Facebook
Edutopia on Facebook
Twitter
Edutopia on Twitter
Google+
Edutopia on Google+
Pinterest
Edutopia on Pinterest Follow Me on Pinterest
WHAT WORKS IN EDUCATION The George Lucas Educational Foundation
Subscribe to RSS

Common Core in Action: How Two Science Teachers are Implementing Common Core

While math and English language arts teachers have a much more direct call for Common Core implementation, teachers in other content areas are also being called to implement the Common Core State Standards. This may be a challenge for some. In my work with teachers across many states, I find that non-ELA and non-math teachers aren't as familiar with the CCSS, nor with implementation. In the next couple of blogs, I'd like to share the stories of science and art teachers implementing the CCSS -- their processes, reflections and advice. We'll start with science.

Biofuel vs. Fossil Fuels

Katie Abole teaches science at Bronx Leadership Academy in New York. "I had never thought about using literacy so intentionally and even having started my teaching career with LDC [Literacy Design Collaborative] as a model, it took a couple of years and a really great literacy coach before I really understood how to tackle literacy," Katie told us. She shared that it was easier to focus on the content than paying attention to literacy skills, but with the Common Core, she knew that she would have to take some responsibility rather than let the ELA teacher be solely responsible. In fact, she said, "science literacy is different and requires different skills." To start this implementation, Katie was trained by the LDC to create modules for her science class that would work on targeted CCSS standards. LDC modules have the Common Core hardwired into them, and focus on reading text to write about those texts. Katie created a module about biofuels and fossil fuels. Her task and question was:

Which is a better energy source: biofuels or fossil fuels? After reading articles and potential energy diagrams, write a report that compares the reactions of hydrogen biofuel vs. fossil fuels and argues which is a better energy source.

Reading Standards

1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.

7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and media, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words.

9. Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.

10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently.

Writing Standards

1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.

4. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

5. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.

6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others.

8. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.

10. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes, and audience.

Implementing the Standards

Katie scaffolded literacy skills from reading and writing standards in a variety of ways. She used graphic organizers, drafting and outlines, revision, and direct instruction to have her students write an argumentative piece on the question. "Because we looked at an actual journal article for the fossil fuels vs. biofuels module, students felt proud that they were learning college-level skills," said Katie. "I think the authenticity of the task leads to a higher student engagement, and the ability to write something gives students a voice, especially in an argumentative essay."

She balanced literacy instruction with traditional science activities and lessons. "For example, when we would spend one day reading an article, the next might be an activity or lab, which kept students engaged in the overall unit." This helped to ensure that the "stamina" to read and write wasn't a major concern. In addition, the reading and writing was about the science content itself. Although some of the instruction for traditional science content was taken away, Katie's approach allowed for depth in a specific area of science content using literacy skills.

Nuclear Power vs. Fossil Fuels

Christopher King, who teaches at West Bronx Academy in New York, developed a similar LDC unit about nuclear and fossil fuels. He used the same task frame as Katie, but his focus was on ninth and tenth grade science content. In the unit, students would read a variety of texts that provided both the pros and cons for using nuclear and/or fossil fuels. His task and question was:

Should electrical energy be generated from nuclear power or fossil fuels (natural gas or coal)? After reading informational texts on how electrical energy is generated from these fuels, write an essay that compares the chemistry behind the two methods to generate electricity, and state whether one is the better method for production in an urban environment. Be sure to consider alternate viewpoints and support your position with evidence from the texts.

Because he used the same task as Katie, Christopher targeted the same built-in reading and writing standards. Not only did he scaffold it with strategies, he also included a Socratic Seminar to scaffold argumentation and evidence skills. He used sentence stems to help students quote articles and readings effectively as well as work on counterclaims.

Reflections and Advice

Both Katie and Christopher learned a lot from their experience. Neither had previously included much literacy instruction in their content area classes, but they said it allowed them to cover science content as well as intentionally work on literacy skills. Because of the nature of the prompt, students were willing to engage in academic conversations. They wanted to argue because the topics were interesting and relevant to them.

So what should you think about before getting started? Christopher suggests:

I think the easiest way to get started is to start small. I mean, really small. Like have students look at a graph and make a claim about what the graph is telling them. Then analyze the structure of the claim they make. Then, when they have the hang of that, move on to the next step. Taking everything at once is a recipe for disaster.

Katie's recommendation is similar:

The best thing I can say is to think of where you want students to be skills-wise by the end of the year and build in opportunities to have students practice to reach that goal . . . Starting small allows you to develop a path to guide them on and build them up so their confidence as scientists/writers will be sufficient to carry them through the module!

If you are interested in seeing how LDC works, look at the video below.

Comments (7)Sign in or register to postSubscribe to comments via RSS

Sign in and Join the Discussion! Not a member? Register to join the discussion.