DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPETENCY-BASED BIOLOGY UNIT by Matthew Harris Weber State University A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah November 20, 2018 Approved _______________________________________ Adam Johnston, Ph.D. _______________________________________ Vincent C. Bates, Ph.D. _______________________________________ Tyson Grover, M Ed. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Nature of the Problem: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 4 Literature Review: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 5 Purpose: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 16 Methods: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 18 Conclusion: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 21 References: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 22 Appendix A: • Committee Feedback: ------------------------------------------------------------- page 25 Appendix B: Curriculum • Philosophy of Design ------------------------------------------------------------- page 26 • Pacing Guide: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- page 29 • Stage 1: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 32 • Stage 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 35 • Stage 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 38 • Stage 4: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 41 • Stage 5: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 43 • Stage 6: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 45 COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 3 Abstract Education is rife with free educational resources that do not mirror the advancements made in recent years in pedagogy. The purpose of this project is to create an example of a unit that employs current pedagogical advancements and make it available for free on the web. The result was a unit that focuses on the use of competency-based learning, standards-based grading, and the new NGSS science standards. This project is intended to be a seed to start conversations about the implementation of various models that have positive effects on students. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 4 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM There are few curricular resources available to teachers in Utah that implement a methodology of high interest called “competency-based learning”, or “learning for mastery” (LFM). Most of the free curriculum found online is a series of time-filling activities, which does little to advance the understanding of students or their critical thinking skills. This is an area of concern for the students of Utah, who are expected to demonstrate upon graduation competency on subjects they studied in school. When new teachers enter the field and look for resources to help them enable students to reach that goal of mastery, they have few to no options, meaning they must create as best they can a curriculum that enables competency. I created a research-based curriculum project, making an open-source unit for biology that uses Standards Based Grading as a simple example of LFM to produce a cohesive series of lesson plans. These lesson plans can be used as an example of what a unit should look like: differentiated, linking the grading of project to a specific set of outcomes that the student is expected to master, and seeking for demonstration of proficiency in the real world. Having this type of open-source curriculum should increase the opportunity for new teachers to have access to a high-level curriculum. Such a curriculum should raise student scores, increase affective conditions, improve transfer of information, and aid long-term memory retention when compared to other resources available, whether they are open-source or not. Such a curriculum being open-source also enables new teachers to spend time on other important teacher responsibilities rather than merely planning new curriculum. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 5 Literature Review Modern educational practices tend to focus on relaying basic information and facts, and much less on critical thinking (Serder & Jakobsson, 2015). Critical thinking skills are essential for survival and success (Kamii, 1991), and so by focusing on facts and information, teachers miss opportunities to equip students with important cognitive and dispositional tools. Educational practices that do not incorporate critical thinking also will lead to misconceptions about how students can apply, in their everyday lives, the skills gained during a course of study (Milner-Bolotin, Kotlicki, & Rieger, 2007). Using educational practices that have little application to the lives of students will create a lack of interest and passion in students with regards to their own education (Newell, 2003). In addition, few educational practices are tailored to each student’s learning, treating students as if they each require the same pacing and the same educational techniques (Fang, 1996). In the late 1900’s Bloom proposed a methodology he called Learning for Mastery (LFM) (1968). LFM is a multi-branched idea, with very similar ideas going by names such as mastery-based learning or competency-based education, but no matter the variety or type, they all share the same purpose: to improve modern educational practices by tailoring education to each student. In general, all these concepts seek that students master a concept before they move on to the next concept, like building a house. Before a wall can be built, a foundation must be poured. A student should not move on to a new concept until they understand the one they are currently studying, and they should choose those concepts they most need to study. The student should choose to move forward with their education when they can demonstrate mastery of a concept, but not before (Bloom, 1968). Education should not be a factory which assumes learning can be installed onto students like tires on a car, or that all students learn at the same rate as if they were COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 6 cars on an assembly line, with facts and ideas needing to be tacked on to the students at the appropriate point in time. This idea of treating students like material to be manufactured places humanity on the same level as inert objects, incapable of growth, change, or even emotion. Humanity also deals with emotions, and those must be considered when examining an educational experience (Kulik et. al, 1990). The discussion in this paper will center on the following points: the decreasing variability hypothesis, the effect of LFM on affective conditions in a classroom, and whether LFM is more effective at increasing student learning than conventional methods of education. Decreasing Variability Hypothesis The goal of LFM is to reduce student variability in achievement, increase critical thinking, and improve the ability of students to transfer knowledge to other parts of their lives. One of the LFM’s central ideas is referred to as the “decreasing variability hypothesis” (Bloom, 1968). The decreasing variability hypothesis asserts that increasing variation in teaching will reduce variation in student achievement; students who are struggling are able to catch up to their more advanced peers, resulting in a more homogenous result to the educational experience by diversifying the experiences of the students according to their needs. This is achieved without slowing down the pace of learning for more advanced students, and by allowing each student to work on the areas that require the most work. Conversely, according to Bloom, decreasing variation in teaching will increase variation in student achievement leading to greater inequality of understanding and ability between high and low performers at the end of an educational process. However, a study by Livingston & Gentile (1996) has provided evidence that seems to run counter to the decreasing variability hypothesis. To test, three separate classrooms were set COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 7 up at the State University of New York in Buffalo. Each class had between 59 and 112 students, for a total of 376 students. Two of the classrooms were given a LFM based curriculum, and one classroom was given a traditional style of curriculum. The variation in achievement on exams was measured at the end of a college semester, and no statistically significant variation in achievement between the students in LFM-based classrooms and the students in traditional style classrooms was found. This evidence suggests that under certain conditions, the decreasing variability hypothesis is not valid. An earlier meta-study provided additional information to Livingston and Gentile’s 1996 experiment (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990). The information for this analysis was pulled from 107 studies on mastery-based practices that compared the summative effect of mastery-based education to the summative effect of conventional methods of education. All studies had to meet the following requirements: published research where the students were held to 70% mastery threshold or higher, research must meet peer-reviewed standards, and the data pool had to be large enough to calculate size of effect. The data showed evidence that students in mastery-based programs improved their achievement scores by .52 standard deviations. The average student in those classes performed up at the 70th percentile whereas students in conventional classrooms performed at the 50th percentile. Thirteen of their studies also included data on student ability but found no statistically significant data on closing the achievement gap between gifted students and non-gifted students (Kulik et. al, 1990). Despite the decreasing variability hypothesis not receiving any support from the data, the authors of the meta-study concluded that mastery learning had a positive overall effect on student’s examination scores and affective conditions. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 8 Affective Conditions Research on the decreasing variability hypothesis is not clear. Many of the studies show that the achievement gap between highly able students and students who appear to be less gifted does narrow when LFM is used; but, in no study was this difference statistically significant (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990). Likely this is due to some students who did poorly in traditional systems doing better under LFM conditions, but other students who performed well in the traditional system doing worse under LFM conditions. This would balance out any changes in the results (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990; Livingston & Gentile, 1996). The study by Livingston and Gentile (1996) still recommends using LFM for its effect on affective conditions within an educational environment, even if the decreasing variability hypothesis is invalid. It provided evidence that LFM has a positive impact on the following affective conditions: self-esteem, perseverance in achieving goals, preparation for future tasks, and most importantly the feeling that students had a level of choice with their education. Furthermore, in surveys administered after the study, many students reported feeling more in control of their learning and having higher levels of satisfaction with their learning experience, again due to their ability to choose (Livingston & Gentile, 1996). Improved affective conditions brought about by LFM systems is a significant factor in their effectiveness. Research conducted by Litchfield et. al. (2007) found there is evidence that LFM systems increase student achievement by addressing affective conditions in the classroom. The principle affective condition studied in Litchfield et. al. (2007) was the increase in student choice made possible by an LFM system. In a class of 27, students were given more control over their learning experience by allowing them to choose how they would accomplish 5 of their projects along with a learning contract to accomplish the tasks chosen. The study ran the length COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 9 of the semester. When compared with other semesters of the same course, the failure rate dropped from 24% to 3%, the project scores increased from 43% to 74%, and the withdrawal rate dropped from 33% to 23%. In student reviews conducted after the conclusion of the semester, over half the students were satisfied with the quality of education. The evidence in the study (Litchfield et. al, 2007) supported the concept that using techniques that required students to engage in the class, choose their way forward, and proceed upon demonstration of mastery improves student achievement. Effectiveness of LFM programs The results of research into LFM indicate that students at minimum achieve similar results from LFM in reaching academic goals when compared to conventional methods, and often exceed conventional methods in achievement scores (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990; Livingston & Gentile, 1996; Parsons, Mason, & Soldner, 2016). In a 1996 study there was evidence demonstrating LFM does at least as well as traditional methods in reaching academic goals (Livingston & Gentile, 1996). At the State University of New York in Buffalo, New York, 376 education students were put through an educational psychology course following the LFM methodology. Students were classified as quick learners or slow learners based on the number of attempts necessary to pass each exam. If a student received less than 80% on an exam, they were required to do remedial work and take the quiz again. After analyzing the results at the end of the semester, there were correlations of .365 to .390 between numbers of trials to successfully complete each exam, with the authors concluding that these correlations suggested that there is no evidence that learning rates change while using LFM methods, adding more evidence against the Learning Variability Hypothesis (Bloom, 1968). In spite of that evidence, the paper strongly suggested that the LFM system made the course of study highly effective, and one of the top-COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 10 rated courses in the university (Livingston & Gentile, 1996). A meta-study examining 104 studies provided evidence that LFM produced statistically significant educational gains in 97 of courses where it was used; the other 7 found nothing significant (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990). Yet another study provided evidence that in college courses, the differences between traditional and mastery-based courses when measured by completion rates were small, but significant (Parsons, Mason, & Soldner, 2016). Six institutions that offered LFM based courses were analyzed over the course of a year; completion rates ranged from 15% to 80% over the course of a year. This is two-to-ten percentage points higher than comparison groups. Two primary attributes of LFM were viewed as the most advantageous across most studies. When compared with traditionally-designed courses, LFM should demonstrate increased retention of information by the students and demonstrate improved capabilities by the students in transferring knowledge. At this point in time, LFM-style courses are fairly recent, and as such have little data available to parse (Parsons, Mason, & Soldner, 2016). Thus, it is still too early to be able to fully measure the effects of LFM, and whether LFM achieves the stated goals of retention and improved transfer. This is particularly true with regards to long-term application of knowledge gained from LFM programs. However, the amount of data is sufficient to provide direction for further studies, and some hints of the validity of the LFM method, but much more data is needed to be able to make any firm conclusions (Parsons et. al, 2016). LFM vs Opposing Methods: Issues and Concerns A major issue with the current discussion of various educational practices is that much of current educational measurement systems rely on methodologies that historically were considered useful in measuring the success of education practices, but in many modern situations are no longer considered of much use; these methods measure content knowledge, but not COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 11 necessarily the skills that are needed in the current world ecosystem (Roehl, 2015). LFM is an educational system that endeavors to address the challenge of teaching the various skills that are needed in a student’s life and simultaneously develop the type of assessments that can accurately measure student achievement with those newly learned skills (Parsons & Soldner, 2016). There are some researchers who argue that LFM is overly simplistic, and is simply an outdated methodology that has been given a makeover to make it appealing to modern trends in education (Betts and Smith 1998), and furthermore that it is impossible to truly measure the results of LFM. In contrast, the evidence in the studies reviewed in this paper seems to be pointing towards the idea that the use of mastery-based education yields a higher level of education due to gains in affective conditions and student interest and application (Livingston & Gentile, 1996). Improved affective conditions lead to improved outcomes for the student. This appears to be true even in situations where the initial academic outcomes are the same between traditional courses and LFM courses. Other studies have found that while mastery-based education is indeed a very effective system for learning, the time required for that learning is increased, and this can have a negative impact on graduation rates (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drown, 1990). A commonly stated advantage to LFM-style programs is that they enable students to only study what they don’t know, and thus graduate sooner. The problem here is that many students are finding there is much they don’t know, and so programs by necessity take longer (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drown, 1990). Additional Questions A summary of the research on LFM (Parsons and Solder, 2016) identified two principal areas that are most in need of further research. First, more data needs to be gathered to compare COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 12 LFM-style programs with the most common traditional programs, which are based around seat time. They specified that the most advantageous data sets to compare would be the completion rates of programs, the total cost for education, the post-graduation employment outcomes, and success at achieving the desired learning outcomes. Secondly, Parsons and Solder (2016) also stated that more research needs to be done into why the various LFM programs work; what components, tactics, and policies are enabling LFM programs to function as they do. Summary A sticking point for all these studies is that none of these data are supported by longitudinal studies. This is another major issue with LFM; the paucity of long-term data. LFM programs have not been implemented for long enough as of 2017 to give much data on effectiveness of the education style over the long term (Parsons & Soldner, 2016). That being stated, there is much we can take away from the research that has been done. All studies reviewed concur that there is little to no validity to the decreasing variability hypothesis (Bloom, 1968); students tend to keep their same rates of learning throughout the course of a unit of study (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990). LFM does consistently improve affective conditions in a classroom, leading to increased student motivation and work in classrooms where it is implemented (Milner-Bolotin, Kotlicki, & Rieger, 2007; Livingston & Gentile, 1996). Improved affective conditions in the classroom will also increase student transfer of knowledge after completing a course of study (Kamii, 1991). LFM also improves achievement on exams; students consistently score better on achievement tests if their units of study have been based off LFM methods (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990). While it has been a stated goal that LFM strives to improve critical thinking skills (Bloom, 1968), it appears to be about on par with traditional methods with regards COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 13 to increasing critical thinking (Parsons & Soldner, 2016). The fact that traditional and LFM methodologies both result in similar critical thinking skills may be an indicator that other strategies are needed to address that specific ability. While no evidence exists attesting LFM’s superiority to traditional methods at increasing critical thinking skills, LFM has consistently been shown in the extant literature to be equal or superior to conventional methods of education at improving the educational experience for students and increasing student achievement in areas where it has been implemented (Kamii, 1991). Standards Based Grading Standards-based Grading (SBG) was a concept first articulated in the writings of Marzano (2006). Its original form attempted to combine the use of educational standards with current grading practices in the classroom. As LFM has changed over the decades it naturally became mixed up with the concepts of SBG. Both concepts seek to establish mastery of concepts, and it got to the point it became difficult to separate the two concepts (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2017). There are important distinctions between the two ideas, even in their modern incarnation. They are similar in that the goal of SBG and LFM is the demonstration of mastery on a concept, but LFM lacks a cohesive way to indicate that a student has achieved mastery. SBG is natural progression from LFM, focusing on giving tools for measuring whether a student has achieved mastery of concept. It also has inbuilt the method of communicating mastery to all concerned parties. In SBG the students demonstrate proficiency on formative assessments of learning. Those assessments of learning are directly connected to educational standards; as the students improve their mastery of a standard, they can see their progress using SBG. SBG focuses on students being able to increase their mastery of the standard (Marzano, 2006). The grade that matters most in SBG is the most recent demonstration of proficiency on a COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 14 standard. What SBG adds to the conceptual framework of LFM is the ability to measure student progress towards the goal of mastery, allowing for the teacher to formatively assess students and adjust instruction to hasten mastery of said standard (Marzano, 2006) The two concepts play nicely together. Setting up a course so that a student only progresses once they have mastered a more fundamental concept is important, but it is crucial that the teacher has a measuring stick to know whether a student has mastered a concept. To set up an LFM class simply is to only let a student progress from a concept when they demonstrate they understand that concept. To set up an SBG class means every assessment is tied to a specific goal for the teacher. This enables the implementation of a full LFM-style class in a sensible manner (Marzano, 2006). Next Generation Science Standards An important component to SBG is the quality of the standards being used. SBG is a way to measure achievement of standards but it is not in and of itself a source of standards (Marzano, 2006). The Next Generation Science Standards are a heavily researched set of science standards that target education towards effective science education. The goal of the standards is to reflect how science is used in the real world (NGSS Lead States, 2013). It is self-evident that concepts that students seek to master should be important concepts. NGSS standards have established themselves as worthy standards by targeting three important areas of science education: science and engineering practices, cross-cutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Science and engineering practices seek to establish the skills of scientist or engineer. Cross-cutting concepts are conceptual frameworks that apply to all sciences. Disciplinary core ideas are the content specific knowledge that a student would need to operate in the field of study. These three dimensions of a standard are combined into what is known as a performance expectations (PE). COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 15 According to NGSS, “[This] is not as set of daily standards, but a set of expectations for what students should be able to do by the end of instruction.” (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The performance expectations are a perfect bridge between the similar concepts of LFM and SBG. Performance expectations seek to give students worthwhile standards that reflect the way science is practiced in the real world. Performance expectations also ask that students demonstrate mastery of those skills (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and simultaneously give to SBG a set of measurable, applicable standards. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 16 PURPOSE The goal of this curriculum project is to provide a high-quality, open source, and cohesive unit of study for Utah’s Biology standards that implements LFM principles. There is a current lack of open-source curriculum available to Utah biology teachers that is cohesive and uses best practices in both design and implementation. There is a significant challenge in finding many resources that are designed for Utah and implement LFM-style curriculum. I want to fill this hole in resources and help ensure that new teachers have access to effective resources, enabling them to be more effective teachers more quickly by freeing up time that would have been spent building curriculum. New teachers could then use that time on more pressing and immediate concerns that they will confront. Most resources I have found have been isolated lesson plans with often a vague goal, demonstrating principles of LFM but isolated and small in scope. As a new teacher, I was told repeatedly to not re-invent the wheel and to use another person’s curriculum, but the curriculum that I was able to find was outdated, unorganized, or did not adhere to best practices. One of the most glaring omissions was the lack of the practice of backwards design. As a result, I’ve been attempting to build a new curriculum that meets a minimum level of modernity, and I don’t want other new teachers to experience the same frustrations I experienced. I have provided a high quality, open-source, best practices curriculum that follows a logical sequence, is easy to follow, and is directly tied to the new NGSS standards that Utah’s standards will be based on. This curriculum implements techniques found in competency-based learning, namely that students will need to demonstrate mastery of the concept that they are working on before they can proceed to a new concept. Since NGSS standards are based upon the application of knowledge towards the explanation of phenomena, LFM-style curriculum can build on that by requiring COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 17 students to finish their explanation of phenomena before they can proceed to a new phenomenon. In addition, they will need to have the ability to have some influence over the scope, pace, and nature of the methods they use to explain the phenomena. My curriculum project is a demonstration of sample unit from a 10th grade Biology course. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 18 METHODS As stated previously, I built an example of an LFM-style unit, due to the improvements to educational outcomes (such as higher test scores, better transfer, etc.) that LFM can achieve when compared to traditional styles of education. This unit is based off the NGSS Life Science performance expectations as an example of how LFM can be applied to a base curriculum. While the curriculum incorporates many “best-teaching” practices, it principally focuses on the implementation of Standards-based Grading (SBG) as a bridge to LFM. To attempt to use all types of competency-based learning would be self-defeating, and SBG is already beginning to be implemented in Davis School District where I teach, presenting itself as a good starting point to eventually build out to an LFM-style curriculum. I started with the NGSS Life Science performance expectation “Inheritance and Variation of Traits” (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and broke it into a series of sub-standards with accompanying assessments to measure achievement of performance expectations. After the assessments were built, I designed a six-day unit that exemplifies SBG in achieving one of those sub-standards. Process The work was done in six stages, with the presentation of the completed project being the 8th and final stage. Stage one was to identify the sub-standards found in the NGSS Life Science performance expectation “Inheritance and Variation of Traits” (NGSS Lead States, 2013), and then select the sub-standard that was the focus of this project. Stage two was to develop a pacing guide for the six-day unit, placing assessments and remediation appropriately along with topics for each of the six days. The pacing guide needed to include differentiation to account for the LFM-style curriculum, with optional activities to further engage advanced students and simplifications for the less-advanced students. Stage three was the creation of the lesson plan template, including the following components: objectives, materials needed, resources, three COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 19 levels of differentiation (green circle, blue square, and black diamond), time breakdown, and associate assessment tool. Stage four was to incorporate the advice given during the proposal process with my committee into the lesson plans. This included the following important points: (1) inclusion of indicators for the teacher to know if students are progressing towards the objectives of the performance indicator, (2) beginning with the phenomenon and measuring only those cognitive skills that apply naturally to the investigation of the phenomenon, (3) inclusion of opportunities for students to revisit difficult topics in different ways than the initial attempt, (4) insuring that the student feedback was simple and essentially stated that the student comprehended the topic or not (for more detail, see Appendix A). Stage five was to complete the lesson plans. Stage 6 was to review the lesson plans with the chair of the committee and correct any issues. Stage 7 was a review of two of the lesson plans by a competent, non-educator to check for the clarity of the instructions. Philosophy of Curriculum To introduce teachers to the concepts that the unit is built on, I created a philosophy of design. The document is referenced in full in Appendix B, but a summary follows here to give an overview of the methodology of the process. Students will investigate a phenomenon; the inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. It is crucial that the students identify a specific phenomenon exhibiting the passing on of traits from one generation to another (Some examples that students might choose that would be appropriate phenomena would be a phenomenon such as freckles, hairlines, weight, etc.). To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 20 on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). As the students are investigating the inheritance of traits, they must be investigating a specific trait, or this unit will not work. The trait they are modeling must be a specific, visual phenomenon. Their investigation into their selected, specific phenomenon will be measured using the following Performance Expectation from the NGSS standards: 1. Make and defend a claim based on evidence that inheritable genetic variations may result from: (1) new genetic combinations through meiosis, (2) viable errors occurring during replication, and/or (3) mutations caused by environmental factors Every stage of the process of investigation into their phenomenon will have a specific indicator of student behavior that the teacher will be looking to see exhibited in the conversation, models, or writing of the students. These indicators function as a type of binary rubric for the teacher; if exhibited, the teacher should move on to the next stage, and if not exhibited, the teacher should use an alternate activity to encourage the student to exhibit the indicator. The end goal of the unit should be the production of various items from the student, with multiple opportunities for the teacher to measure achievement of the appropriate performance expectation. These items include a Socratic Seminar, the production of a model explaining their phenomenon, and brief presentation of their phenomenon and the explanation of the phenomena Differentiation of the unit is achieved through two methods. First is the creation of follow-up activities for when class indicators are not observed. This differentiation is to be applied on the class level. Second is the creation and use of playlists. Each playlist should be composed of both readings and videos and get progressively more in depth as you work your way down the playlist. At the end of the playlist should be a self-taken quiz for the student to COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 21 check for comprehension of the topic. The student can work as far as needed on each playlist and be directed toward the video or article that will help them the most. It is not expected of most students to complete the entirety of each playlist. This differentiation is to be applied on the individual level as needed. The primary skills being measured in this unit are: evidence-based discussion, model-creation, and research skills. The knowledge that should be gathered at the end of the unit should include accurate representations of specific genetic phenomenon. Verification of Daily Plans As a final step to check for readability of the individual lesson plans, an educated non-teacher was asked to read the daily plan for each stage, and orally describe a short vignette of how the non-teacher pictured the lesson would go. The non-teacher was asked to describe what the teacher should be doing, and what the students should be doing, in her oral vignette. Any inconsistencies or issues were noted and fixed in the lesson plans. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 22 CONCLUSION There are three main limitations of this project. These all revolve around the fact that this is a not a stand-alone unit, yet it is presented as if it were a stand-alone unit. This means that a lengthy explanation is required for the stages to make any sense. In addition, there are several outside resources mentioned, but not actually built. To make this project work, those outside resources would need to be finished and checked, then ran together with the actual lesson plans to check for flaws. Finally, this unit is nonsensical if every other unit in the year is not built on the same philosophical platform. The concepts of revisiting skills to reassess standards, coming at skills from other angles, and reviewing core items repeatedly are fundamental to the functioning of the unit. Some future work that could be done to resolve some of these limitations would be to build out templates for various functions. A necessary template would be for observing student work. Another would be to build out the templates for the students to fill out as they revise their work or other students work. Setting up both student- and teacher-facing rubrics, as well as a system to collect and dispense those rubrics and other needed student items would be necessary as well. Finally, building out a full year plan incorporating the fundamental philosophy of the course would open up the building of the rest of the units needed for the year. The most fundamental thing that should be done to fully test this project would be to put it into effect and teach it to a class. This would enable far more precise declarations as to what still could be improved or fixed in the curriculum. The difficulties in this project were significant. The most challenging part of this entire project was coming up with the “phenomenon” in phenomenon-based teaching that the students can investigate with the tools available to them and has some level of potential interest. It was difficult to set up a lesson plan that allows for teacher observation of skills in real-life situations COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 23 without resorting to more artificial measurements. It was very challenging to combine Competency-based Education with Standards-based Grading and NGSS Standards. Yet, it was worth the difficulties and challenges, because the combination enables both real science practices as well as the rehearsal of those most important skills in a way that encourages students to push themselves and try again when they have struggled, braiding together the best parts of each of framework. It resolves a number of educational issues that students face, such as obtaining an authentic science experience, stimulating interest, providing practice, enabling differentiation, and encouraging the best of a student’s efforts. I developed this curriculum with the full intention of learning how to fuse two different and sometimes contradictory styles to prepare myself to continue to help build future curriculum in a swiftly changing world. In particular, I want to continue developing curriculum in conjunction with fellow teachers to help build a meaningful, effective educational system that addresses the needs of our students. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 24 REFERENCES Betts, M., & Smith, R. (1998). Developing the credit-based modular curriculum in higher education. Bristol, Pennsylvania: Falmer Press. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Mastery learning. Evaluation comment, 1(2), 1–12. Fang, Z. (1996). A Review of research on teacher beliefs and practices Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65. doi: 10.1080/0013188960380104 Marzano, R. J., & Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2006). Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Milner-Bolotin, M., Kotlicki, A., & Rieger, G. (2007). Can students learn from lecture demonstrations? The role and place of interactive lecture experiments in large introductory science classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(4), 45–49. Kamii, C. (1991). Toward autonomy: The importance of critical thinking and choice making. School Psychology Review, 20(3), 382–388. King, J.A. & Evans, K.M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education? Educational Leadership, 49(2), 73–75. Kulik, C.C., Kulik. J.A., Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A Meta-Analysis Review of Educational Research. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299. Livingston, J., & Gentile, J. (1996). Mastery learning and the decreasing variability hypothesis. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(2), 67–74. Newell, R. J. (2003). Passion for learning: How project-based learning meets the needs of 21st century students. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 25 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Parsons, K., Mason, J., & Soldner, M. (2016). On the path to success: Early evidence about the efficacy of postsecondary competency-based education programs Washington, District of Colombia: American Institutes for Research. Roehl, T. (2015) What PISA measures: Some remarks on standardized assessment and science education Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(4), 1215–1222. doi: 10.1007/s11422-015-9662-z Serder, M. & Jakobsson, A. (2015). “Why bother so incredibly much?”: Student perspectives on PISA assignments. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 833–853. Doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9550-3 The Glossary of Education Reform (2017, November). Standards-based. Retrieved from https://www.edglossary.org/standards-based/ COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 26 APPENDIX A Committee Feedback I need to be careful that the fine-grain level feedback is geared toward the teacher and are based around visual indicators of student behavior. This could also include student input such as model creation, explanations, etc. The indicators should reflect student progress toward cross cutting principles and such as found in the performance indicator/s I need to come up with a 6-day investigation of a phenomenon, starting with the student’s generation of questions; this may begin with the student modeling an explanation for the behavior of the phenomenon first. After I come up with the phenomenon, I should then go in and figure out which performance expectations match the phenomenon and the product that the student will create at the end of the rubric. I need to make sure that there is a mechanism for the student to go back and re-work, redo, or revisit the same underlying concepts found in the project. This applies to all three fields. However, the skills that enabled the project will be measured multiple times during the year and so do not need to be re-visited. Feedback for the student needs to be built into a conversation model between the teacher and the student; a discussion of the principle to make a formative idea of what is going on. The actual student facing feedback should be very simple and say, essentially “You have produced evidence of this performance expectation” or “You have not yet demonstrated evidence”. The standards for the class are basically PE.s. SBG is built primarily around observations for the teacher plus a subset of recommended actions for the teacher based on those observations. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 27 APPENDIX B Philosophy of Design Students will investigate a phenomenon; the inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. It is crucial that the students identify a specific phenomenon exhibiting the passing on of traits from one generation to another (Some examples that students might choose that would be appropriate phenomena would be a phenomenon such as freckles, hairlines, weight, etc.). To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). While the students are investigating the inheritance of traits, they must be investigating a specific trait, or this unit will not work. Ensure that the trait they are following is a specific, visual phenomenon. This investigation into phenomenon will be measured with the following Performance Expectation: 1. Make and defend a claim based on evidence that inheritable genetic variations may result from: (1) new genetic combinations through meiosis, (2) viable errors occurring during replication, and/or (3) mutations caused by environmental factors a. S&E practice: Engaging in argument from evidence i. Indicator: Student Socratic seminar discussing various models ii. Indicator: Students assignments turning in models explaining how physical characteristics are passed on COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 28 iii. Indicator: Model change; teacher gives students three new concepts (meiosis, replication errors, and mutations). Students turn in revised models that account for the new concepts b. DCI: Variation of traits i. Indicator: In student Socratic Seminars, students are explaining their models for why traits vary. 1. Indicator: Coherent discussion of DNA and chromosomes 2. Indicator: Coherent discussion of genes and alleles 3. Indicator: Discussion of impacts of natural selection on traits that are still around ii. Indicator: In student’s model submissions, topics such as DNA, genes, and natural selection are given as part of reasoning c. CC: Cause and effect i. Indicator: Model change; teacher gives students three new concepts (meiosis, replication errors, and mutations). Students turn in revised models that account for the new concepts ii. Indicator: Students reasoning is based on solid evidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc style) Each stage of the project will have a behavior or indicator that the teacher will be trying to get their students to exhibit, pulled from my list above. These should not be communicated to the students, simply used as indicators if the teacher is fully teaching the topic to the level necessary. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 29 These indicators will function as a type of binary rubric. If the indicator is seen, then proceed forward to the next stage. If the indicator is not seen, then use a reinforcing activity to revisit the topic to help students comprehend the concept or demonstrate the skill. The students will produce a product at the end of the investigation of the phenomenon that has three components, detailed below. They will receive a simple pass/try again on the Performance Expectation: [Make and defend a claim based on evidence that inheritable genetic variations may result from: (1) new genetic combinations through meiosis, (2) viable errors occurring during replication, and/or (3) mutations caused by environmental factors]. A rubric will be used to determine the pass/try again quality of their overall ability. 1. A Socratic seminar discussion where they defend their model using evidence 2. A model they’ve built using evidence that explains the phenomenon 3. A brief overview of the particulars of the specific phenomenon they’ve researched (short essay discussing the phenomenon and looking at the assigned reading about the social implications of genetic engineering) 4. A class presentation for presenting skills (Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information) The teacher will also grade the work based on a teacher-facing rubric, using each of the indicators above. The rubrics should be filled out regularly and should inform the decisions of the teacher for the class discussions and activities. This should be a fine-grain level of feedback, and include the following: 1. Students use of cause and effect reasoning 2. Student use of engaging in argument from evidence COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 30 3. Students ability to explain variation in traits using the following terminology in a coherent fashion: genes, alleles, natural selection, mutation, meiosis, replication errors 4. Student level of curiosity and engagement in the phenomenon, measured by types of questions and feedback from student’s conversations with the teacher For each of the 4 rubric items for the teacher and the student, there should be multiple levels of achievement. Whenever students are not scoring at the highest level, the level beneath the highest level should have alternative ways of discussing and exploring the concepts to enable movement to the higher level on the rubric. This is the heart of the project, and where mastery-based learning comes in. In essence, the teacher shouldn’t move the class forward until an appreciable portion of the class (say 60%) has reached a minimum level of mastery (which is the level just before the highest level). Students who are more advanced should have alternate activities and research to engage in as the students who need an alternate way to express/learn to achieve the PE work on that aspect. Once a base level of mastery is reached, we move on to the next phenomenon, which should ideally share some of the same components of the PE as the one just barely mastered. Each PE cannot only be measured once. Each PE should have multiple phenomena linked to the PE, and be measured multiple times throughout the year, giving multiple opportunities for students to reach a Pass if they are struggling through investigation of various phenomena. The standards-based grading component enters in with the student’s rubric. The student’s rubric essentially is just made up of all the performance expectations for the year, with a simple pass/incomplete for each PE. Whenever a student outperforms a previous score on their PE, that COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 31 score gets updated. Each standard should have listed next to it all phenomena that are being investigated that year that gives the student a chance to demonstrate competency at a PE. As a secondary view, each student should have checkpoints that are given feedback from the teacher, but are not graded, as practice to prepare for meeting the requirements of a PE. Online playlists will be made of a couple readings, a couple videos, and an associated quiz. Each playlist will have the goal of teaching a specific part of the DCI. The most important reading and video should be bolded, and anything this is supplemental should be clearly marked as such. Each quiz needs a large amount of associated questions but done on a small scale. The pacing guide is to be followed loosely; if the indicators are not seen, then a revisit of the topic should be completed as needed. This unit should take less than 10 days to complete, but more than 6. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 32 Pacing Guide: 1. Investigation of family patterns that seem to be passed down from generation to generation using evidence-based research a. Indicator: Turning in first draft of rudimentary model i. Response: 1. If rudimentary model is not logical and evidence-based, create an activity that guides students through double-checking their logic and whether their assumptions are based on evidence 2. If rudimentary model is logical and evidence-based, move on to stage 3 b. Indicator: Reflection on modeling i. Response: 1. If reflection on modeling demonstrates a misunderstanding of why modeling is important, remedy with a demonstration of problem-solving using models versus not using models 2. If reflection on modeling demonstrates an understanding of the why modeling is important, move on to stage 3 c. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress 2. Introduction to implications of phenomenon a. Indicator: Students are conducting research in a thoughtful way i. Response: 1. An engagement activity that furthers interest and thought if students are not conducting research in a thoughtful way, plus an explicit overview of how to conduct research thoughtfully (teacher demonstration) 2. Moving on to stage 2 if research is being conducted in a thoughtful way b. Indicator: Reflection on conducting research i. Response: 1. Bringing in media center teacher to do a follow up on thoughtful, meaningful research if the reflection does not discuss thoughtfulness in a meaningful way 2. Moving on to stage 2 if it is thoughtful c. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress 3. Exploration of phenomenon in real life, additional research time a. Indicator: Turning in revised model i. Response: 1. If revised model does not function in explaining the new terms that were introduced, class discussion on the new terms and how they function 2. If revised model functions in explaining the new terms, move on to stage 4 b. Indicator: Reflection on scientific model COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 33 i. Response: 1. If reflection on scientific model does not demonstrate an understanding of the need for constant revision, class discussion of the history of a scientific theory and how it has changed over time 2. If reflection on scientific model does demonstrate an understanding of the revisionist imperative in science, proceed to stage 4 c. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress 4. Preparation for Socratic Seminar: a. Indicator: Mock discussion on paper following norms i. Response: 1. If mock discussion doesn’t follow norms, re-demonstrate and practice as class 2. If mock discussion follows norms, proceed to stage 5 b. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress 5. Socratic Seminar and accompanying write up: a. Indicator: Use of cause and effect reasoning in seminar i. Response: 1. If no cause and effect reasoning, do an explicit follow up of cause and effect reasoning through a little kid’s logic activity; student practice identifying the lack of cause and effect reasoning in videos of little kids explaining things 2. If cause and effect reasoning is seen, move to stage 6 b. Indicator: Use of cause and effect reasoning in seminar write-up i. Response: 1. If no cause and effect reasoning, implement same response as above 2. If cause and effect reasoning is seen, move to stage 6 c. Indicator: Engaging in argument from evidence i. Response: 1. If using evidence in the argument is not seen, do a reading activity where students identify the evidence used in an argument and then reflect on application for themselves 2. If using evidence in the argument is seen, move to stage 6 d. Indicator: Accurate use of terms that explain variation in traits i. DNA, chromosomes, genes, alleles, natural selection 1. Response: a. If some the following terms above are used incorrectly, spend some time in direct instruction going over the terms and answering questions b. If all the above terms are used correctly, move to level 6 e. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 34 6. Presentation of models a. Indicator: Engaging in argument from evidence i. Response: 1. As needed b. Indicator: Student understanding of why there is variation in traits i. Response: 1. As needed c. Indicator: Cause and effect reasoning i. Response: 1. As needed d. Differentiate here; further research questions can be investigated by advanced students, and some type of remediation opportunity opened here for struggling students. 7. Additional days as needed to master material COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 35 Stage 1: Phenomenon: Inheritance of Traits Students will investigate a specific phenomenon that they have selected. The phenomenon they have selected should involve a pattern of inheritance of traits from one generation to the next, such as freckles, the frequency of twins, height, etc. To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). Objectives: • Students will be able to explain/demonstrate their understanding of the basic mechanics behind the transmission of traits from one generation to another • Students will be able to give helpful feedback to another student. o Helpful feedback here is defined as feedback that improves the quality and accuracy of the models being critiqued. • Students will be able to accurately reflect on their thinking. o This will be done through a reflection on their modeling of a phenomenon Overview of Lesson Plan: • Students will investigate the phenomenon using evidence-backed research techniques • Students will build a first draft model of the mechanism they think explains what is happening • Students get feedback on their model from other students o Maybe I introduce the words to be considered in their model at the end of class? Materials needed: • A curated playlist on basic genetic topics o Set of sub-quizzes to measure comprehension • A student-facing rubric for investigation of the phenomenon o Engaging in Argument from Evidence o Evidence-based reasoning of Cause and Effect • Access to a genealogical database like 23 and me Differentiated Resources available: • Station with the teacher: Q and A session during Playlist time • Additional playlists set up o A playlist that goes over more basic concepts o A playlist that goes over the material in a different way • Reduced requirements o 1 sub-quiz that is most crucial o Focusing on Evidence-based reasoning, and on a later project focusing on Engaging in Argument from Evidence COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 36 Main activity: • 10-15 min. Students engage in identifying patterns: o Write on board or otherwise display the following question: “What traits are common in your family? What patterns do you notice with your family?”  Give students time to investigate the question. Have conversations with students about photos they have on their phone or other resources they have, guiding them towards recognizing patterns.  Be sensitive to the fact that some students are not biologically part of their family or have some type of difficulties with looking at family history. Suggest other families, human or otherwise, that they can examine. o Ask the students to do a think-write-share (meaning, they think for a minute, write for a minute, then share their thoughts with their table/partner) about the following question: “Why do these patterns exist?” • 20 min. Playlist time/Research time o Explain to the students that they will be attempting to explain using models and explanations why the patterns they have noticed exist. o Have the students set a goal: “What do you want to know about the pattern you have noticed by the end of the day?  The goal here is to have a very broad picture of a pattern that the student will investigate. The student will get far more specific during the next stage. • 20 min. Build a preliminary model o Ask the students to build a model that demonstrates how they think the phenomenon they are investigating is passed on from one generation to another. Art supplies are at the front of the room (clay, beads, paper, staples, paper clips, etc.) if they wish to make a physical model. o Remind them that they will be sharing their model with somebody else.  Hopefully, models are emerging that represent the movement of genes across generations. Look for models that could represent genes, gene movements, alleles, and chromosomes as generations go on. In student conversations, look for the ideas of gene mixing, dominance and recessiveness, etc.  Models such as Punnett squares or other diagrams and simulations are perfectly acceptable. Look for any kind of demonstration of cause and effect when it comes to traits being passed down from one generation to another. • 30 min. Critique a model o Ask the students the following questions. “What is the best compliment you’ve ever gotten? Why did you believe the person who gave you the compliment?” Have the students engage in think-write-share.  Objective here is to engage students in the process of getting useful advice, specifically advice that other people will believe is effective. Tie in “why did you believe the person who gave you the compliment” to their answer as you discuss with the class. They will be getting and giving feedback at the end of the day COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 37 o Assign the students into pairs. Have them meet with their assigned partner and fill out the “Cool feedback, hot advice” template *not created* for your partner  Template addresses the following: • Do you understand their explanation of how the trait is passed along? How could they explain it better? • What did they do that you like and can use in your own model? • 5 min. Reflection o Have the students answer the following questions: “What did I learn about modeling today? How can I make my model better?” o Students generally will want to write a couple quick sentences and stop. Encourage them to use the time fully to think carefully and write fully. Differentiation: • Black diamond: Investigate a polygenic, dominant trait • Blue square: Investigate a mildly polygenic, recessive trait • Green circle: Investigate a recessive trait Checkpoint: • Students will turn a photo of their model; students will get feedback from the teacher and their co-student on the model with the form and a simple indicator of model effectiveness • Students will turn in their reflection Indicators of student understanding: Examples are intended to demonstrate a possible scenario; student answers likely will differ dramatically from examples given. a. Indicator: Turning in first draft of rudimentary model that is logical and evidence based. For example: Student has selected to model the phenomenon of freckle occurrence in her family. She has noticed that her brothers are very freckled, whereas herself and her mother are not. She has turned in a hand-drawn model illustrating how the trait was passed along. Her model shows the trait being on an X chromosome, leading to her inheritance of the trait and not her brothers. This would be an incorrect model, but a logical first attempt and based on evidence she has found about sex-linked traits. The teacher would point her towards resources that would help correct her misconception, but the skill of demonstrating logic and the ability to base suppositions on evidence were visible. i. Response: 1. If rudimentary model is not logical and evidence-based, create an activity that guides students through double-checking their logic and whether their assumptions are based on evidence 2. If rudimentary model is logical and evidence-based, move on to stage 3 COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 38 b. Indicator: Reflection on modeling indicating an understanding of the importance of modeling in exploration of phenomenon. For example: Student has reflected on the process of modeling and mentions phrases like “it was clearer after I made the model that…” or “I realized after making my model that it wouldn’t work, because…”. ii. Response: 1. If reflection on modeling demonstrates a misunderstanding of why modeling is important, remedy with a demonstration of problem-solving using models versus not using models 2. If reflection on modeling demonstrates an understanding of the why modeling is important, move on to stage 3 c. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress towards competency on the performance expectation. For example: Through listening in on student conversations, having conversations, and working with students on their models, the teacher is fairly confident they understand the basics of evidence-based research and model-making as sense-making. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 39 Stage 2: Phenomenon: Inheritance of Traits • Students will investigate a specific phenomenon that they have selected. The phenomenon they have selected should involve a pattern of inheritance of traits from one generation to the next, such as freckles, the frequency of twins, height, etc. To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). Objectives: • Students will be able to generate questions on the phenomenon of inheritance of traits • Students will be able to share what they have learned about the process of research in written format Overview of Lesson Plan: • Introduction to the phenomenon through a question generating process • Overview of rubric (teacher expectations) • Begin research through playlists • End class with a question-list o What do I need to know in order to continue to investigate? o Who can I talk to that can help me find the information I need? Materials needed: • A curated playlist on basic genetic topics o Set of sub-quizzes to measure comprehension • A student-facing rubric for investigation of the phenomenon o Engaging in Argument from Evidence o Evidence-based reasoning of Cause and Effect Differentiated Resources available: • Additional playlists set up o A playlist that goes over more basic concepts o A playlist that goes over the material in a different way • Reduced requirements o 1 sub-quiz that is most crucial o Focusing on Evidence-based reasoning, and on a later project focusing on Engaging in Argument from Evidence Main activity: • 5-10 min. Asking Questions and Defining Problems: COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 40 o Teacher introduces an ethical dilemma or ethical problem from the list below. Teacher then has the students go through a think-write-share. Teacher then discusses with the class the importance of understanding how the patterns that students have been noticing in their families function, and their ability to enable a thoughtful conversation on difficult problems.  Gene editing in humans: is it acceptable to save a life? What about increase athletic ability?  Gene editing in babies: is it now acceptable to heal an illness? At what point is being not a very good athlete considered an illness? • 20 min. Overview of project: o Teacher will explain again that the students will be investigating a specific instance of a trait being passed down in their family, or if need be a trait being passed down in a famous person’s family, or in dogs, or in some other type of animal they are curious about. Give an example of a phenomenon that you yourself would want to investigate as an example to the students (a.k.a. skin tone, eye color, length of big toe compared to other toes, etc.) o To help the students generate a phenomenon, have them go through a question-generation process, such as the one below.  Instruct students that in order to really be sure they are choosing a phenomenon that they are interested in researching, it is important to come up with multiple good ideas to choose between. Coming up with good creative ideas is hard, because your brain tends to shoot them down as “not very good” extremely quickly.  In order to come up with 10 good ideas, this is the process I use. I come up with 10 bad ideas, plus any okay ideas that are generated along the way. It tends to be easy to come up with bad ideas. I then take those 10 bad ideas and figure out how I can turn those bad ideas into good ideas. It would be a bad idea to research the phenomenon of my adopted family’s tendency to be tall as it relates to my tendency to be tall, but it might be a good idea to research the impact of environment on height since I myself am not tall. Was that genetic or environmental?  Continue generating bad ideas and turning them into good ideas until 10 good ideas are generated, then choose your favorite good idea. • 10 min. Student planning: o Make sure to tell students that they will be presenting their phenomenon and their model to the class at the end of this unit.  A model means a visual representation of how the student thinks the phenomenon works. The model can be a diagram, a program, a physical model, or anything else the student thinks. o Students will answer the following questions in written form, and input their selected dates into their calendars, whether electronic or physical.  How will you investigate this phenomenon in the time you have been allotted?  When will you have completed the playlist?  What main question are you investigating? COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 41  Break down the main question into at least 4 sub questions. When will you have each one answered based on evidence?  When will you have your first draft of your theoretical model done?  When will you ask yourself the following questions? • Can I defend my claims using evidence? How? • What are the effects of my claims? • Does my model explain everything about my phenomenon? • 20 min. Research time: o Begin the research time that students have to begin investigating their individually selected phenomenon with a brief think-write-share on the following anonymous quote from a woodcutter. Be sure that they understand they are trying to discuss how the quote relates to research.  “A woodsman was once asked, ‘What would you do if you had just five minutes to chop down a tree?’ He answered, ‘I would spend the first two and a half minutes sharpening my axe.” o After their brief discussion, have the students share the phenomenon they have chosen to investigate o Have the students use the rest of the time to read and research. Direct them to the playlists on trait inheritance and DNA *playlists not created yet* as a good place to start.  Make sure to encourage students to write up what they learn and where they learned it, so they don’t have to do the research twice • 20 min. Secondary Model creation: o Have the students create another model, using the same supplies as before. Their model should be more specific to their phenomenon that they will be researching • 5 min. Reflection o Have the students answer the following questions: “What did I learn about research today? How can I improve my research next time?”  Students generally will want to write a couple quick sentences and stop. Encourage them to use the time fully to think carefully and write fully. Differentiation: • Black diamond: Investigate a polygenic, dominant trait • Blue square: Investigate a mildly polygenic, recessive trait • Green circle: Investigate a recessive trait Checkpoint: • Turn in plan of completing the project • Turn in reflection COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 42 Indicators of student understanding: Examples are intended to demonstrate a possible scenario; student answers likely will differ dramatically from examples given. b. Indicator: Students are conducting research in a thoughtful way as measured by teacher observations. This would include the generation of thoughtful questions. For example: The student has selected receding hairlines being common in his family as a phenomenon to be investigated. Along with his notes from his research into how baldness is inherited, he has noted down a couple of questions he has generated. In conversation with the student, the student asks “If my grandpa is bald, and my uncle is bald, does that mean I’m going to be bald? i. Response: 1. An engagement activity that furthers interest and thought if students are not conducting research in a thoughtful way, plus an explicit overview of how to conduct research thoughtfully (teacher demonstration) 2. Moving on to stage 2 if research is being conducted in a thoughtful way c. Indicator: Reflection on conducting research. Students indicate in their writing a thoughtful understanding of the process of good research. They outline a specific process that they plan to undertake. For example: The student has noticed that the teacher asked students to read extensively before formally writing their thoughts down. The student writes in their reflection the following: “I think the teacher wants me to read more. Next time I do research, I’m going to read for a minimum of 20 minutes and take notes before I start writing my formal review of what I have learned.” i. Response: 1. Bringing in media center teacher to do a follow up on thoughtful, meaningful research if the reflection does not discuss thoughtfulness in a meaningful way 2. Moving on to stage 2 if it is thoughtful COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 43 Stage 3: Phenomenon: Inheritance of Traits Students will investigate a common phenomenon; the inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). Objectives: • Students will be able to explain the importance of revision to science • Students will practice revising what they already have constructed • Students will practice their metacognitive skills by reflecting on their learning o A reflection at the end of class Overview of Lesson Plan: • A proofing and revising of their model using new key words • Time for real-life investigation such as calling relatives, looking up databases, etc. • Time to revise and review their current model. • Turn in their model for reflection from the teacher Materials needed: • Access to a genealogical website (family search, 23 and me) • Access to an encyclopedia of genetics of the teacher’s preference o The resource needs to explain the key words: • Meiosis • Mutations • A model revision guide o Knowing what you know about the creation of your trait, how can you modify your model to reflect that? Consider the following terms while pondering on modifying your model. Differentiated Resources available: • Time during research for 1 on 1 help from teacher • Modified requirements for what is expected o Research different aspects of the trait Main activity: • 5-10 min. Developing and Using Models: COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 44 o Ask class for their opinion on the difference between the nature of science versus religion or business. Let them discuss.  Make sure to include observations that enable the conversation to be productive. The goal here is that the objective of each method is to look at the world in a different way.  Also make sure that the conversation includes a conversation about the flexibility of science with how it regards its own models; specifically, that those models are often be wrong. Discuss the need for constant improvement in science  Finalize the conversation by tying it in to their own model of the action behind their phenomenon. No models will ever be completely right, but we can constantly improve them. • 30 min. Model revision: o 10 min. Introduce two new terms to the students that they should research and then incorporate into their model. Use the following prompt:  What caused the trait you are investigating to occur in the first place? Please use the following two terms in your explanation. • Meiosis • Mutations o 10 min. Give each student teacher feedback in addition to the peer feedback they got last time. Have the student use the feedback from the teacher and their peer to revise their model. They will also need to incorporate the new terms they have learned about. o 10 min. Have the student write out an explanation of their model. • The usual tactic of students is to try and explain their model in as few words as possible. Discuss with students that they should not write for understanding, but to write so thoroughly that the reader of their writing cannot possibly misunderstand their point. • 20 min. Rebuild of model: o Rebuild your model from scratch; use new materials, a new document, a new paper, etc. • 15 min Research time: o Give the students extra time to research. As the teacher notices students who need additional support, pull those with similar needs aside to give a mini-workshop on anything they might need help on. o Also look for those who need some additional challenges. Pull them aside as needed. • 5 min. Reflection: o Have the students answer the following questions: “What did I learn about the scientific method today?” o Students generally will want to write a couple quick sentences and stop. Encourage them to use the time fully to think carefully and write fully. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 45 Differentiation: • Black diamond: Investigate a polygenic, dominant trait • Blue square: Investigate a mildly polygenic, recessive trait • Green circle: Investigate a recessive trait Checkpoint: • Students will turn in their revised explanation of their model. • Students will turn in their reflection Indicators of student understanding: Examples are intended to demonstrate a possible scenario; student answers likely will differ dramatically from examples given. a. Indicator: Turning in revised model that demonstrates student ability to incorporate changes into their model. For example: Student has turned in new model that fully incorporates new terms that the teacher has introduced; this would mean that the model can explain the new ideas of meiosis and mutations. Their “model revision” sheet would be fully filled out as evidence of their thought process. ii. Response: 1. If revised model does not function in explaining the new terms that were introduced, class discussion on the new terms and how they function 2. If revised model functions in explaining the new terms, move on to stage 4 b. Indicator: Reflection on scientific model and the need for constant revision in science. For example: Student writes “In science, the stuff I generally get wrong is okay, because everyone gets things wrong. I wonder what other things in science are also somewhat wrong.” iii. Response: 1. If reflection on scientific model does not demonstrate an understanding of the need for constant revision, class discussion of the history of a scientific theory and how it has changed over time 2. If reflection on scientific model does demonstrate an understanding of the revisionist imperative in science, proceed to stage 4 c. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress towards competency on the performance expectation COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 46 Stage 4: Phenomenon: Inheritance of Traits Students will investigate a common phenomenon; the inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). Objectives: • Students will be able to self-conduct a rational, reasoned, evidence-based discussion on the pros and cons of a situation Overview of Lesson Plan: • Prepare for Socratic seminar: mock discussions, model refinement, etc. • Q&A session • Peer feedback on models Materials needed: • Socratic Seminar questions • Socratic Seminar overview videos • Socratic Seminar doc (trial run-through with a fictional person on paper that you write your responses to as if they were really challenging some of your ideas) Differentiated Resources available: • Modified preparation document for the seminar that has more scaffolding on it. Main activity (with time breakdowns): • 5-10 min. Engaging in Argument from Evidence: Introduction to Socratic Seminars: whole-class discussion o Explain what a Socratic Seminar is to the students. A Socratic Seminar is simply a discussion of an issue that mandates the use of evidence. Students will bring their notes to the Socratic Seminar on their understanding of the phenomenon they are researching, the teacher asked a question, and then the students discuss. The teacher attempts to stay out of the conversation as much as possible, beyond enforcing the norms.  Socratic Seminar norms: • Statements must be polite, even if one student is disagreeing with another. • The basis of your conversation is on evidence. If a student states an opinion, they should be attempting to use evidence to back that opinion up. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 47 o Refer to the text often o Discuss the ideas of the text • No hand raising. This is a conversation. • Everyone must speak. • Show respect to other comments by building on what they say and asking questions • Involve others in discussion • Don’t interrupt • Actively participate • Use active listening skills • Take notes of things you want to say o Socratic Seminar will focus on social implications of genetic conditions. Students will prepare for this specific Socratic Seminar by compiling all their notes and by reading a short article *not available* on genetic engineering and CRISPR. After they read the article, they will do a short summary of the article. o The question to start the Socratic Seminar should be something along the lines of the conversation on Stage 1, which was when they answered the question “Should gene editing technology like CRISPR be used on humans?” • 8 min. Socratic Seminars: o Watch a brief overview video of how Socratic Seminars work *not available*. • 10 min. Understanding the Student’s Position: o Have students complete a mock discussion on paper on the worksheet “So What Do You Think?” *not available*.  The worksheet simulates a “Choose Your Own Adventure”, but in discussion format. The students will answer questions on the paper as if they were talking to a real person. • The questions will include items like “What is your position?” and “What evidence do you have that backs up your point?” • 30 min. Trial Socratic Seminar: o A trial run-through as a class on random topic that they might already be passionate about such as:  Food  Sports  School  Etc. • 20 min. Prepare: o Give the students work time to read the article, do a short write up, and refine their model as needed. Wander the room and look for students who need additional support in defending their position with evidence. • 5 min. Reflection: o Have the students answer the following question: “What did I learn about participating in Socratic Seminars today?” o Students generally will want to write a couple quick sentences and stop. Encourage them to use the time fully to think carefully and write fully. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 48 Differentiation: • Black diamond: Investigate a polygenic, dominant trait • Blue square: Investigate a mildly polygenic, recessive trait • Green circle: Investigate a recessive trait Checkpoint: • Students will submit their notes they took on their partner during the Socratic Seminar • Students will turn in their reflection Indicators of student understanding: Examples are intended to demonstrate a possible scenario; student answers likely will differ dramatically from examples given. a. Indicator: Mock discussion on paper following the norms of Socratic Seminars i. Response: 1. If mock discussion doesn’t follow norms, re-demonstrate and practice as class ii. If mock discussion follows norms, proceed to stage 5 b. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress towards competency on the performance expectation COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 49 Stage 5: Phenomenon: Inheritance of Traits Students will investigate a common phenomenon; the inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). Objectives: • Students will be able to discuss their models of how traits are passed down from one generation to another in a reasoned, rational, evidence-based manner. • Students will practice their metacognition by reviewing what they learned after the discussion. Overview of Lesson Plan: • Socratic Seminar discussion and cooldown Materials needed: • Two rings of chairs, one around the other • The norms written on the board Differentiated Resources available: • Having a list of appropriate interventions and helps for each student that may need it o In particular, be prepared with what you are planning on doing with shy students and students who did not prepare sufficiently. Both are common, and it helps to have a plan in place in accordance with your classroom expectations. Main activity (with time breakdowns): • 5 min. Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information: o Reminder of norms for Socratic Seminars:  Show respect to other comments by building on what they say and asking questions  Involve others in discussion  Don’t interrupt  Actively participate  Use active listening skills  Refer to the text often  Discuss the ideas of the text  Take notes of things you want to say • 10 min. Preparation time o During this time, be gathering the students in a circle and preparing your questions for the group. • 55 min. Socratic Seminar • 10 min Reflection: Socratic Seminar Write-up COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 50 o Have the students answer the following question: “What did I today? What did I learn in creating my model that helped me in forming my opinions? Did I change my mind about anything?” o Students generally will want to write a couple quick sentences and stop. Encourage them to use the time fully to think carefully and write fully. • Remainder of time: Model check o Give this time to the students to prepare for their presentation. Invite them to come and discuss their model with the teacher to check for inaccuracies or problems. Differentiation: • Black diamond: Investigate a polygenic, dominant trait • Blue square: Investigate a mildly polygenic, recessive trait • Green circle: Investigate a recessive trait Checkpoint: • Students will turn in their reflection Indicators of student understanding: Examples are intended to demonstrate a possible scenario; student answers likely will differ dramatically from examples given. a. Indicator: Use of cause and effect reasoning in seminar. For example: A student comments to another student “I believe that we have to be careful using technology like CRISPR because if we change the effect of one gene, it could easily impact the effects of another gene.” iv. Response: 1. If no cause and effect reasoning, do an explicit follow up of cause and effect reasoning through a little kid’s logic activity; student practice identifying the lack of cause and effect reasoning in videos of little kids explaining things 2. If cause and effect reasoning is seen, move to stage 6 b. Indicator: Use of cause and effect reasoning in seminar write-up A student writes something along the lines of “when I saw that my model did not explain how freckles sometimes skipped some children, I realized I had to change.” v. Response: 1. If no cause and effect reasoning, implement same response as above 2. If cause and effect reasoning is seen, move to stage 6 c. Indicator: Engaging in argument from evidence COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 51 vi. Response: 1. If using evidence in the argument is not seen, do a reading activity where students identify the evidence used in an argument and then reflect on application for themselves 2. If using evidence in the argument is seen, move to stage 6 d. Indicator: Accurate use of terms that explain variation in traits such as DNA, chromosomes, genes, alleles, and natural selection 3. Response: a. If some the following terms above are used incorrectly, spend some time in direct instruction going over the terms and answering questions b. If all the above terms are used correctly, move to level 6 e. Indicator: Teacher perception of progress towards competency on the performance expectation COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 52 Stage 6: Phenomenon: Inheritance of Traits Students will investigate a common phenomenon; the inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. To personalize this phenomenon, students will be encouraged to investigate this phenomenon in the context of their own lives and bodies. If family history information is not easily available, alternative options will be given (researching famous peoples’ heritage, researching the passing on of certain genetic conditions such as anemia or hemophilia, etc.). Objectives: • Students will be able to practice presenting their understanding of how traits are passed down from one generation to another in a clear, understandable manner • Students will be able to discuss complex issues in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc manner • Students will demonstrate understanding of important terms in genetics by using them appropriately in their presentation. o Some important words that need to be watched for are DNA, genes, alleles, and natural selection. • Students will practice their metacognitive skills by reflecting on their process in exploring phenomena Overview of Lesson Plan: • Final model turn-in • Identification of gaps in the research Materials needed: • A way to turn in the final model online • Indicators for teacher remediation • Student rubrics ready Differentiated Resources available: • A separate time and place set up for presenting in front of a smaller group • Video presentations • Extended turn in date Main activity: • 60-90 min. Obtaining, Evaluation, and Communicating Information: Model presentation o Students will present their phenomenon and their models in two groups, with the teacher sitting in the middle. Students are expected to explain how their selected trait is passed down from one generation to another and demonstrate how their models help explain the phenomenon.  The teacher is not at this point looking for inaccuracies, but rather on the ability of the student to use cause and effect reasoning as well as engaging COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 53 in argument from evidence. It is recommended to have a camera recording both presentations in case the teacher misses a point, there is a way to go back and check for it.  When the models are turned in, that is when the teacher should double-check that the student understands how variation in traits occurred. • Teacher looks for coherent use of words such as DNA, genes, alleles, and natural selection in the explanation of the phenomenon as well. • 10 min. Reflection with partner: o Have the student discuss with a partner what they have learned about the process of exploring phenomena. Have them answer the following questions:  How can you do better next time? What did you do well this time? How did creating a model influence your sense-making of the phenomenon? o After the students have discussed, have them write a reflection of the unit and turn that in. Differentiation: • Black diamond: Investigate a polygenic, dominant trait • Blue square: Investigate a mildly polygenic, recessive trait • Green circle: Investigate a recessive trait Checkpoint: • Students will turn in their final draft of their model • Students will turn in their reflection Indicators of student understanding: Examples are intended to demonstrate a possible scenario; student answers likely will differ dramatically from examples given. 8. Presentation of models a. Indicator: Engaging in argument from evidence i. Response: 1. As needed b. Indicator: Student understanding of why there is variation in traits i. Response: 1. As needed c. Indicator: Cause and effect reasoning i. Response: 1. As needed COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 54 d. Differentiate here; further research questions can be investigated by advanced students, and some type of remediation opportunity opened here for struggling students. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 55 Appendix C October 18, 2018 Dear Matthew Harris, I have reviewed the Purpose and Methods section of your project entitled “Competency-Based Education" and based on the content, no IRB review is necessary. You may proceed with your project at this time. Dr. Adam Johnston is the chair of the committee and will oversee this project. 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. 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 626-8654 or e-mail me at nataliewilliams1@weber.edu Sincerely, Natalie A. Williams Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, Education Subcommittee