FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 2 Acknowledgements I would like to express my appreciation for the many professors and colleagues who guided me from an unconventional beginning in teaching to this level. First and foremost, to Dr. Ann Ellis, who patiently guided me through the research, writing, and investigation of this project. She truly helped me understand what giftedness is and what gifted students need. Second, to Dr. Louise Moulding, who had a profound ability to critically analyze work from numerous students yet still provide vital and timely feedback to me individually. To my former teachers, Anne Black and Heidi Hansen, who showed me the impact loving teachers make on the future of one student. To my sweet mother, who always offered praise and encouragement for my numerous projects throughout life. Her openness to teaching me proved invaluable in developing my understanding of the world and the beauty of life. Due to health complications she unexpectedly passed away before seeing the fulfillment of my research. Lastly, and most importantly, to my loving wife. Despite how many times I have told her that I will only be another minute she still stands by my side as my greatest support. No words can adequately express my gratitude for the countless hours she has spent single-handedly caring for our boys as I have studied and researched. I have come to more fully appreciate her beauty and her sacrifices as we have learned together along this journey. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................................10 Literature Review..........................................................................................................12 Broadened Definition of Giftedness ......................................................................12 Characteristics of Gifted Learners .........................................................................15 Renzulli Three-Ring Model .............................................................................15 Above-Average Ability ..............................................................................16 Task Commitment ......................................................................................17 Task Commitment and Grit .................................................................17 Creativity....................................................................................................18 Self-directed Learning for Gifted Students ............................................................18 Instructional Organization ...............................................................................19 Mismatch of Curriculum and Gifted Needs .....................................................20 Next Generation Science Standards .......................................................................21 Science with Engineering Education Standards ..............................................22 Implementing Advanced Learner Curriculum in the Classroom ...........................24 Enrichment Triad Model ..................................................................................24 SEEd Curriculum Development in the District ...............................................25 Field Testing ..............................................................................................27 Summary ................................................................................................................27 PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................28 METHOD ..........................................................................................................................30 Participants ...................................................................................................................31 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 4 Instruments ...................................................................................................................32 Original Questions .................................................................................................32 Question One—Based on expert reviewer scoring, to what extent, if any, were the SEEd standards present in the proficiency scales produced by gifted students? ...........................................................................................................33 Question Two—To what extent, if any, was the SEEd-based curriculum effective in meeting the learning needs of gifted students? .............................33 Question Three—To what extent, if any, were small groups effective in enriching the learning of gifted students? ........................................................34 Additional Questions .............................................................................................34 Question Four—Based on teacher observations during the action research project, what were student behaviors within a self-directed, small group setting? .............................................................................................................34 Question Five—Based on student responses, what were student perspectives of the project? ..................................................................................................34 Question Six—How did follow-up of field testing enlarge the understanding of gifted student learning needs through self-directed instruction? .................35 Procedure .....................................................................................................................35 Proficiency Scale Models ......................................................................................35 Instructional Process ..............................................................................................37 Expert Review ........................................................................................................39 School District Science Proficiency Model ...........................................................40 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................43 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 5 Results by Question .....................................................................................................43 Question One—Based on expert reviewer scoring, to what extent, if any, were the SEEd standards present in the proficiency scales produced by gifted students? ...43 Question Two—To what extent, if any, was the SEEd-based curriculum effective in meeting the learning needs of gifted students? ..................................................45 Question Three—To what extent, if any, were small groups effective in enriching the learning of gifted students? ..............................................................................46 Additional Questions ...................................................................................................49 Question Four—Based on teacher observations during the action research project, what were student behaviors within a self-directed, small group setting? ............49 Question Five—Based on student responses, what were student perspectives of the project? .............................................................................................................50 Question Six—How did follow-up of field testing enlarge the understanding of gifted student learning needs through self-directed instruction? ...........................51 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................53 Limitations ...................................................................................................................57 Recommendations ........................................................................................................58 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................60 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................64 Appendix A: Permission Form for Student Participation ............................................65 Appendix B: Proficiency Scale Grading Rubric ..........................................................67 Appendix C: Expert Review Proficiency Scale Evaluation Rubric .............................69 Appendix D: Google Survey Questions .......................................................................71 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 6 Appendix E: Approval Letters .....................................................................................73 Appendix F: Earth and Space Science Strand One ......................................................81 Appendix G: Student Proficiency Scale Template ......................................................84 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 7 List of Tables Table 1. Next Generation Science Standards Three-Dimensional Model .........................22 Table 2. Earth and Space Science NGSS and SEEd Standards Comparison ....................23 Table 3. Marzano Proficiency Scale Model .......................................................................36 Table 4. Jordan School District Proficiency Scale Rubric ................................................36 Table 5. Expert Review Average Group Scores on Student-Produced Proficiency Scales ...........................................................................................................................................45 Table 6. Responses for Feelings of Inclusion in Solving Real-World Problems ...............46 Table 7. Responses for Level of Productivity in Small-Group Settings .............................47 Table 8. Responses for How Often Students Feel Stalled or Unable to Move Forward ...48 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 8 List of Figures Figure 1. Renzulli Three-Ring Model of Giftedness .........................................................16 Figure 2. Updated Jordan School District Science Proficiency Scale Template ...............41 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 9 Abstract Gifted students who are not in an enriching learning environment are not provided adequate opportunities to fully develop their abilities and become invested in their own direction of learning. The purpose of this action research was to determine how effective gifted students, working in small groups and using the Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) standards as a problem-based curriculum, would be at developing standards-based proficiency scales and effectively use them to evaluate their own self-selected and self-developed work in order to enrich their learning throughout self-directed science instruction. Participants for this study included 24 ninth grade students within a middle school who were selected based on Joseph Renzulli’s (1978) three-ring conception of giftedness—above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment. Students, working together in small groups, field tested new science standards through a self-guided, problem-based instructional setting. Evaluation from an expert panel showed that students strongly favored producing scales that are content heavy but lacked incorporation of science and engineering practices. Based on follow-up discussion, self-guided instruction provided students a challenging learning environment that enhanced their learning throughout the science problem-based curriculum. Further study showed that more accurate results were achieved over the course of three terms in a school year as opposed to one single term. After receiving multiple opportunities to evaluate their work, students were able to more precisely develop scales reflective of science and engineering practices that could be implemented within their own classroom. The emotional responses of gifted students were evaluated in connection with their progress of learning scientific skills. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 10 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Renzulli (1978) hypothesized that giftedness cannot be isolated to above-average ability but must also include students who show above-average creativity and task commitment. Because of their learning traits, gifted students need curriculum that includes student-directed activities (Beason-Manes, 2018). Students with gifted traits frequently feel boredom within classrooms due to factors such as waiting for their peers to catch up, frequent revisiting of mastered concepts, or teacher refusal to allow students to work ahead (Gallagher, Harradine, & Coleman, 1997). Gallagher et al. (1997) further concluded that the learning needs of gifted students are better accomplished through cooperative learning environments, team teaching, and having a menu of learning options. Through an individualized, self-directed curriculum, students are able to set complex individual goals for themselves in order to pursue an individualized direction of learning (Young & Balli, 2014). New science standards, introduced throughout Utah in 2017, have changed instruction from a teacher-focused format to student-focused and student-led activities. The Utah State Board of Education (USBE) approved new standards with the intention to, “…address what an educated citizenry should know and understand to embrace the value of scientific thinking and make informed decisions” (USBE, 2019, p. 9). The standards state that, “it is not enough for students to read about or watch science from a distance; learners must become active participants in forming their ideas and engaging in scientific practice” (USBE, 2019, p. 10). The Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) standards were designed to allow students more opportunities for hands-on, active experiences throughout the instruction of the science curriculum. A fundamental FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 11 idea behind the SEEd standards is that “science learning is most equitable when students have agency and can engage in practices of science and sense-making for themselves, under the guidance and mentoring of an effective teacher and within an environment that puts student experience at the center of instruction” (USBE, 2019, p. 10). If students who show gifted traits are given a wider variety of learning options and allowed to direct their own learning, they may develop an education more suited to their individual needs. Furthermore, allowing students with gifted traits to create their own standards-based projects could further enrich their learning needs by providing individualized, differentiated coursework. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) framework has been implemented for students to learn in a three-dimensional model that includes science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Utah science standards have adopted the NGSS model through implementation of the SEEd standards. Using the new SEEd standards can more fully meet the instructional needs of gifted students. Students, especially those who are gifted, require a wider menu of learning options to pick from versus the traditional one-size-fits-all method of many teachers (Gallagher et al., 1997). Enriching gifted student learning can be accomplished by providing an opportunity to create a challenging, individualized curriculum for each student. Gifted students who are not in an enriching learning environment are not provided adequate opportunities to fully develop their abilities and become invested in their own direction of learning. If they do not become invested in their own learning, they will not develop enough passion, perseverance and grit to reach their learning potential. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 12 Literature Review Throughout the past century the definition and understanding of giftedness has been expanded. Traditional and modern definitions of giftedness will be explored, showing how students with gifted characteristics have different learning characteristics and therefore require different instruction than average students. Single curriculum pathways are insufficient for enriching the education of advanced learners. Therefore, instruction of gifted students requires individualized, self-directed learning. Enriching the learning of gifted students will be introduced through student field testing of newly adopted science standards. An introduction to the Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) standards will be introduced through the framework of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Implementation of curriculum adaptations for advanced learners will be introduced to emphasize enrichment of gifted student learning in science classrooms Broadened Definition of Giftedness Giftedness has historically been restricted to Lewis Terman’s (1926) definition of being “the top 1% level in general intellectual ability, as measured by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale” (as quoted in Renzulli, 2002, p. 68). Because of Terman’s influence, early researchers in gifted education left his work unchallenged and focused on intelligence as the defining trait of giftedness (Warne, 2016). Dori, Zohar, Fischer- Shachor, Kohan-Mass, & Carmi (2018) similarly reported many countries rank gifted students based on the ninetieth or ninety-fifth percentile in intelligence quotient (IQ) scores. Intelligence, according to Warne (2016), is the general ability to reason and think abstractly. Thinking at higher cognitive levels therefore becomes the basis for abilities FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 13 possessed by students defined as gifted. Although intelligence should not be the single defining factor of giftedness, it should not be disregarded as a factor in determining giftedness due to its relation to all areas of psychology (Gottfredson & Saklofske, 2009). Modern research expands the definition of giftedness from high intellectual ability to also include multidimensional factors such as critical thinking, creativity, self-concept, emotional development, and domain-specific intelligence. Categorizing students as gifted is not restricted to generalized high intellect, but gifted students may also exhibit various talents and skills in different domains at different times (Dori et al., 2018). The Marland Report, produced in 1972 by the United States Commissioner of Education, introduced six areas of giftedness. Those areas include 1) general intellectual aptitude, 2) specific academic aptitude, 3) creative or productive thinking, 4) leadership ability, 5) visual and performing arts, and 6) psychomotor ability (Warne, 2016). Renzulli (1978) further theorized that gifted students show high capacities in a three-ring model: above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity. Above-average ability includes consistently performing at a higher level than average students. Task commitment requires a focused sense of motivation. Creativity involves an ability to generate interesting and feasible ideas (Renzulli, 1978, 2002). Gifted students maintain these traits and show giftedness by applying them to various situations. Students who apply higher cognitive abilities to natural situations exhibit practical intelligence. Practical intelligence, introduced through Sternberg’s (2012) triarchic theory of intelligence, includes “knowing what to say to whom, knowing when to say it, and knowing how to say it for maximum effect” (Sternberg, as quoted in Gladwell, 2008, p. 101). It is not a type of intelligence measurable on any test, but one that is practical for FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 14 success and developed throughout life. The other two aspects of the triarchic theory include analytical and creative intelligence. Creative intelligence refers to the ability to generate new or novel ideas, and analytical intelligence includes the ability to evaluate the validity of ideas (Sternberg, 2012). Sternberg further proposed intelligence to include “the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any environmental context…It offers people an opportunity to respond flexibly to challenging situations” (Sternberg, 1997, p. 1030). In one science content-based study, Sternberg (2017) supplemented standardized tests with criteria that directly measure the skills involved in actual scientific work. Those skills include 1) generating hypotheses, 2) generating experiments, 3) drawing conclusions, 4) reviewing (i.e., analyzing scientific work), 5) editing (i.e., evaluating reviews of scientific work), and 6) evaluating teaching. Based on his studies, Sternberg further concluded success in science is based on achievement in five categories: 1) scientific reasoning with a taste for problems, 2) cognitive flexibility without a dogmatic approach to problems, 3) rational thinking with ethical reasoning, 4) successful teaching abilities, and 5) intense motivation. Students having a taste for problems reflects interest and exquisite zeal in the subject material. Through cognitive flexibility, students do not become stuck in certain ways of thinking and therefore unable to see other points of view. Rational and ethical reasoning involve students analyzing relevant information within varying situations while applying ethical values. Successfully teaching shows a higher level of understanding content than simply critiquing teaching. Lastly, to fully develop scientific skills one must have intense motivation to succeed (Sternberg, 2012, 2017). FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 15 Giftedness is assumed to occur in all populations, implying that representation of the general population should be reflected in gifted programs (Hunsaker, 1994). However, 59.9% of current gifted programs contain students who are white (Goings & Ford, 2018). Standardized IQ testing also favors boys’ higher scoring in spatial categories over girls’ higher verbal scores, thereby resulting in a gender-fairness gap (Dori et al., 2018). In contrast, one study of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), a test of general reasoning and nonverbal problem-solving abilities, showed that 2.5% of white, 2.6% of black, and 2.3% of Hispanic children earned NNAT standard scores at the ninety-eighth percentile. The mean score differences and percentages of children with high standard scores between white and minority groups were small, suggesting that this testing approach could help diverse students gain access to gifted education services (Naglieri & Ford, 2003). Characteristics of Gifted Learners Gifted learners have characteristics and behaviors that are unique and facilitate learning in different ways from average learners. Researchers have investigated subjects of various demographics to determine the different behaviors exhibited by gifted learners in order to better understand gifted characteristics. Joseph Renzulli is widely known for his research of gifted learners, specifically through his identification of gifted characteristics published as a three-ring model of gifted characteristics. Renzulli three-ring model. Through studying varying traits of gifted students, Renzulli (1978) concluded that, “persons who have achieved recognition because of their unique accomplishments and creative contributions possess a relatively well-defined set of three interlocking clusters of traits” (p. 4). Those interlocking traits consist of above- FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 16 average ability, creativity, and task commitment. Giftedness is not based on singular exceptionality in any one area, but an interaction among all three areas (see Figure 1). Each cluster contributes an equal part in defining giftedness (Renzulli, 1978). Figure 1. Renzulli three-ring model of giftedness. Giftedness is based on a combination of all three areas, as shown in the center shaded region, that when brought to bear upon an area of human endeavor, giftedness becomes evident. Adapted from Renzulli (1978). Above-average ability. Students with above-average abilities generally perform above their peers, though not necessarily at a superior level. After examining various study results related to academic achievement in students, Renzulli concluded that the “vast numbers and proportions of our most productive persons are not those who scored at the ninety-fifth or above percentile on standardized tests, nor were they necessarily straight-A students” (Renzulli, 1978, p. 4). Students who are considered gifted based on an above-average ability exhibit characteristics such as an ability to learn rapidly, a broad understanding and ability to discuss a variety of topics, a large vocabulary that is used with accuracy, and an overall ability to perform at a level above average students. Above-average ability is seen in students who often appear to comprehend subjects, topics, or customs above their expected age or level of understanding. Focus or performance area (e.g. science, language arts, history, etc.) FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 17 Task commitment. Task commitment is manifested in gifted students through specific traits, including capacity for high levels of interest-enthusiasm, hard work and determination in a particular area, self-confidence and drive to achieve, ability to identify significant problems within an area of study, and setting high standards for one’s work (Renzulli, 2002). Gifted students also show task commitment through refined or focused motivation (Renzulli, 1978). Motivation has historically referred to general energization, but when related to task commitment motivation refers to energy brought to a particular problem or specific area (Renzulli, 1978). Students who are considered gifted based on above-average task commitment often show deep interest in a subject, a willingness to stick with a problem, resilience when confronted with difficult problems, and a determination to stick with a problem or task. They are not easily deterred by conflicts and are therefore able to develop a rounded understanding of the chosen task or subject. Task commitment and grit. Grit, according to Duckworth (2016), is based on individuals developing four psychological assets including interest, practice, purpose, and hope. Individuals exemplifying high levels of success and grit were “unusually resilient and hardworking… [and] knew in a very, very deep way what it was they wanted” (p. 8). To successfully develop grit, individuals must develop an interest in a subject, meaningfully practice skills required in that area, purposefully dedicate themselves to the development of that skill, and continually hope for mastery. Although intelligence is a necessary factor of success in life, intelligence without persistence will not yield substantial success (Duckworth, 2016). Therefore, giftedness must be viewed through a lens of multidimensional intelligence and personality factors to fully enrich student FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 18 learning needs successfully. Gifted students who maintain high levels of task commitment do so through high levels of interest, practice, purpose, and hope particular to their chosen task. They therefore exhibit grit, as defined by Duckworth (2016). Creativity. Gifted students often exhibit higher anxieties and fears than their average-level peers. Dabrowski (1967), referenced by Harrison & Van Haneghan (2011), introduced this concept through five overexcitabilities present in gifted students. Those overexcitabilities include 1) psychomotor- high energy levels, 2) sensual- heightened sensitivity, 3) intellectual- questioning meaning and existence, 4) imaginational- strong imagination and fantasy, and 5) emotional- intense emotions and reactions. Gifted students perceive the world with more sensitivity and greater intensity. They may exhibit asynchronous development by perceiving abstract concepts with more depth but lacking the emotional maturity to understand. Research by Lamont (2012) theorized gifted students exhibiting combinations of these overexcitabilities often experience insomnia, anxiety, fear, or difficulty adjusting. Each of those conditions are reflective of gifted students due to their heightened responses to the stimuli of the environment. Students, who are considered gifted based on creativity, often exhibit high levels of curiosity, an ability to see unusual connections between ideas, or an ability to come up with many ideas about a question or topic. These students frequently question the natural world around them and display an ability to generate investigative questions, leading to original ideas or solutions. Self-directed Learning for Gifted Students Gifted students require a wider menu of learning options to select from versus the traditional one-size-fits-all method of many teachers (Gallagher et al., 1997). Gifted FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 19 student learning can be self-directed through implementation of scientific thinking skills. Dori et al. (2018) assessed 483 Israeli gifted students’ thinking ability using five skills: 1) question posing, 2) explanation, 3) graphing, 4) inquiry, and 5) metacognition. Researchers reported higher accuracy in enriching giftedness through these steps than the normal standardized testing methods provided. Allowing students to take ownership of learning provides gifted students an opportunity to work at their own ability level without being stalled by whole-class lecture methods (Gallagher et al., 1997). Through a community action program, Beason-Manes (2018) implemented a Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process that allowed students to pace themselves while solving real-world problems in their community. The CPS process included eight fundamental steps: 1) identify the problem, 2) research the problem, 3) formulate challenges, 4) generate ideas, 5) combine and evaluate ideas, 6) draw up an action plan, 7) implement action plan, and 8) reflect, evaluate, adjust, and share results. Following these steps allowed gifted students and average-level students to work synchronously while challenging their individual ability levels. Three methods for organizing classroom structure, recommended by Gallagher et al. (1997), include cooperative learning, team teaching, and providing a menu of services. Cooperative learning allows students of similar ability levels to work together and learn from one another. Team teaching allows students to work together on special projects of their own design. Providing a menu of services allows students to pick learning opportunities from a variety of options. Instructional organization. Creating a self-directed learning environment provides gifted students with self-guided work and establishes accountability to the FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 20 teacher for learning progress. This can be done using an Individual Learning Plan (ILP). An ILP, as stated by Young & Balli (2014), “specifies curriculum and instructional accommodations or modifications for the individual child” (p. 244). Through self-directed learning, gifted students are offered various pathways to achieve success regardless of the pace of their peers and they can set complex goals for themselves (Young & Balli, 2014). Unfortunately, in many situations, students are forced to pursue personal learning interests and complex subjects outside of the classroom. Classroom learning that is self-directed allows students to have complex learning both inside and outside the classroom, as well as bridge the two together at school. According to Young & Balli (2014), some of the challenges to implementation result from “increased class size, pressure to raise test scores, and [addressing] the needs of at-risk students” (p. 244). Mismatch of curriculum and gifted needs. Gifted students who are not being properly instructed are not receiving adequate resources to enrich their learning needs. After surveying gifted and talented students’ perspectives of their own schooling, Kahveci & Akgül (2014) reported that “gifted and talented students do not receive education to develop their potential” (p. 81). After researching work by Zbainos & Kyritsi (2013) in a Greek school system, Kahveci & Akgül (2014) reported that “schooling caused [gifted students] to feel both bored and frustrated since the schooling did not cater to their educational needs” (p. 80). Gifted students frequently perceive their classes as boring due to lack of a challenging curriculum. Gallagher et al. (1997) further reported boredom for gifted students resulted from waiting for their peers to catch up, frequent revisiting of mastered concepts, or teacher refusal to allow students to work ahead. Science and mathematics classes, along with FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 21 specific academically gifted or honors classes, were reported as challenging to students while all other subjects fell short. As a result, students reported frequent boredom and teachers reported students getting into trouble from having an excess amount of unstructured learning time. Curriculum that is differentiated to include independent learning and skills practice in a challenging environment may more fully enrich the learning of gifted students. Furthermore, gifted students who maintain above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment are more suited to instruction where they can self-pace their desired learning goals. Next Generation Science Standards Science standards across the United States have been developed by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences into a standardized framework titled the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2019). This format shifts instruction from a teacher-provided curriculum to a student-led investigative format for kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) science classes. The goal of the NGSS framework is that all students will 1) engage in public discussion on related issues, 2) implement scientific and technological information into everyday life, 3) continue to learn about science outside of school, and 4) enter chosen science, engineering, or technological careers (NRC, 2012). Furthermore, the vision for the NGSS framework is to provide learning experiences to allow students opportunities to engage in discussions related to fundamental questions about the world, as well as carry out scientific investigations through engineering design projects. Achievement of the NGSS vision requires students to investigate natural phenomena, or events that are not man-made, FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 22 through a three-dimensional model (See Table 1). The three-dimensional model involves students actively pursuing engineering practices, connecting scientific disciplines through crosscutting concepts, and applying understanding of disciplinary core ideas (NRC, 2012). Table 1 Next Generation Science Standards Three-Dimensional Model Science and Engineering Practices Crosscutting Concepts Disciplinary Core Ideas Asking questions or defining problems Developing and using models Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Using mathematics and computational thinking Constructing explanations and designing solutions Engaging in argument from evidence Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information Patterns Cause and effect: mechanism and explanation Scale, proportion, and quantity Systems and system models Energy and matter: flows, cycles, and conservation Structure and function Stability and change Earth and space science Life science Physical science Engineering Note: Adapted from “Utah K-12 Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards,” by the Utah State Board of Education, 2019. Science with engineering education standards. Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) standards are being adopted throughout Utah K-12 science classrooms to align Utah science core disciplinary ideas with the NGSS framework and standards FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 23 (see Table 2). The SEEd standards are based on the NGSS three-dimensional model, which includes science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Table 2 Earth and Space Science NGSS and SEEd Standards Comparison NGSS SEEd Curriculum Standards 1. Earth’s place in the universe The universe and its stars The earth and the solar system The history of planet Earth 2. Earth’s systems Earth materials and systems Plate tectonics and large-scale system interactions The roles of water in Earth’s surface processes Weather and climate Biogeology 3. Earth and human activity Natural resources Natural hazards Human impacts on earth systems Global climate change 1. Matter and energy in space 2. Patterns in Earth’s history and processes 3. System interactions: atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere 4. Stability and change in natural resources Note: Adapted from “Utah K-12 Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards,” by the Utah State Board of Education (2019), and “Three Dimensions of the Next Generation Science Standards,” (2012). Science and engineering practices include 1) asking questions and defining problems, 2) developing and using models, 3) planning and carrying out investigations, 4) analyzing and interpreting data, 5) using mathematical and computational data, 6) constructing explanations and designing solutions, 7) engaging in argument from evidence, and 8) obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 24 Crosscutting concepts include students engaged in finding 1) patterns, 2) stability and change, 3) cause and effect, 4) scale, proportion, and quantity, 5) matter and energy, 6) systems, and 7) structure and function. Disciplinary core ideas reflect subject-based content. Students are expected to learn the core ideas within each standard to demonstrate adequate understanding of the content (Utah State Board of Education OER, 2018). Implementing Advanced Learner Curriculum in the Classroom The SEEd standards are based on the idea that within a science classroom “learners must become active participants in forming their ideas and engaging in scientific practice” (USBE, 2019, p. 10). The SEEd standards provide students an environment where instruction is focused on investigation of natural phenomena and the engineering of solutions to real-world problems. Students are able to achieve this through personal and group investigation of content-based phenomena. Enrichment triad model. In conjunction with his three-ring model, Renzulli (2016) implemented an Enrichment Triad Model to provide guidance for meeting the instructional needs of students with gifted characteristics. The model focuses on creative productivity through three areas: 1) exposing [students] to various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study; 2) teaching [students] how to integrate advanced content, thinking skills, and investigative and creative problem solving methodology to self-selected areas of interest; and 3) providing them with the opportunities, resources, and encouragement to apply these skills to self-selected problems and areas of interest (Renzulli, 2016). The triad model is divided into three interconnected types of enrichment: type I enrichment includes general exploratory activities, type II includes FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 25 group training activities, and type III includes individual and small group investigation of real problems. The purpose of the model is to promote interaction between all three areas through investigation of the natural environment. Instruction of the SEEd standards begins with student investigation of natural phenomena. Type I enrichment includes whole-class investigation of local or global phenomena through generating investigative questions. The disciplinary core ideas, represented through the NGSS three-dimensional model, pertain to Type I enrichment. Type II enrichment expounds on the introduced phenomena through teacher-directed exploration and student research. Type II enrichment pertains to students implementing skills from the NGSS science and engineering practices and crosscutting concepts. Type III enrichment provides students an opportunity to investigate a separate phenomenon in order to facilitate individual or small group investigation and research. Through the Renzulli Enrichment Triad Model, students are able to follow the NGSS framework by investigating phenomena directed by the SEEd standards in an individualized setting. Combining all aspects of the NGSS three-dimensional model allows students to investigate real problems, create real products, and communicate to a real audience, thereby fulfilling Type III enrichment. SEEd curriculum development in the district. Proper gifted teaching and learning practices can be applied by classrooms incorporating the SEEd standards through use of the science and engineering practices The goal of implementation is that through using these practices in a science classroom, students will be able to more fully enrich their learning and understanding of natural phenomena (Moulding, Bybee, & Paulson, 2015, p. 2). FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 26 The Utah SEEd standards further reflect the methods used in the Creative Problem Solving model (Beason-Manes, 2018) through students implementing the science and engineering practices. The science and engineering practices provide students a hands-on framework to investigate and solve inquiries related to natural phenomena through self-guided research. Similarly, this format provides students an opportunity to critically solve problems by seeing themselves as part of a community effort. As a pilot program for implementing the NGSS model in classrooms, during the 2017-18 school year the Utah State Board of Education adopted the SEEd standards for science classrooms from grades six to eight. Beginning April 2018, the USBE recommended completion of updated standards for grade levels K-12. The standards writing teams, consisting of university professors and K-12 science teachers throughout the state of Utah, drafted the new standards from May to November 2018. The purpose of the standards is to improve scientific literacy so that students become learners who are actively engaged in using scientific understanding. Furthermore, the SEEd standards are organized into strands, each representing significant areas of content-based learning. Within each strand are standards, or essential elements of learning and proficiency for students to demonstrate. The drafted earth and space science strands include: 1) matter and energy in space, 2) patterns in Earth’s history and processes, 3) system interactions: atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere, and 4) stability and change in natural resources (USBE, 2019). The newly drafted K-12 standards were publicly released January 2019 and opened for a 90-day review. Following the public review of the drafted standards, writing teams reconvened to revise the drafted standards. The state school board officially FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 27 ratified the new standards June 2019. A science course in earth and space science is currently offered in the high school grade levels (9 through 12). Beginning in the 2020-21 school year, science curriculum will be based on the new standards. Field testing. Science teachers, along with school administrators at a Salt Lake City, Utah area middle school determined a student-led course would be beneficial to field test upcoming science content standards and to design science proficiency scales for those standards. Administrators approved an advanced earth and space science course designed to allow students to investigate curriculum design ideas in preparation for statewide implementation of the standards. Counselors were involved to establish the class within the teaching schedule and to arrange the selected student schedules. Summary Gifted students require a menu of learning options, differentiated curriculum, and grouping with peers of the same ability level to accelerate their learning capacities. Research is replete with information regarding what gifted students require to enrich their education. The SEEd standards provide tools for teachers to instruct advanced students who exhibit gifted characteristics. Renzulli’s (2016) Enrichment Triad Model provides an instructional foundation for implementation within a science classroom. Renzulli’s recommendations are compatible with new Utah Science with Engineering Education standards. An earth and space science course designed to field test 2019 standards based on NGSS guidelines provided an opportunity to evaluate performance of gifted students using the standards. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 28 PURPOSE Gifted students learn best in self-led learning environments where they can solve real-world issues (Beason-Manes, 2018). Furthermore, Sternberg (2017) proposed that scientific skills are necessary to properly educate gifted students in science courses. In June 2019, the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) approved new K-12 Science and Engineering Education (SEEd) standards based on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The new standards focus on student-led investigation of natural phenomena to find real-world solutions. SEEd standards were comparable to instructional needs of gifted students. During the fall of 2019, a ninth-grade middle school science class was developed to field test the new standards, before district-wide implementation in the 2020-21 school year. Students for the class were recommended based on the characteristics of giftedness described in Renzulli’s (1978) three-ring definition of giftedness. This project was set in the framework of that class. The purpose of this action research was to determine if students exhibiting characteristics of giftedness, working in small groups and using the SEEd standards as a problem-based curriculum, would be effective in developing standards-based proficiency scales and effectively use them to evaluate their own self-selected and self-developed project work in order to enrich their learning throughout self-directed science instruction. The following research questions were initially addressed: 1) Based on expert reviewer scoring, to what extent, if any, were the SEEd standards present in the proficiency scales produced by gifted students? FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 29 2) To what extent, if any, was the SEEd-based curriculum effective in meeting the learning needs of gifted students? 3) To what extent, if any, were small groups effective in enriching the learning of gifted students? The investigative nature of the project and action research methodology allowed for these initial questions to be expanded. The following questions arose during student field testing of the SEEd standards and were added to the project to address the ongoing action research project. 4) Based on teacher observations during the action research project, what were student behaviors within a self-directed, small group setting? 5) Based on student responses, what were student perspectives of the project? 6) How did follow-up of field testing enlarge the understanding of gifted student learning needs through self-directed instruction? FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 30 METHOD A class of advanced ninth grade students was established in a Utah middle school for the purpose of field-testing new Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) standards. These curriculum standards follow the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) three-dimensional model, including science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas (National Research Council, 2012). This project was set in the context of that class. SEEd standards were implemented throughout sixth through eighth grade Utah science classrooms beginning in the 2017-18 school year. New standards will be implemented throughout the ninth through twelfth grade high school classes beginning in the 2020-21 school year. Action research was selected as the research method for the project in order to investigate field testing SEEd standards as a way to enrich the learning of advanced students. Students who showed multidimensional gifted traits based on Renzulli’s (1978) three-ring conception of giftedness—above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment—were given the option to take the course. Classroom implementation was teacher-guided, but the final outcomes were student-developed. There are four earth and space science SEEd curriculum strands, each comprised of the new standards. Throughout the project, students worked cooperatively to develop standards-based proficiency scales for the first strand. They were then required to design projects for each standard and then to evaluate their own work. Recommendations for the advanced earth and space science course included students who performed above average on coursework, were able to complete work with minimal teacher supervision, and exhibited creativity beyond average expectations. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 31 Participants Participants for this research were recommended by their eighth-grade science teachers in the 2018-2019 school year for an advanced science class the following year. Students were recommended based on their exhibiting gifted traits. Eighth-grade science teachers convened to establish criteria for advanced students to recommend for the course. Those requirements were based on Renzulli’s (1978) three-ring model of giftedness, including above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity. Upon evaluation of current students, eighth-grade teachers recommended candidates for the curriculum design course who would benefit from student-led classroom instruction. Recommendations for the course included students who performed above average on coursework, were able to complete work with minimal teacher supervision, and exhibited creativity beyond average expectations. Teachers looked for these attributes in order to organize a group of students who would perform together at an above-average level and succeed through independent small group investigation. Students displayed other gifted characteristics such as having a broad understanding of topics, rapid rates of learning, high levels of curiosity about natural phenomena, ability to generate many questions specific to different topics, originality of solutions, and an ability to devote sustained attention to difficult tasks. By having these attributes, it was assumed that students could effectively reflect on and evaluate the quality of their self-directed learning. There were approximately 1,300 students within the middle school (consisting of seventh- through ninth-grade students). Out of that general student population, FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 32 approximately 440 would be in ninth grade during the 2019-2020 school year, with 24 of those students selected to participate in the project class. Recommended students were presented with an explanation of the rigors of the course, focusing on student creation of coursework based on the upcoming standards. Those who were recommended and desired to participate were given an administration-approved and department-issued permission form, including an explanation of the class, for parents and selected students (see Appendix A). Following receipt of parent and student acceptance, counselors proceeded with schedule alignment of students recommended to participate in the investigative project class. Because of the nature of an action research project, the teacher, as the project investigator, was also included as a participant in the study. Field testing the standards required an overall understanding of content included within the standards in order to properly guide the students’ research. Student participants worked collaboratively with the teacher to investigate science content knowledge, develop practical classroom applications, and properly implement science and engineering practices into the student-developed work. Instruments Original Questions Three original questions were developed to serve as the foundational starting point of the study and as a guide to the research. These questions and their associated instruments served as the initial data collection and were used to assess the effectiveness of gifted students field-testing the SEEd standards. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 33 Question one—Based on expert reviewer scoring, to what extent, if any, were the SEEd standards present in the proficiency scales produced by gifted students? In order to document evidence to answer the first question, two instruments were developed. By nature of the classroom setting, student work required grades that could be reflected on report cards. Therefore, proficiency scales created by the students were graded by the teacher using a grading rubric (see Appendix B). Students received grades ranging from zero to four for each line of the rubric. This rubric also served as a reference for students to follow in evaluating their own project. An expert review rubric (see Appendix C) was created to evaluate the final scales produced by the students. Upon completion of the proficiency scales, student projects were presented to an expert review panel for evaluation. Question two—To what extent, if any, was the SEEd-based curriculum effective in meeting the learning needs of gifted students? In order to document evidence to answer the second and third questions, a google survey was created and student responses were collected as part of the investigator research log (See Appendix D). The survey results were used to gain feedback from the students regarding how effective self-led instruction was at enriching their learning needs. Survey responses also provided insight to evaluate, adjust, and enhance guidance from the teacher in order for students to better utilize the SEEd standards in their work. Responses assisted in identifying student perceptions of the purpose of the project, how students were able to implement the SEEd standards into their own work, and how incorporating the three-dimensional model enhanced their learning. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 34 Question three—To what extent, if any, were small groups effective in enriching the learning of gifted students? The investigator research log was also used to document evidence of question three. Daily notes were recorded by the teacher to document evidence of group collaboration, effectiveness of collaboration, and how working in small groups enhanced individual learning. Results from the google survey used for question two also included items for question three. Results were collected from the students and recorded in the investigator research log to document student perceptions of the effectiveness of working in small groups. Additional Questions Due to the investigative nature of this action research project, three additional research questions arose during investigation. The additional questions served to expound on how student field testing of the SEEd standards could further enrich the learning of gifted students. These questions were documented by the teacher in order to develop a more thorough understanding of how the SEEd standards supported the learning of gifted students. Question four—Based on teacher observations during the action research project, what were student behaviors within a self-directed, small group setting? To document evidence of question four, teacher observations were recorded in the investigator research log. Observations included group interactions, individual student behaviors, and levels of group collaboration. Question five—Based on student responses, what were student perspectives of the project? After the new questions were added to the study, it became clear that the google survey contained data that would answer question five. Students were asked about FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 35 their perspectives of developing work based on the SEEd standards, challenges from the format of the class, their development of solutions to real-world problems, and the level of rigor within the class. Survey responses also included student perspectives of the benefits of learning through self-guided instruction. Question six—How did follow-up of field testing enlarge the understanding of gifted student learning needs through self-directed instruction? Question six was documented through teacher observations and discussion notes from conversations with students and parents at parent teacher conferences two terms after the research period was concluded and were recorded in the investigator research log. Discussions took place after completion of data collection and were included as project follow-up. Procedure Proficiency Scale Models A proficiency scale “defines a learning progression or set of learning goals for a specific topic, relative to a given standard…[with the purpose to show teachers and students] what knowledge and skills students need to achieve proficiency, and how students might go beyond proficiency” (Heflebower, Hoegh, Warrick, & Flygare, 2019, p.8). As the school district oversees standards-based grading for all classrooms, district administration has based development of the proficiency scales on the model developed by the Marzano Research Development team (see Table 3). The basis of the Marzano model is a general assessment of student progress toward understanding content. The school district, through implementation of the Marzano model, developed a model of its own (see Table 4). FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 36 Table 3 Marzano Proficiency Scale Model Score Description 0.0 Students are unsuccessful even with help 1.0 With help, partial success with 2.0 and 3.0 content 2.0 Simpler content necessary for proficiency 3.0 Target content 4.0 Advanced content Note: Adapted from “A Teacher’s Guide to Standards-Based Learning,” by T. Heflebower, J. K. Hoegh, P. B. Warrick, & J. Flygare, (2019). Table 4 Jordan School District Proficiency Scale Rubric Score Description 1.0—Beginning The student does not yet demonstrate an understanding of concepts, skills, and/or processes and requires support to complete key tasks 2.0—Approaching The student demonstrates some understanding of concepts, skills, and/or processes 3.0—Proficient (meets standard) The student consistently demonstrates an understanding of concepts, skills, and/or processes 4.0—Advanced Student is proficient and demonstrates an advanced application of concepts, skills, and/or processes Note: Developed by the Jordan School District based on the Marzano & Heflebower proficiency scale model (Heflebower et al., 2019). FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 37 Proficiency through the school district model is based on students showing a gradual building of understanding content. Scores range from one to four, with a score of one showing a beginning demonstration of understanding and four having an advanced demonstration. Understanding content is the primary focus. Within science classrooms, demonstration of understanding is directly associated with demonstration of skills. The school district implemented a plan for all classroom curriculum to become standards-based in the coming years, thereby requiring proficiency scales for all subject areas. Teachers and departments throughout the district began developing proficiency scales for all content areas during the 2019-20 school year. Instructional Process Before the beginning of the school year, and prior to instruction and data collection, parental consent, university approval, and school district approval were received. See documents in Appendices E1 through E3. When students arrived on the first day of class, the room was arranged in six tables with four seats at each table. Students selected their own seats. These small groups eventually became the teams for the purpose of creating the proficiency scales and products for the first strand. The SEEd standards were presented to the students. Content for the first strand was based on matter and energy in space. The whole class completed an investigation of the first standard of strand one, as training in the investigation process that would be required later. Standard one is based on using evidence to develop a model that illustrates the role of nuclear fusion releasing energy throughout the lifespan of the sun. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 38 Students, working together as a whole class, were taught the content of standard one and directed to resources that provided evidence for their research. The content of the scales was based on strand one, standards 1.1 through 1.4, of the earth and space science standards (See Appendix F). They were then shown examples of proficiency scales and given a template (See Appendix G) to follow in developing their own. The template was created to set a standard format that all scales could follow in order to include the same necessary elements. Starting with level three proficiency requirements, students were guided through the science and engineering practices and worked together to identify the skills from the standard necessary to show proficiency. Following completion of writing proficiency for level three, students wrote levels four, two, and one respectively. Level four requires application of level three in a new setting, with levels two and one being demonstration of simpler skills than level three. Following completion of developing a whole-class example of the proficiency scale for standard one, students, working together in self-selected small groups, selected a different standard from strand one to research as a small group. Student instruction and research was focused on Renzulli’s (2016) Enrichment Triad Model. The triad model includes an initial exposure to a general topic, followed by student research of a self-selected topic, and then, working in small groups, investigate ways to apply understanding of the self-selected topic. In order to accomplish the focus of the project, the development of proficiency scales within small groups, the following steps were taken: FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 39 1. Students created proficiency scales for earth and space science strand one 1.1. There were six total groups, each consisting of three to four students 1.2. Students researched content specific to their selected standard 1.3. Students identified crosscutting concepts and science and engineering practices specified within each standard 1.4. Students created proficiency scales for their chosen standard, beginning with level three proficiency 1.5. Upon completion of the proficiency scales, groups traded scales with another group for peer evaluation 1.6. Groups evaluated and revised their own proficiency scales based on peer feedback 2. Investigator concurrently kept an observation log documenting student progress 3. Students submitted completed proficiency scales to investigator Expert Review Following proficiency scale completion, student work was presented to a panel of science teachers and district administrators for expert review. Experts selected for the panel included two teachers from the school where students participated in the project and two curriculum administrators from the school district. One of the selected teachers has taught the earth and space science content for more than thirty years and has worked to develop curriculum throughout that time period. The second teacher has assisted in implementing the science and engineering practices throughout the past two years as an eighth-grade teacher and, as department chair, has overseen implementation throughout FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 40 the school science department. The district science administrators have overseen implementation of the SEEd standards throughout the district. The school district is shifting to a standards-based grading system, and through development of that process district curriculum administrators have specifically overseen the development of science-based proficiency scales. All selected experts have a professional understanding of the SEEd standards and the science and engineering practices required for students to demonstrate proficiency. The panel evaluated student-developed proficiency scales based on classroom usefulness and potential implementation. Reviewers were given a questionnaire to evaluate effectiveness of student work compared to the three-dimensional NGSS model. School District Science Proficiency Model The students within this project were initially taught how to develop proficiency scales based on the district-adapted Marzano model. However, upon further reflection of proficiency in a science classroom, a new scale model (see Figure 2) developed by the district was implemented to better assess the proficiency scales. The district science proficiency scale model incorporates students’ demonstration of skills, specifically the science and engineering practices. Following this model, standards are separated from the content of the overall strand and developed into specific learning goals. Goals are then broken into scientific skills that students must demonstrate to show proficiency toward a standard. Content therefore becomes embedded into the scales, but skills remain the primary focus of learning. Therefore, proficiency scales developed for science classrooms, when based on this model, may reflect the SEEd standards more adequately. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 41 Figure 2 Updated Jordan School District Science Proficiency Scale Template Unit: (Strand Description) Learning Goal #1: Aligning Standards: Proficiency Scale 4—Application of skills 3—Students will be able to: (Incremental Steps of Learning – “I can” statement) 2—Foundational learning skills 1—Introductory skills Note: Developed by the Jordan School District science administrators. Throughout the action research project, student learning and scale development was redirected based on student need as determined by classroom formative assessments and conversations. This partially resulted in addition of three additional research questions for the project: 4) Based on teacher observations during the action research project, what were student behaviors within a self-directed, small group setting? 5) Based on student responses, what were student perspectives of the project? And 6) How did follow-up of field testing enlarge the understanding of gifted student learning needs throughout self-directed instruction? The self-led instructional format was new to students, and therefore required occasional redirection from the investigator to ensure students were achieving desirable goals. As research was conducted to assess the effectiveness of gifted students developing science-based proficiency scales in a small group setting, the students were FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 42 not provided direct instruction how to accomplish their projects. Students were only provided a simple outline to follow for the elements needed in proficiency scales. Outcomes and solutions were researched and developed in a self-paced small group setting with peers of the same ability level while the teacher provided guidance. All groups simultaneously worked on different standards within the same strand, each conducting individual research of different disciplinary core ideas. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 43 RESULTS Prior research of gifted students shows that in order to more fully enrich their learning, students require coursework and instruction not widely offered in typical classrooms. Gifted students perform best in learning environments that offer opportunities for collaboration with students of their same ability level and curriculum involving a menu of learning options (Gallagher, Harradine, & Coleman, 1997). Curriculum that more fully enriches the learning of gifted students also includes self-paced instruction in contrast to whole-class instruction where they are often frustrated or bored (Kahveci & Akgül, 2014). Results by Question The results are given by research question. The initial research questions were: 1) Based on expert review scoring, to what extent, if any, were the SEEd standards present in the proficiency scales produced by students? 2) To what extent, if any, was the SEEd-based curriculum effective in meeting learning needs of gifted students? And 3) To what extent, if any, were small groups effective in enriching the learning of gifted students? Question one—Based on expert reviewer scoring, to what extent, if any, were the SEEd standards present in the proficiency scales produced by gifted students? In response to question one, evaluation of the student-developed proficiency scales and products was completed by the expert panel using an evaluation rubric. The expert panel recorded responses that indicated the degree of agreement or disagreement on the extent to which the student-developed scales reflected the scientific skills included in the SEEd standards. The evaluation criteria included: 1) scales align with the standards, 2) scales reflect the cross-cutting concepts, 3) scales reflect the science and FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 44 engineering practices, 4) products require research and investigation, and 5) products involve investigation of natural phenomena. Scores were based from 1—strongly disagree to 4—strongly agree and were given for each of the five different criteria. Averages were collected for each group based on the following method: 1) total points for all five categories were individually summed for each group, 2) each project was averaged based on the total sum divided by five categories, 3) averages for all evaluations of the same project were summed together and averaged by number of evaluations. Total averages for all six groups were then added together and divided by the total number of groups to create an overall class average. Of all the student groups, the review panel reported the highest average of 3.0 out of 4.0 for all five criteria, indicating that the panel agreed the SEEd standards were somewhat reflected in work developed by that group. The lowest reported average of 1.2 out of 4.0, indicated the panel strongly disagreed that the SEEd standards were reflected in the work developed by that group. The overall class average was 2.1. Based on the overall class average, expert analysis somewhat disagreed that the proficiency scales produced by students reflected the SEEd standards. Final averages for each group were reported in Table 5. Expert evaluation assessed that the student wording within the scales was too vague and therefore not measurable or effective. Some scales represented demonstration of skills or understanding not necessarily required in the selected standards. Other scales included no demonstration of skills required within the selected standards. Overall the scales were heavily weighted with demonstrating an understanding of content but did not require a demonstration of science and engineering practices. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 45 Table 5 Expert Review Average Group Scores on Student-Produced Proficiency Scales Group Average Group 1 3.0 Group 2 1.2 Group 3 1.7 Group 4 2.1 Group 5 2.7 Group 6 1.8 N = 6 Note: Scores range from 1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=somewhat agree, to 4=strongly agree Question two—To what extent, if any, was the SEEd-based curriculum effective in meeting the learning needs of gifted students? The Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) standards reflect investigation of real-world problems using the same methods as the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model implemented by Beason-Manes (2018), including the following steps: 1) identify the problem, 2) research the problem, 3) formulate challenges, 4) generate ideas, 5) combine and evaluate ideas, 6) draw up an action plan, 7) implement action plan, and 8) reflect, evaluate, adjust, and share results. In order to answer question two, student surveys, reported within the investigator log, assessed student feelings of inclusion in solving real-world problems (see Table 6). Students were asked specifically whether the format of the class and their individual research helped them to feel part of a real-world solution. Responses were mixed, but overall favored agreement that the class format did provide a feeling of participating in a real-world solution. The class provided students an original learning opportunity to FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 46 research and develop their own solutions for how to learn scientific standards related to natural phenomena on Earth and throughout the universe. Table 6 Responses for Feelings of Inclusion in Solving Real-World Problems Response n Percentage Strongly Disagree 1 4.5 Disagree 0 0 Neutral 5 22.7 Agree 10 45.5 Strongly Agree 6 27.3 N = 22 Note: Original question requests student feedback for whether the class format and individual research helped develop inclusion in solving real-world problems. Student responses included that learning was enhanced because “[they] have to think about problems and solutions and [the class] is more engaging than a typical science class.” The students further reported that “[the class] enhanced their learning experience because [they] were able to find out things for [them]selves”. The self-instructional format allowed them “to learn at [their] own pace and have information learned through [their] own efforts”, and “[they] were confined to wherever [they] could get information and not just assigned areas.” The class “[gave them] a way to learn at [their] pace…and [they] were actually learning because it was up to [them] to figure out the information.” Question three—To what extent, if any, were small groups effective in enriching the learning of gifted students? To answer question three, student surveys documented in the investigator log reported that, with responses ranging from 1—not at all productive to 10—highly productive, students felt productive to highly productive working within a small group FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 47 (see Table 7). Students reported that small groups were effective because “[they] have to communicate more with each other and think of other ideas to get to the solution.” Working as a small group was “more productive and had less waiting for the entire class because [they] were working as groups” and included “more teamwork and let [them] learn the subject on [their] own instead of memorizing.” Table 7 Responses for Level of Productivity in Small-Group Settings N=22 Note: 1=not productive to 10=highly productive. Students further responded that they felt stalled or unable to move forward at least once per week with the next majority response never feeling stalled at all (see Table 8). Research of gifted students shows a major issue associated with their learning is a feeling of stalling from the teacher or waiting for classmates to catch up (Gallagher et al., 1997). Observations from this project showed that students did not feel stalled from those factors, but rather from not having clear direction as to where their research should go. Stalling was reported by students as a result of uncertainty related to how to proceed with research and therefore not being able to develop the next step. Data collected does not Response n Percentage 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 4.5 5 1 4.5 6 3 13.6 7 3 13.6 8 5 22.7 9 2 9.1 10 7 31.8 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 48 specify whether those who never felt stalled are students who have a constant generation of ideas, or those who are content to pause until answers present themselves. Table 8 Responses for How Often Students Feel Stalled or Unable to Move Forward Response n Percentage At least once per week 14 63.6 Every class period 1 4.5 Multiple times every class period 1 4.5 Never 6 27.3 N = 22 To further answer question three, the investigator research log was used to record data related to the effectiveness of group settings. Observations included consistency of focus on research, amount of conversations unrelated to class projects, and efficiency in completing projects or scales. Overall, students succeeded exceptionally well in small group settings but were severely hindered during whole-class instruction. When whole-class instruction was provided, many students resisted listening to the teacher in exchange for continuation of their previous task or thought process. During whole-class instruction, student behaviors reflected those typically expected of average-level peers. Students struggled immensely to agree upon any single decision within this setting and naturally broke into smaller groups of peers with similar positions. When forced to stay together as a whole class, students with assertive leadership personalities took charge to begin directing the group to come to the desired goal, with most of the group falling into line without asserting individual positions. Progress still lacked in this setting, even with a group leader. However, when given time constraints more members stepped in to assert positions in FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 49 order to achieve the overall goal within the given time limit. Students were overall dissatisfied working as a collective class versus in small groups. Students strongly favored working in small-group settings versus whole-class settings, however, when asked about the quality of small group settings, responses varied. Small-group work was favored by students largely because it provided students an opportunity to work with classmates at their same ability level instead of always being ahead. Communication increased between students in order to discover other solutions to given problems beyond what they individually discovered. Working in small groups provided an opportunity to learn how to more productively work with others toward a common goal and adequately communicate their ideas. Learning was reported to be a lot harder and less interesting in other classes where they are not allowed to collaborate or contribute equally. Additional Questions During field testing the following questions arose to address in the ongoing action research: 4) What were student behaviors within a self-directed, small group setting? 5) What were student perspectives of the project? And 6) How does follow-up field testing enlarge the understanding of gifted student learning needs through self-directed instruction? Question four—Based on teacher observations during the action research project, what were student behaviors within a self-directed, small group setting? To answer question number four, the investigator log was used to document student behaviors within the self-directed, small group setting. In the beginning of the project, students were often frustrated by not having specific outcomes. Frustrations were FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 50 overcome through multiple means. Students who naturally lean toward higher-order questioning would ask the teacher follow-up questions to guide their own thinking. A few students resorted to working on assignments for other classes or, in some cases, research not directly connected to the selected research topic. When distancing behavior was observed, students were directly asked what the reason for not staying focused was. Questioning of these students typically revealed that they allowed distractions in order to let content internalize while an idea of direction presented itself. Question five—Based on student responses, what were student perspectives of the project? To answer question number five, student responses, collected within the investigator research log, were used to assess student perspectives of the project. Most students had not previously experienced self-led instruction in any prior class and were therefore unsure how to proceed in developing their projects. Frustrations were frequently voiced due to uncertainty of where to research, how to complete the project, or what the outcome should look like. At those occasions, the teacher redirected the students to their selected standard and guided them to what skills students should be able to do in order to show proficiency of that standard. From that point, content and resources were left to the individuals and groups to identify for support of their project. Overall responses showed that student-led instruction was significantly more beneficial for learning than teacher-led instruction but does not involve an increase in rigor. When comparing rigor required for this science class to classes of other disciplines, science was not the most demanding. Math classes were reported as the most rigorous, largely due to necessity of repeated practice. Language arts classes were the second most FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 51 rigorous, followed by science and then social science classes. Rigor, as understood by the students, is a measure of the level of demand of work. Student-led instruction does not necessarily increase the rigor requirement of a class but adapts the method of student learning. In this case, instruction focuses on student-led instruction driven by individual research in contrast to teacher-led instruction that students follow. Question six—How did follow-up of field testing enlarge the understanding of gifted student learning needs through self-directed instruction? Follow-up discussions with students were recorded in the investigator log to address question six. Following completion of data collection at the end of the first term, further investigation was conducted during the second and third terms as to whether the students would refine their proficiency scale development skills with additional time. Teacher observations provided evidence that, over time after being instructed with a science-based proficiency scale model, student results were based strongly on the science and engineering practices. Furthermore, the students’ mindsets became more focused on science and engineering practices and not restricted solely to content. Discussion with students during parent-teacher conferences, recorded in the investigator log, further provided evidence of the value that working in small groups had in enriching the learning of gifted students. Parent-teacher conferences were held during third term, while the class was still in progress, though data collection concluded at the end of first term. When asked if self-led instruction was still stretching their abilities, students commented that the work was challenging for them. Not knowing the exact outcome was a challenge to work through but having the opportunity to research at their FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 52 own pace greatly enhanced their involvement. The students agreed that they have progressed in their understanding and abilities throughout the year. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 53 DISCUSSION Previous research has shown that gifted students require a more enriching learning environment to fully meet their educational needs. Survey results showed that gifted students are frequently bored in general education settings, they feel stalled as they wait for their peers to catch up, and as a result they become dissatisfied with their learning (Gallagher, Harradine, & Coleman, 1997). Specific gifted qualities are not always identified by teachers and therefore underutilized in the learning process. Renzulli (1978) proposed that gifted student traits consist of above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity. When those qualities are brought to bear upon specific tasks their learning is more fully enriched. This action research project was developed to evaluate the ability of students with gifted qualities to work together in small groups to develop science proficiency scales for future implementation of new science standards. During the initial data collection period, the expert review panel assessed the results of the study to be inconclusive as to whether these students were able to develop science-based proficiency scales. However, the learning needs of gifted students were enriched through a self-led, skills-based science curriculum. One of the issues discovered throughout the study was the discrepancy between the students’ knowledge of proficiency scales and what the expert panel expected from a science proficiency scale. Within a typical classroom setting, students are given assignments from the teacher, provided instructions on how to accomplish the assignment, provided resources to complete the assignment, and then students follow the recipe to achieve the desired result or grade. For this project students were instructed FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 54 regarding what the final outcomes may look like, but no further direct instruction was provided. Students worked together in small groups to assess potential resources, design the layout of each task, and create their own questions to receive guidance from the teacher. There were no rigid paths to follow or narrow specific outcomes to reach. Based on this open-ended format many students became immobilized at not knowing exact steps to follow. In previous science courses throughout their education, they had largely been offered more specific results to aim for. This was the first opportunity most of the students had to perform in a classroom with self-directed instruction and with all peers of the same ability level. The setting led to the development of an overall atmosphere of community. Students freely shared ideas within their own small groups and equally shared feedback to other groups within the class. There were no students in the class who were left out as is often seen in other classrooms, and no students were excluded from classroom interaction. When groups were temporarily re-arranged there was no hinderance to progress within the newly assigned groups as students began work on an unfamiliar subject. Religious or cultural affiliations were not included in classroom atmosphere assessment and involvement was strictly based on ability to perform together in achieving classroom educational goals. As students processed the new freedom in the direction of their learning, they discovered a newfound appreciation for learning. They appreciated the feedback offered by peers within their own group who performed at their same ability level. Within previous science classes they frequently felt bored by always being ahead or dissatisfied by previously knowing the content. Overall, they discovered content knowledge, as was previously stressed in science learning, was not the critical part of learning but they now FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 55 needed to learn science and engineering practices. If the skills are mastered, any scientific content can be input. The skills necessary for this project were based on the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) science and engineering practices (USBE, 2019). Many of the students were unfamiliar with the full spectrum of creativity. Students falsely perceived that those who are creative do well in fine arts settings and those who are not creative do well in science or math settings. They needed a definition of creativity that integrates understanding of what logical creativity can entail. Throughout this study students were severely hindered by wanting to achieve specific results, but not knowing how or what those results will be. As a result of classroom observations, they were instructed of ways to think outside the normal set of ideas, develop something unique, and to not be afraid to make mistakes. When given this redirection they were able to achieve high levels, but they still did not consider these aspects of creativity to be linked to logic. The most inhibiting challenge from this study was the students’ lack of previous experience with standards-based grading systems and proficiency scales. Immediately prior to this study the school district introduced a shift to a standards-based grading system. The grading system is intended to reflect a four-point scale (one to four with four being highest) of student proficiency. Most teachers throughout the district use the A-F letter-grade scale, while some are consecutively transitioning to the 4-3-2-1 proficiency system. The mixed grading system is the extent of the experience students had with a standards-based grading system. With that being the situation, their understanding of a true standards-based system, especially in a science setting, was severely limited. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 56 Due to their insufficient experience with standards-based grading systems, students did not fully know what proficiency scales should look like. Furthermore, the only experience they had with the science and engineering practices were from their previous sixth-, seventh-, or eighth-grade science classes. The students have set the expectation that when they come to class the teacher will give them necessary content, they will repeat the content correctly, and then receive the desired grade. Science classes have shifted away from content-based instruction to a larger focus on skills-based instruction. Many students in this study left the previous year(s) of science frustrated at not receiving the expected content-based curriculum in return for developing scientific skills. They did not accomplish what they expected and were therefore frustrated at not learning more. Overall observations of the class, that students are pre-programmed to create specific outcomes, was supported by analysis from the expert reviewers. When not specifically told what the outcome should look like or how to get there many students struggled to identify the next step of progress. These feelings of being stalled brought all students to an equal starting point that resolved many of their past issues of feeling held back by teachers because they finished tasks faster than their peers. These moments of stalling became opportunities for group discussion, trial of new outcomes, and an understanding of skills required in an investigative classroom setting. Students within the advanced earth and space science classroom had an eagerness to learn and receive correction in a positive manner. They showed task commitment and grit. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 57 After completion of data collection within the project during the first term, students were presented with opportunities, working as a small group, to teach the whole class. The process of developing assessments and researching content in order to teach their peers increased understanding of the skills required to achieve proficiency. Developing an ability to see the end from the beginning was one of the main objectives of this follow-up study. By knowing what proficiency should look like, students knew where to begin when designing the coursework to get there. Developing work centered on the science and engineering practices helped students to connect what skills-based instruction should look like. Overall, this structure helped more fully enrich their learning through being self-guided throughout the entire curriculum process. Results showed that skills necessary to be successful in this project were developed over a long-term process. Throughout the follow-up study they demonstrated thinking on a higher level and when given minimal resources were able to develop new solutions. Limitations A limitation of this study was the sample size of gifted students within the project. The study consisted of 24 students, each of whom were referred from previous science teachers based on the Renzulli (1978) gifted student criteria. This was a sample of convenience that was limited by size. Had the sample been larger the results may have been more conclusive. Repeating this format of class in future years with a larger sample of gifted students may yield more precise results as students also become familiar with standards-based learning requirements. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 58 The length of time this study was conducted was also a limitation. The study was conducted for seven weeks, or approximately one term of the school year. Furthermore, the study was conducted during the first term of the school year. The first term has inherent factors that require students to relearn forgotten concepts and a rehabilitation to learning in a school environment. Recommendations Studying the student creation of proficiency scales may be more conclusive if conducted over the entirety of the whole school year. Learning new content requires time as connections and understanding are made between similar areas of content. Understanding what proficiency scales look like or should contain requires many trials of writing and rewriting. Fully mastering the science and engineering practices requires many iterations of consistent practice. Putting all these together cannot be fully completed within one school term. Therefore, extending this study over the course of an entire school year may likely yield more conclusive results. In order to enrich the learning of a larger audience of gifted students, district-level instruction should be implemented based on the findings of this research. Science and engineering practices are being implemented throughout all kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) science classes across the state. Providing students an opportunity to create the work associated with those standards, and to essentially develop the learning path, will further enrich student learning. Instructing teachers how to develop proficiency scales based on the science and engineering practices will assist their understanding of better teaching practices as well as guide their instruction for how to prepare a science-literate generation. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 59 Implementing the practices included within the Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) standards into gifted curriculum may further enrich the learning of gifted students. The SEEd standards are based on self-led inquiries of real-world phenomena and require self-driven investigation. The learning needs of gifted students can be more fully met through following the three-dimensional model of applying science and engineering practices, connecting different areas of discipline through using the cross-cutting concepts, and applying these skills while learning disciplinary core ideas. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 60 REFERENCES Beason-Manes, A. D. (2018). Community activism as curriculum: How to meet gifted students’ needs while creating change. Gifted Child Today, 41(1), 19-27. doi:10.1177/1076217517735353 Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality shaping through positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Dori, Y. J., Zohar, A., Fischer-Shachor, D., Kohan-Mass, J., & Carmi, M. (2018). Gender-fair assessment of young gifted students’ scientific thinking skills. International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 595-620. doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1431419 Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner. Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19(3), 132-136. doi:10.1080/02783199709553808 Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Back Bay Books. Goings, R. B., & Ford, D. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25- 36. doi:10.1177/0016986217737618 Gottfredson, L., & Saklofske, D. H. (2009). Intelligence: Foundations and issues in assessment. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 50(3), 183-195. doi:10.1037/a0016641 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 61 Harrison, G. E., & Van Haneghan, J. P. (2011). The gifted and the shadow of the night: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities and their correlation to insomnia, death, anxiety, and fear of the unknown. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 669-697. doi:10.1177/016235321103400407 Heflebower, T., Hoegh, J. K., Warrick, P. B., & Flygare, J. (2019). A teacher’s guide to standards-based learning. Bloomington: Marzano Research. Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Adjustments to traditional procedures for identifying underserved students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 72-76. doi:10.1177/001440299406100107 Kahveci, N. G., & Akgül, S. (2014). Gifted and talented students’ perceptions on their schooling: A survey study. Gifted & Talented International, 29(1/2), 79-91. doi:10.1080/15332276.2014.116784314 Lamont, R. T. (2012). The fears and anxieties of gifted learners: Tips for parents and educators. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 271-276. doi:10.1177/1076217512455479 Moulding, B. D., Bybee, R. W., & Paulson, N. (2015). A vision and plan for science teaching and learning: An educator’s guide to a framework for k-12 science education, next generation science standards, and state science standards. USA: Essential Learning and Teaching Publications. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri nonverbal ability test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155-160. doi:10.1177/001698620304700206 FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 62 National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Next Generation Science Standards (2019, January 31). NGSS fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/resources/ngss-fact-sheet Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. The Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-261. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20299281 Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century. Exceptionality, 10(2), 67-75. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1002_2 Renzulli, J. S. (2016). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. In S. M. Reis, Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues (pp. 193-210). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1030-1037. doi:http://dx.doi.org.hal.weber.edu:2200/10.1037/0003-066X.52.10.1030 Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Intelligence. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(1), 19-27. PMCID: PMC3341646 Sternberg, R. J. (2017). Direct measurement of scientific giftedness. Roeper Review, 40(2), 78-85. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2018.1434715 Three Dimensions of the Next Generation Science Standards (2012). Retrieved from https://csme.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/3D-of-NGSS.pdf FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 63 Utah State Board of Education (2019). Utah K-12 science with engineering education (SEEd) standards [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/3eea5b86-efbb-4a8e-9aa8-e63cc3078588 Utah State Board of Education OER (2018). Earth systems: Utah science standards [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://eq.uen.org/emedia/file/c97b1a9f-976b-4738-b0e4- f427b337042e/1/EarthScienceRS.pdf Warne, R. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1), 3- 15. doi:10.1177/0016986215605360 Young, M. H., & Balli, S. J. (2014). Gifted and talented education (GATE): Student and parent perspectives. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 236-246. doi:10.1177/1076217514544030 Zbainos, D., & Kyritsi, A. (2013). The voice of the ‘non-existent’: Greek talented students’ perceptions of the Greek school system and its practices. Educational & Child Psychology, 30(2), 67-78. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 64 APPENDICES Appendix A: Permission Form for Student Participation Appendix B: Proficiency Scale Grading Rubric Appendix C: Expert Review Proficiency Scale Evaluation Rubric Appendix D: Google Survey Questions Appendix E: Approval Letters Appendix F: Earth and Space Science Strand One Appendix G: Student Proficiency Scale Template FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 65 APPENDIX A Permission Form for Student Participation FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 66 01 March 2019 Dear Parents/Guardians, Your student has enrolled in Earth Systems as their science class for 9th grade. Science classes are shifting from a teacher-provided curriculum to a student-led investigative format. Utah has implemented new SEEd (Science with Engineering Education) standards for grades 6-8, and in the upcoming year new SEEd standards will be implemented for 9-12th grade science classes. With the new standards being written we have a unique opportunity to create new curriculum to follow those standards. Your student has shown above-average ability, dedicated focus, and an ability to be self-led in their learning. With that skill set we would like to invite your student to participate in a teacher-guided investigative class where your student will be able to research, design, and create the curriculum for the upcoming Earth Systems classes. Their work will be an innovative process of designing what students in future years will be doing to achieve the science content standards. The class will be formatted in a teacher-guided structure, but the students will be creating the assignments, assessments, projects, and curriculum steps to achieve the Earth Systems standards. We believe your student has the capability to drive their own learning under the guidance and direction of the teacher, but in a manner that they can follow the direction of their own inquiries or questions. We are excited about this unique opportunity and will greatly benefit from the skill set and abilities your child will add to the class. Please respond ASAP if you would like your child to be part of this process. If you have any questions I can be contacted at [teacher e-mail address]. Trent Grable [Sample Middle School] 9th grade Earth Systems [Sample Principal] [Sample Middle School] Principal Parent Signature ____________________________ Student Signature____________________________ Date ____________________________ FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 67 APPENDIX B Proficiency Scale Grading Rubric FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 68 Proficiency Scale Grading Rubric 4 3 2 1 0 Learning objective is stated and specific to standards Objective is clearly stated and specific to SEEd standards Objective is clearly stated but not specific to standards Objective is poorly written and unspecific Objective is not linked to standards or tasks No learning objective is present Product is thorough and achievable Product requires higher order thinking and aligns to standards Product aligns with standards and proper proficiency level Product is too hard or too easy and does not align clearly with standards Product is not related to standard and does not meet learning objective No product is present Standards are specifically stated Standards are specifically identified Standards are not specifically identified or are incorrect Standards are not stated or referenced Crosscutting concepts are accurately identified All identified crosscutting concepts are accurate Most identified crosscutting concepts are accurate Some identified crosscutting concepts are accurate Few identified crosscutting concepts are accurate No crosscutting concepts are identified Science and engineering practices are accurately identified All identified science and engineering practices are accurate Most identified science and engineering practices are accurate Some identified science and engineering practices are accurate Few identified science and engineering practices are accurate No science and engineering practices are identified Core disciplinary ideas are identified within product All identified disciplinary ideas are accurate Most identified disciplinary ideas are accurate Some identified disciplinary ideas are accurate Few identified disciplinary ideas are accurate Core disciplinary ideas are not identified or referenced Proficiency scales are well written, specific, and appropriate to level of understanding All four proficiency scales are well written, specific, and appropriate to level of understanding Three proficiency scales are well written, specific, and appropriate to level of understanding Two proficiency scales are well written, specific, and appropriate to level of understanding One proficiency scale is well written, specific, and appropriate to level of understanding No proficiency scales are present FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 69 APPENDIX C Expert Review Proficiency Scale Evaluation Rubric FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 70 Expert Review Proficiency Scale Evaluation Rubric Reviewer: Scale: 1=Strongly disagree 2=Somewhat disagree 3=Somewhat agree 4=Strongly agree Standard(s): Proficiency scales align with selected standard(s) Proficiency scales reflect crosscutting concepts Proficiency scales reflect science and engineering practices Product requires research and investigation Product involves investigation of natural phenomena (i.e. events that are not man-made) FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 71 APPENDIX D Google Survey Questions FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 72 Question Number Survey Question Question 1 The format of this class and the research I completed helped me to feel part of a real-world solution. [Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree] Question 2 How challenging was this class? [On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)] Question 3 How often did you feel stalled or not allowed to move forward? [Options include at least once a week, every class period, multiple times every class period, or never] Question 4 How productive was working in a group? [On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)] Question 5 Did this format of class enhance or improve your learning experience? Explain. Question 6 Considering this class format, check which two classes require the most rigor. [Options include math, science, social studies, or language arts] Question 7 What benefits did you find from this class that enhanced your learning? Note: Questions were posed to students through a google survey and results were recorded electronically as part of the investigator research log. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 73 APPENDIX E Approval Letters FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 74 Appendix E1 Weber State University Informed Consent IRB Study #19-ED-003 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL GROUP PROJECTS THROUGH ADVANCED LEARNER EVALUATION AND SYNTHESIS OF UTAH SCIENCE WITH ENGINEERING EDUCATION STANDARDS You are invited to participate in a research study of designing proficiency scales and projects for the upcoming ninth grade Earth and Space Systems SEEd Standards. You were selected as a possible subject because you show above-average abilities, above-average creativity, above-average task commitment, and an ability to work independently. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. The study is being conducted by Trent Grable through Weber State University Department of Education. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to determine if students who show advanced traits can collaborate in small groups to create science proficiency scales and associated curriculum projects. The curriculum will be based on the first strand of the ninth grade Earth and Space Systems standards. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one of twenty-four subjects who will be participating in this research. The research will be conducted during the regular science class period and will involve students enrolled in that specific class period. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things: After being introduced to the Earth and Space Systems standards approved through the Utah State Board of Education (USBE), you will research, investigate, and design small group projects to accomplish Strand 1 of the Earth and Space Systems standards. Groups will then work together to create proficiency scales that lead to mastery of the standards. The project will include small group design of standard objectives, projects leading to mastery of the standards, and proficiency scales related to each standard of Strand 1. The FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 75 created coursework will become a guide for future students to meet learning expectations for the standards. The research will be conducted first term of the school year, roughly from August 20, 2019 to October 20, 2019. RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: Possible risks of taking part in the study are equal to what would happen in any general classroom setting. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: Advanced learners have reported frequent boredom in general classroom settings due to many factors, one of which is not having their individual learning properly enriched. This study aims to allow advanced learners to investigate their own questions related to the content, at their own advanced pace, and to collaborate with peers at their same ability level. Through this process their learning will be enhanced at an advanced level. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: Instead of being in the study, you have the option to enroll in a regular Earth and Space Systems course. The coursework in that setting would be similar to a traditional classroom and would be primarily teacher-led versus student-led investigation. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, Ann Ellis, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher Trent Grable at 801-412-2900 or the researcher's mentor Ann Ellis at 801-626-7343 For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu . FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 76 VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part and be placed in a traditional Earth and Space Systems course. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Jordan School District or Weber State University. Withdrawal from the study could pose challenges of joining a traditional Earth and Space Systems class mid-cycle of teaching and may require extra effort to catch up in a new teacher's classroom. SUBJECT'S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject's Printed Name: ________________________ Subject's Signature: __________________________ Date: ____________ Printed Name of Parent: _________________________ Signature of Parent: __________________________ Date: _____________ FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 77 Appendix E2 Weber State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Institutional Review Board August 17, 2019 Dear Trent Grable, Your project entitled "Development of Small Groups Projects through Advanced Learner Evaluation and Synthesis of Utah Science with Engineering Education Standards" has been reviewed and is approved as written. The project was reviewed as "exempt" because it involves using research conducted in an established educational setting. Notification of the study and how data will be reported are appropriate. Participants in this study are under the age of 18, and you have the appropriate consent forms. You have included consent forms for the parent/guardians and have requested assent from the minor participants. Consent is required from each subject prior to participation in the study. Notification of the study and how data will be reported are appropriate Dr. Ann Ellis is the faculty mentor who will oversee this study. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not "reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation" (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D). You may proceed with your study as written. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 78 A final copy of your application will remain on file with the IRB records. If you need further assistance or have any questions, call me at 801-626-8654 or e-mail me at nataliewilliams1@weber.edu Sincerely, Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, Education Subcommittee FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 79 Appendix E3 Jordan School District Approval Letter 7905 S. Redwood Road West Jordan, Utah 84088-4601 www.jordandistrict.org Evaluation, Research & Accountability Ben Jameson, M.Ed. Director 801-567-8243 Office 801-567-8017 Fax ben.jameson@jordandistrict.org Thursday, August 21, 2019 Trent Grable 2661 West Canterwood Drive South Jordan, UT 84095 Dear Trent Grable: Your request to conduct a research project in the Jordan School District concerning "Development of Small Group Projects Through Advanced Learner Evaluation and Synthesis of Utah Science and Engineering Standards" has been given district-level conditional approval by the District Research Review Committee according to the parameters of the study listed in your application. The condition under which your research project has been approved is as follows: • While parents have signed a permission slip to take the project class, they have not signed permission for students to participate in this research project. Please prepare a parent consent form requiring parents to sign permission for their student to participate in the research project. If needed, you may contact Ben Jameson for a sample parent consent form. Please send this parent consent form to Ben Jameson for approval prior to beginning the research. Although you have received Research Review Committee conditional approval, this decision does not obligate a school or its staff to participate if circumstances or events are such that the research would create problems or would be overly burdensome. You will now need to contact Shawn McLeod, Principal of South Jordan Middle, to obtain his approval to conduct your study. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 80 Please send a copy of your final findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the study to the Evaluation, Research & Accountability Department. Thank you for your interest in conducting research in Jordan School District. Sincerely, Ben Jameson, Member Research Review Committee FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 81 APPENDIX F Earth and Space Science Strand One FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 82 Earth and Space Science (ESS) Strand 1: Matter and Energy in Space The sun releases energy that eventually reaches Earth in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The Big Bang theory is supported by observations of distant galaxies receding from our own as well as other evidence. The study of stars’ light spectra and brightness is used to identify compositional elements of stars, their movements, and their distances from Earth. Other than the Hydrogen and Helium formed at the time of the Big Bang, nuclear fusion within stars produces all atomic nuclei lighter than and including iron, releasing electromagnetic energy. Heavier elements are produced when certain massive stars reach a supernova stage and explode. New technologies advance science knowledge including space exploration. • Standard 1.1—Develop a model based on evidence to illustrate the life span of the sun and the role of nuclear fusion releasing energy in the sun’s core. Emphasize energy transfer mechanisms that allow energy from nuclear fusion to reach Earth. Examples of evidence for the model could include observations of the masses and lifetimes of other stars, or non-cyclic variations over centuries. • Standard 1.2—Construct an explanation of the Big Bang theory based on astronomical evidence of electromagnetic radiation, motion of distant galaxies, and composition of matter in the universe. Emphasize redshift of electromagnetic radiation, cosmic microwave background radiation, and the observed composition and distribution of matter in the universe. • Standard 1.3—Develop a model to illustrate the changes in matter occurring in a star’s life cycle. Emphasize that the way different elements are created varies as a function of the mass of a star and the stage of its lifetime. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 83 • Standard 1.4—Design a solution to a space exploration challenge by breaking it down into smaller, more manageable problems that can be solved through the structure and function of a device. Define the problem, identify criteria and constraints, develop possible solutions using models, analyze data to make improvements from iteratively testing solutions, and optimize a solution. Examples of problems could include cosmic radiation exposure, transportation on other planets or moons, or supplying energy to space travelers. FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 84 APPENDIX G Student Proficiency Scale Template FIELD TESTING OF SCIENCE STANDARDS 85 Student Proficiency Scale Template Objective: Product: Standard: Crosscutting concepts Science and engineering practices 4- Advanced 3- Proficient 2- Basic 1- Beginning