about experiences, both positive and negative, throughout the year. Include in the blog examples of student thinking, outcomes, and progress against the reporting and content standards.
Create a final comparative summary of both approaches, highlighting key differences and benefits of each.
Share experience with Dan Love and EY5-12 Vertical Science team
