Security Breach: Testing and Cell Phones

Summative Assessments are an essential part of education.  Standardized testing is the wave of the future.  Testing is not going away.

Cell phones are another thing not going away.  Most students I teach have smartphones.  In an unofficial survey of my class more than 68% of the students had a smart phone.  Students are tied to their phones for social reasons and parents are adamant about maintaining constant contact with their students (not to mention protecting their students' expensive cell phone).

There is a great deal of turbulence where testing and cell phone use overlap.  In a recent staff meeting one of the APs showed us a screenshot of last year's STAR Results.  Under the heading, in bright red letters reads the following:

A security breach involving social media exposure of 2013 STAR test material has been confirmed at this school site. This school is not eligible for state or federal award recognition during the 2013–14 school year.

Apparently a student took a selfie with the cover of the STAR booklet.  It may seem petty, but under no circumstances is any part of the test allowed to be reproduced; the integrity of the test depends on it.

Now the school is trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening again.  One of the big hurdles will be establishing and enforcing rules that run contrary to school culture.  Teachers seldom have established procedures for preventing students from using cell phones during quizzes and exams.  Most of the time it's a verbal warning: "Don't use your cell phone during the exam."  Students and parents push back when cell phone use is infringed.

The ideas for preventing a "security breach" ranged from a school-wide ban on cell phones to buying a cell phone pouch grid that can be mounted to the wall.  I don't know what the official position of the school will end up being, but the whole topic highlighted the benefit of matching my classroom cell phone policy with that of standardized testing.

Folks get riled up when expectations are tightened unexpectedly.  Setting expectations from the beginning of the school year seems to be the best way to prevent a tornado of angry emails.  Once the standard is established students and parents will feel more at-ease when it comes to standardized testing time.

In Mr. Davis' Science Classroom, cell phones will be welcome tools for research and analysis, but unwelcome for classic quizzes and exams in accordance with standardized test rules.

Next Generation Science Standards: Hart District Teacher Symposium

While the students started their 4-day weekend, the teachers of the Hart District were at a buy-back day.  The theme of the Hart District Teacher Symposium was Common Core and, for science teachers, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

Dean Gilbert, Science Director for the Orange County Department of Education, ran the first session.  He spent a fair amount of time talking about the history of NGSS and its implementation.  I have heard some of what he talked about; we've been introduced to a lot of the NGSS theory in my credential classes.

The New

 Here a few of the things I learned:

1. NGSS is a system of delivering science for all students.  NGSS does not address those students headed for a STEM careers (doctors, scientists, nursing, etc.)  Students pursuing those careers will still take honors and AP classes.
2. Implementing NGSS will cost the state 3 times what it's costing to implement Common Core.
3. There is a debate about how junior high teachers will implement NGSS.  Gilbert is leaning on teachers to adopt an integrated approach where teachers will deliver physical, earth, and life sciences in an integrated class.  Due to some backlash from teachers, the option to continue teaching the differentiated fields is on the table.  The decision will be voted on by current science teachers.
4. What we have been calling "standards" (.pdf) will be replaced by "performance expectations."
5. A body of experts are being gathered as I type to create the framework on which the curriculum will be based.  Should nothing go wrong, it will take at least 12 months to establish the science framework.  Add another 17 months for materials preparation, and we're looking at the earliest possible date for NGSS implementation is fall 2017.  

The Exciting

From Gilbert's talk, here are the things I'm really looking forward to:

1. Anything not deemed important for all students to know about science will be removed from the curriculum.  No memorizing the details of the Kreb's Cycle anymore.  The voting public doesn't need to know this information to make informed decisions about science or environmental policy. The Kreb's Cycle will still be studied in honors and AP biology courses, so it won't totally be eliminated.  But, again, this course of study will be for those students pursuing STEM careers.
2. By eliminating superfluous material in our courses, we can spend more time on inquiry, problem solving, and scientific literacy.  This is exciting.  Normal folks don't care much about the "mighty mitochondria," but most people have stuff they're curious about.  Helping students figure out how to do research, solve real-world problems, and communicate effectively is why I'm in the game. All this involves time, and it appears that by eliminating overly technical stuff, we've got some time back.
3. The NGSS seems pretty student-oriented.  The needs of the 21st Century student came up a lot, and I think that NGSS should meet them nicely.
4. Data and reflection are major drivers of NGSS.  One of the major problems with the current standards is that you've got to cover them all in a limited time frame; covering the standards trumps mastery of the standards.  And, anything you do to meet the standards is just fine.  This has led to a culture of "set it and forget it": teachers prepare lessons once and then they're on cruise-control until retirement. NGSS finally allows teachers the time to act on information gathered by good assessments.  When students display that they misunderstand a concept, the lesson for the next day can address it. Sadly, this type of teaching is rare, and I expect that this will be a point of contention for the old guard.
5. Backwards planning is a major part of NGSS.  This is huge in the credential program, but is not done a lot in classrooms I have observed.  We do stuff because it's always been done that way.  

The Concerns

Here's what makes me hesitant about NGSS:

1. Computer-based Testing - Gilbert was really excited about computer based testing.  Apparently Smarter Balanced didn't get the contract, and NGSS is looking at other options.  He mentioned that the California Department of Education would like to have lab simulations where students could virtually pour liquids into beakers.  I'm all about computer-based testing, but students who have not used computers regularly will be at a major disadvantage.  Students need to practice and be familiar with the technology to get the best results. Current computer labs are slow.  iPads and netbooks are expensive.  One major part of NGSS is equity, and I hope that lack of resources doesn't hinder scores on the computerized exams.
2. Professional Development - There is concern about how to get teachers out of the old way of thinking and into the new.  Gilbert mentioned training programs and certifications, but these cost money and I don't see the public being that eager to foot the bill.
3. Credentialing - There is a major emphasis on integration across fields of science.  Physical, earth, and life science are all interrelated, and the NGSS standards wants them integrated.  How they're integrated is a point of contention.  This will eventually change the credentials required of teachers.  No one has answers to these questions yet.
4. NGSS and College Requirements - The subject of how high school science courses meet the requirements of colleges is squishy.  In my conversations with those who have dealings with curriculum development, the answers are not yet there.

But, when it's all said and done, I learned quite a bit today.  I have a better grasp of the near future and the goals of NGSS, and I'm optimistic about implementation.  There are unknowns and I'm okay with that.

Here, we're making Oobleck, a non-Newtonian fluid, to simulate an inquiry-based, NGSS-compliant task.

Academic Purgatory: Day 3

Today is the last day of The Perfect Storm of quizzes and exams.  Here's the day's encouraging note.

Encouragement from the Deep Sea

Well, Day Two of Examination Purgatory is upon us.  Here's the note of encouragement I added to the board today.

The Most Dangerous Phrase

The most dangerous phrase a person can say is, "We've always done it that way."

Today the students will sit down to an exam that has been given to students since the 90's.  The review worksheet is a copy of a copy of a copy and only mostly legible.  The multiple choice part of the exam has been literally cut and pasted together before being sent to the copy center.

I have been rather surprised at the lack of reflection from a lot of seasoned teachers.  When students do poorly on an assessment, teachers are quick to say, "Well, they just need to study more."  This may be the case, but conversation about reevaluating a quiz or ensuring the material delivered in class match questions on a quiz has been anathema.

Naturally, students are scared of exams.  Some do well and some do poorly.  The part that concerns me is that students are surprised.  Even worse, teachers are surprised.  If assessments given during a unit are well-planned, and if the teacher has done a good job communicating with the students, the results of a unit exam or other summative assessment should not be a surprise.

Fear and poor grades kill a students' interest in a subject.  If we're serious about our subject, we must improve on the things we've always done.

Here are a few ideas I have now:

1. Rewrite test questions that students repetitively ask about.  
2. Develop instructional plans directly from the summative assessment.  
3. Teach test-taking skills during the unit.
4. Analyze common mistakes on formative assessments and make sure to change future instruction.
5. Ensure questions accurately assess what you want the students to know.  
6. Heavily comment on formative assessments.  Communication, though it takes a lot of time, is something the students deserve.
7. Do a review of an assessment after the quiz or test with the students.  All assessments should help students understand the content.
8. Do an evaluation of all assessments, making sure the assessment was an accurate portrayal of students' understanding.  If not, change something.  

That's a lot, but making improvements, even small ones, has the potential to increase student understanding.  That's what we're here for, right?

February 10, 2014: A Day of Much Rejoicing

For those who packed themselves into schools around California on January 11, 2014, February 10, 2014 was a stressful day.  See, the fine state of California waits 4 weeks to report scores on the infamous CSET examinations.  It is a long 4 weeks.

On that January 11, a Saturday no less, I sat in a chilly classroom and took CSETs 122 and 126, the Earth and Planetary Science exams.  I worked my way through the test and left expecting that I'd need to retake at least one of them again.  That was until February 10.  Yes, dear reader, I passed both sections of Earth and Planetary Science!

Once I complete the required student teaching and coursework required by California, I will be certified to teach all biology and earth science courses from grades 6-12.

And there was much rejoicing!

Squeezing In Points: Academic Purgatory

Here's a note for Future Dan: better planning reduces student stress.

This week will be a stressful week for the students.  5 Week Grades are due on Thursday, and there is a pressure to finish the unit on evolution before starting the next 5-week session.  The pressure is only coming from a planning calendar loosely based on the effectively defunct California Science Standards.

This week: The Perfect Storm:

1. Tuesday: Quiz on Chapter 17
2. Wednesday: Essay Exam on Unit 5 - Evolution
3. Thursday: Multiple Choice Exam on Unit 5 - Evolution

I am growing increasingly skeptical of the massive unit exam typical of science courses.  The ability to assess the students' higher level learning in an intense examination in 90 minutes seems counter-productive.  Unit exams seems to promote cramming and really hinder long-term understanding.

Unit exams may have their place, but they should be more application, synthesis, or evaluation-type assessments.  

I would like to find or develop a system where there's a capstone assignment for the unit rather than a massive exam.  The capstone project would be supported by better assessments during lesson delivery. All assessments would involve an activity or a section of reading from something that piques students' interests. 

Better planning before a unit built on better assessment types can avoid cramming and the test anxiety common with antique testing methods.  Sadly, these methods are perpetuated by the always dangerous mindset of "that's always the way we've done it."