K-12 Core Science
Instructional
Materials Review
Reviewer Comments
June 2009
Preliminary DRAFT Report
6-30-09
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
Elementary Programs .............................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Experience Science ........................................................................................................... 4
2.2 FOSS (K-5) ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Science – Diamond Edition ............................................................................................. 12
2.4 Science Companion ........................................................................................................ 15
2.5 Science: A Closer Look .................................................................................................... 19
2.6 STC .................................................................................................................................. 21
Middle School Programs ....................................................................................................... 26
3.1 FOSS (6-8) ....................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Glencoe Blue/Green/Red ............................................................................................... 26
3.3 Glencoe Earth/Life/Physical ........................................................................................... 28
3.4 Holt Science & Technology ............................................................................................. 30
3.5 IAT: Earth/Life/Physical Series ....................................................................................... 30
3.6 KH: Investigating Series .................................................................................................. 32
3.7 LA: Issues Series ............................................................................................................. 33
3.8 ML: Science Modules ..................................................................................................... 34
3.9 Science – Diamond Edition ............................................................................................. 35
3.10 Science Explorer ............................................................................................................. 35
3.11 STC Earth/Life/Physical Series ........................................................................................ 36
3.12 SCI: Introductory Physical Science ................................................................................. 37
High School Biology Programs ............................................................................................... 39
4.1 Agile Mind Biology.......................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Biology: A Human Approach .......................................................................................... 39
4.3 Glencoe Biology .............................................................................................................. 40
4.4 Holt Biology .................................................................................................................... 40
4.5 Insights in Biology ........................................................................................................... 41
4.6 McGraw-Hill Life Science ................................................................................................ 42
4.7 Pearson Biology .............................................................................................................. 43
4.8 What is Life? A Guide to Biology .................................................................................... 44
High School Chemistry Programs .......................................................................................... 46
5.1 Active Chemistry ............................................................................................................ 46
5.2 Chemistry in the Community ......................................................................................... 47
5.3 Chemistry: C&A .............................................................................................................. 48
5.4 Chemistry: Matter and Change ...................................................................................... 49
5.5 Holt Modern Chemistry .................................................................................................. 49
5.6 Investigating Chemistry .................................................................................................. 50
5.7 Kendall/Hunt Chemistry ................................................................................................. 51
5.8 Pearson Chemistry ......................................................................................................... 51
5.9 World of Chemistry ........................................................................................................ 52
High School Earth Science Programs ..................................................................................... 53
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
1
6.1 Discovering the Universe ............................................................................................... 53
6.2 EarthComm..................................................................................................................... 53
6.3 Essential Earth ................................................................................................................ 54
6.4 Glencoe Earth Science: GEU ........................................................................................... 54
6.5 Holt Earth Science .......................................................................................................... 55
6.6 McGraw-Hill Earth & Space Science ............................................................................... 56
6.7 Pearson Earth Science .................................................................................................... 57
6.8 Science of Earth Systems................................................................................................ 57
7 High School Physical Science Programs ................................................................................ 59
7.1 Active Physical Science ................................................................................................... 59
7.2 Conceptual Physical Science .......................................................................................... 59
7.3 Foundations of Physical Science .................................................................................... 60
7.4 Glencoe Physical Science with Earth Science ................................................................. 60
7.5 Glencoe Physical Science ............................................................................................... 61
7.6 Holt Physical Science ...................................................................................................... 61
7.7 Holt Physical, Earth & Space .......................................................................................... 62
7.8 McGraw-Hill Physical Science......................................................................................... 62
7.9 Pearson Physical Science ................................................................................................ 63
8 High School Physics Programs ............................................................................................... 64
8.1 Active Physics ................................................................................................................. 64
8.2 Conceptual Physics ......................................................................................................... 64
8.3 Foundations of Physics ................................................................................................... 65
8.4 Glencoe Physics .............................................................................................................. 65
8.5 Holt Physics .................................................................................................................... 66
8.6 Physics: A First Course .................................................................................................... 67
9 High School Integrated Programs.......................................................................................... 68
9.1 Conceptual Integrated Science ...................................................................................... 68
9.2 Coordinated Science ...................................................................................................... 68
9.3 Science and Sustainability .............................................................................................. 69
9.4 Science: An Inquiry Approach ........................................................................................ 70
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
2
1 Introduction
This ancillary report to the June 2009 Core Science Instructional Materials Review Preliminary
Report contains the reviewer comments. During each reading, the reviewer had the option of
completing a reviewer comments sheet. That data was collected and compiled into this report.
Districts may find this information a helpful addition to the core report. It gives the reader a
different picture of the materials that may not be evident in the data.
The comments within represent the professional opinion of the reviewer, and do not reflect any
official OSPI position. Only minor grammatical editing was done, to preserve the intent of the writer.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
3
2 Elementary Programs
2.1 Experience Science
•
•
Activities are not well-developed to provide for deeper thinking and questioning.
Even K-1 students can use evidence to support their claim. This curriculum does not provide
for that opportunity.
• Needs more depth – more pre-assessment tasks to uncover misconceptions.
• Has too many teacher demos - needs more student activities.
I didn't feel that these modules aligned very well with Washington's standards or performance
expectations. I did like the vocabulary cards and supplemental books for students, but not all
districts would possibly purchase these.
• Several of the K-1 units do not lend themselves to our EALR's - (As evidenced by the lack of
their use for the content – only saw some titles appearing for Systems, Inquiry and
Application.)
• Very little independent investigation.
• Lack of teacher resources.
• This curriculum is highly teacher-directed. There are so many scripted parts that the
students do little inquiry and application.
• At the beginning of each unit there is a great sheet about the five E’s and the inquiry process,
but at the beginning of each lesson the “Inquiry Focus” does not follow that same theme. It
is more of a definition than a focus.
• Most of the curricula is about observing and filling out worksheets. It would be nice to see
students actually getting to do more hands-on inquiry and lessons rather than just observing
and filling in the worksheets.
• Suggestion: notebooks rather than so many worksheets. More information in the science
background area.
• Has a learning cycle – the 5E Model – their version is similar.
• Does talk about “scientific method” as not a set of orderly steps.
• Unfortunately the vocabulary sheet is the first thing handed to the students. To be fair, it is
asked that teachers use the vocabulary list throughout the unit.
• Program seems somewhat disjointed meaning many concepts addressed and not very indepth. The storyline is not rich. Only a few lessons to develop many topics. In just looking
at the Table of Contents one sees an emerging array of concepts dealt with all in one unit
and each concept is in only one investigation. Case in point (and you could do this with any
of the units), in “Matter and Heat” a K-1 student is actually studying things from the
properties of matter to floating and sinking to phase changes to chemistry each of which are
concepts that need multiple lessons in depth to build a conceptual framework. More of a
potpourri.
• The books/readers mentioned are so simplistic and may have one sentence that
incorporates three giant big ideas. This certainly will not develop understanding in students.
• I question whether we should have been looking at the readers for this program. They are
not referred to by the core program.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
4
•
The teacher preparation videos are very supportive for teachers but do not benefit students
as claimed by the publisher. Video is only set-up instructions, no content.
• Guide suggests using them to support challenged learners, however only procedural set-up,
no concept/conceptual support.
• Pre- or mis-conceptions are not defined. Students are asked a question at the beginning of
the lesson but there is no analysis of it to plan for differentiated instruction.
• There is a lot of extraneous material, however the lessons that deal with the physical big
ideas (“Force and Motion”) are very engaging.
• Unit not in EALR 4: Sound.
• Most units have only 1-2 EALR 4 lessons.
• K-1 SYSB and PS1B only addressed in higher grade bands.
• I do like the lessons that do reflect our standards but they are so few that only one teacher
guide would be needed, rather than eight.
• Assessment concern: Student evaluation on 3 things they learned and new vocabulary
words. Students do not self-assess for content/concepts. *Referring to Assessment Guide.
• Website has some support for teachers, parents, and students.
• Considerable extraneous units if order requires all modules at a grade level. If single units
can be ordered this evaluation process will be skewed.
• It is clearly evident that this is a literary approach to science. No concepts are developed in
depth.
Although there are many hands-on activities, they possess only a few components of quality inquiry.
Most important, activities lack guiding questions, opportunities for student-planned and/or directed investigations, possibility for next steps, reflection and/or freedom to record thinking in
their own ways. Activities are engaging, but don’t seem to scaffold to build conceptual
understandings around big science ideas. Blackline masters are well done! References to reading
material in teacher guide would have been especially helpful. Binders are awkward and come apart
easily.
This curriculum fits the “mile wide and an inch deep” approach. It does not develop deeper thinking
skills of solving problems, designing inquiry investigations, and deeper cognitive skills. It does not
address the ideas of pre-conceptions and misconceptions and how to uncover those and guide
students to revise them. It does not promote application of skills to solve human problems. It is
weak in making inferences based on evidence. It is weak in having students support their
conclusions with evidence – the why. Design: Binder clips constantly come open!
Ten Teacher’s editions over two years, five per year, eight to ten activities per module means few
elementary classrooms would take the time to teach all modules thoroughly. Limited opportunities
for students to design, plan and execute their own investigations.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Way too much content in one unit – too broad and not deep.
Lots of content brought up without clarity, often not appropriate for grade level, lending
itself to foster misconceptions (example photosynthesis taught by giving the definition).
Equipment expectation such as stereomicroscope that are not available to most 2-3
classrooms.
Conclusions and explanation are fill in the blank rather that teaching students to use
evidence to explain.
Having students make inferences based on observation is not the same as having kids
understand what an inference is.
The leveled readers are a nice resource. Unfortunately not all students would read all
readers.
Students never make a plan for an investigation. They aren't even shown the teachers plan
up front, they just follow step by step teachers instruction – never given the big picture for
what they are doing
Forces and Motion kit, as with many kits, is not grade appropriate.
Nice graphic organizer.
I felt this program was very teacher directed with little opportunity for students to ask
questions or solve problems.
Vocabulary was given first and then taught through activities.
Few real world tie-ins.
Reading was seen as "reading curriculum".
Hard to review, has too many citings were for teacher background and numerous readings
without connections to student learning.
Publisher has little understanding of application.
This program seemed out-dated.
Too much teacher directions – not well aligned to How People Learn and the “natural
learning” students do when doing “real world” investigations.
Too much rote-type learning – no real notebooking, drawing their own tables, charts, etc. for
grades 4-5 and no application.
Lacks prediction piece with a reason why they are predicting that.
Nice leveled readers and videos would be a nice supplemental piece.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4-5 PS1A and B addressed in grade 2/3 Forces, Motions, and Machines. Concept covered
well in leveled books, but incidental measuring/comparing in leveled reader activity.
4-5 PS2A, B, C: Energy and Matter not in 4/5 band. Some information not in leveled readers.
Could find nothing on conservation of matter.
4-5 ES2A: Great presentation of properties of rocks, soil, but not air or human-made
materials.
4-5 LS2F: Very little to encourage coming up with ways to improve health of ecosystems.
4-5 SYSA: Great presentation in Human Body, but I didn’t see it as “cross cutting”.
4-5 SYSC: Concept is there, but no mention of inputs and outputs.
4-5 SYSD: I saw only a little in leveled readers. No predicting what might happen if a part of a
subsystem was missing.
4-5 INQC: No evidence that all variables except the one being tested should be held
constant.
4-5 INQE: Repeat experiment if you don’t agree.
4-5 INQG: Does ask “How do you know?” but I didn’t see the word evidence or an emphasis
on it.
4-5 INQH: The only communication in the teacher guide was “discuss.” However, there were
great ideas on inside back cover of leveled readers.
4-5 INQI: Not covered.
4-5 APPB: Only Europeans included.
The leveled readers are great (to complement a science program), but it would be difficult to
teach the standards from this program. I really like the overview in each teacher manual,
which devotes a page to inquiry-based teaching and pages speaking to the needs of diverse
learners.
With professional development, these materials could be used to teach “systems.”
Very colorful, clear.
Need more experiments to teach concepts.
Need more graphing opportunities.
Need specifics on writing conclusions.
High interest!
No “preconceptions” of students mentioned.
No suggestions for “high” and “low” students, other than three reading levels of booklets.
I didn’t see many “reflection” pieces.
2.2 FOSS (K-5)
These materials are teacher friendly. Easily organized, scaffolded to build on cognitive processes. I
wish some modules were more explicit in cross cutting standards. Love, love this program as a basic
program for most elementary teachers – accessible to anyone, regardless of science background.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
7
•
•
Many units were requested to be looked at that would not be appropriate to use at K-1 level.
For professional development purposes, there are many missed opportunities around
concepts of systems, using magnifiers to assist our ability to see, systems taken apart can
sometimes be put back together without default to the system, human body in full, solar
system aspects at K-1.
• K-1 PS1A: There is a brief mention on "side", but no mention on position of an object related
to another object.
• K-1 PS1B: There is movement, however, this is not related back to the content standard or
the performance expectation – with professional development this standard could be
addressed.
• K-1 PS2A: Investigation 2, pp. 25, has students put water in different containers, but
students do not predict – professional development will help teachers learn how to address
the performance expectation.
• K-1 DS2B: With professional development this standard could be met.
• K-1 ES2A: Students discuss the process of making plywood/particle board and create their
own sawdust wood; however, this is not related back to natural and human-made materials.
• K-1 LS2A: The materials cover the content standard well; however, students are not asked to
describe a nearby habitat (although they do investigate a model habitat).
• K-1 LS3B: With professional development the opportunity to classify and sort living things
into plants and animals could be present.
• K-1 APP: Investigations seem to be used as applications, but students are not solving
problems and using technological design process. Tools are used to gather data.
• K-1 SYSA: "Parts" is present (students label parts of animals and plants) but is not related to
"whole"- professional development would address this.
• The 2-3 module referenced for K-1 ES1A-D may be too difficult for K-1. The supplementary
notebook from DSM appears more age appropriate.
• It has some good experiments. I believe that individual questioning and application
problems could be easily added in.
• K-1 PS1A: Objects are in lesson - observation objective was not positioned relative to
another object.
• K-1 PS1B: Motion of object there -- no mention of motion causes changes.
• K-1 PS1C: P. 27. Question could prompt discussion in force.
• K-1 CS2A: Process is there, no comparison of natural vs. manmade
• K-1 ES1B: Focuses on moon – not much with sun.
• K-1 INQB: One lesson – one module.
• Authentic learning experience - doesn't use evidence to solve real world problems.
• Inquiry experience – mostly observations student communication written – pictures verbal.
• Did not see any method or strategy to gain student misconceptions or preconceptions.
These instructional materials are not as easily organized to locate content quickly and easily.
However, there are ample opportunities to engage in the inquiry process and application (problem
solving).
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Investigations and experiments explained carefully.
Concepts sometimes missing or implied.
Science Stories really add to the curriculum!
Can see how big ideas build across the different modules and over many experiences.
Could be more explicit about the big ideas.
Rich inquiry opportunities.
The science stories provide rich cultural, historical, real-world and application connections.
For 2-3 APPA there are limited opportunities – inquiries seemed to be used synonymously
for application. The steps of the technological design process were clearly present.
2-3 PS2A “Properties” is introduced in one lesson – students do make observations of
properties in other units, but properties aren’t referenced (the focus in on observation).
With professional development observations could be connected back to properties.
2-3 PS2D: Students complete an activity similar to the performance standard (actually it is
more of a demonstration), but are never asked to predict. Professional development would
strengthen the alignment to the standard by having students predict.
2-3 PS3A: Electricity is well-covered, however other forms of energy are not.
2-3 LS2: The materials refer to “environments” – this can be connected to “ecosystems” if
pointed out in professional development.
2-3 APPB & C: students encountered these ideas in the science stories, as opposed to
encountering it in the materials when solving problems.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
While systems are present throughout, it took, me quite a while to find the actual word
“systems” used. Definition of system needs to be emphasized.
2-3 INQC: Observations throughout, but I couldn’t find distinguishing between observation
and inference.
2-3 SYSE: Some presentation of ways similar parts can play different roles, but nothing about
bird beaks.
2-3 APPA: Some design problems but no making a plan and testing possible solutions. Entire
process guided by teacher. Some units do allow students to plan their own investigation.
Most don’t lend themselves to technological design.
2-3 APPC: People of other cultures solving problems are barely mentioned.
2-3 APPD: Students don’t choose appropriate tools unless they do their own investigation.
2-3 PS1C: Need to make sure students understand what is moving the object is a force.
2-3 PS1D: Examples show relative strengths of forces, but most don’t measure/compare.
2-3 PS2B: Concepts need to be present in 2-3 materials.
2-3 PS2D: Students observe a change of state, but don’t predict.
2-3 PS3A: Energy is barely mentioned.
2-3 ES2B: Never has the kids predict weight of water before/after freezing.
2-3 LS2B & C: Some in Science Stories. Relies on 4-5 materials to deepen concepts.
2-3 LS2D: A little in Science Stories. Not much at all on proposing a plan.
2-3 LS3B: Doesn’t have students compare differences in characteristics between adult and
offspring.
2-3 LS3C: Barely mentioned. Environments not in the 2-3 curriculum.
2-3 LS3D: No observing and comparing of fossils.
2-3 LS3E: Science Stories photos.
No elementary teacher can cover all of this. There is way too much content.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
10
•
Living Systems: No. Wrong level for goals, developmentally inappropriate, e.g., uses
molecular concepts beyond this grade level.
• Water Planet: No. Two-thirds of 4-5 investigations are 6-8 level (solar system and uneven
heating of Earth).
• Environments: Yes. For ecosystems and inquiry. Ecosystems are addressed but not as
systems with boundaries, etc. The systems language needs beefing up.
• Human Body: No. There aren’t enough aligned standards and the opportunity to analyze
the models is missed.
• Models and Design: So-so. Lots of missed opportunities for systems and energy.
• Landforms: Some is ok. But topographic maps are extraneous and the examples are not
good.
• Matter and Energy: Yes. Good for energy and transfers. Lots of measurement that is not in
standards.
• Levers and Pulleys: Absolutely not. I can’t see where this is in the standards at all.
• Systems (sys): Conscious use of standards language – not there in FOSS although
opportunities abound.
• Bottom line: There are some good kits (four) and some bad here. How can we recommend
some bad apples?
• 4-5 PS1A: Kids make a spring scale, but never discuss weight as a measure of the force of
gravity.
• 4-5 PS2C: Could find nothing on conservation of matter.
• 4-5 PS3C: Generating heat energy needs to be explicit.
• 4-5 ES1D: Information on sun, but nothing on why it appears brighter and larger than other
stars.
• 4-5 ES2D: Covers only erosion by water.
• 4-5 LS1A: Couldn't find sorting animals according to structures.
• 4-5 SYSC: Describes what goes in and out of systems, but couldn't find the terms "input" and
"output."
• 4-5 INQE: Should be more explicit about repeating experiments for reliability.
• 4-5 INQG: Discusses conclusions, asking why, but needs explicit use of "evidence."
• 4-5 APPB: I see almost nothing about cultures from around the world.
• There is way too much material included for an elementary teacher to get through.
This program contains many systems. With some professional development, all standards under
systems could be met.
These instructional materials are very strong in teaching the process skills such as inquiry,
application, and modeling. The content can be difficult to find, but is taught in much more depth
through an investigation. Unfortunately, some content is missing or only located in supplemental
materials.
This curriculum K-5 (specifically 4/5) has a great deal to offer. If more was added about “systems”
and transfer of energy that would be helpful. These units provide great hands-on experiences for
students, but a great deal of reading and prep work for teachers. Some subjects are done well while
others are merely surface depth. This curriculum is great for an experienced or beginning teacher.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
11
•
•
•
Earth Science – Could not find where it stated that soils are formed by weather and erosion.
Dinosaurs and fossils – did not mention an event.
Oftentimes the underlying concept was present – but the vocabulary piece that is in the new
standard was missing.
2.3 Science – Diamond Edition
This is a book-based science program that attempts to teach science to children using primarily
abstract materials. Science concepts are often intermingled increasing chances for student
misconceptions. Inquiry and application opportunities are sparse.
• K-1 PS1B: Grade motion is not clearly defined but implied.
• K-1 PS1D: Magnetic force implied.
• K-1 ES2A: 1st p.343-361 – covers technology/farming/machines – not sorting of manmade
and human products.
• K-1 LS1A: External parts in Teacher Guide not there in related content.
• K-1 LS1B: K p. 40-41 compared plant parts to tree.
• Lessons access prior knowledge.
• Poetry throughout lessons.
• K-1 APPA: Students use different tools for tasks – not selecting to solve which to use for a
given problem.
• Really liked this program – would have to (want to) build in more student driver observations
and investigations – along with more reflections and group summarizing and conclusions
(metacognitive piece – stronger).
• Another comment is the more I kept looking at this series the more I realized that I saw
evidence of activities that would meet standards that weren’t referenced on alignment
sheet.
• P. 143 “Some natural resources can never be used up” – we do not have an unlimited supply
of fresh water.
• A picture of transparencies in Teacher Resource book would be helpful.
• Like to see a few more activities.
• The opening “quick activity” of each lesson does not help students to be able to make
predictions – the hands-on labs follow all direct instruction and readings. Observations are
needed first, then those observations provide context for reading and writing.
• Wide number of content, e.g., Chapter 9, one lesson each: What is Energy? How do living
things use energy? What are some sources of heat? How does light move? What are other
forms of energy?
• Need many more hands-on, minds-on experiences.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
12
•
•
A textbook approach to science is not ideal for student learning.
This program has much of the content in place and even some the science process skills.
What it is lacking, however, is a scaffolded process of guiding students through the inquiry
process by getting them to reflect on their own learning, ask questions based on
observations, and to justify conclusions based on evidence.
• In short, they are asked to read about science, not do science to develop both content and
process skills. Activities are not “minds-on.”
• Nicely organized materials and supports for good teaching practice.
• Makes strong connections to big ideas.
• Would like to see less telling and opportunities for kids to explore (example – shadow grade
2).
• Need opportunities for students to generate their own questions and create their own plans.
• Teachers are not likely to finish the whole year’s curriculum and because it builds it is best to
go in order. However by starting always with life and ending with physical and space
students are likely to get short-changed on the physical science.
• Easy to use teacher guide!
• Good ideas for differentiating instruction and scaffolding learners.
• The “Application” part had great investigations, but was mostly concentrated in one
area/unit.
• This is a very clear program to use with many extra resources available.
Lots of pictures, information and support materials. I like the cross-curricular connections. I would
prefer to see more inquiry and problem-solving and investigation for the students and fewer
worksheets. I like the activity Flip Chart activities and would use them in my lessons.
This is a language arts based program using science content with few opportunities for students to
be curious, formulate their own questions, plan investigations, collect data, form conclusions, and
communicate their thinking. The content is amazing, though at a reading level 1-2 years beyond
what most 4th and 5th graders would comprehend. Content wise, the materials are a mile wide and
fairly deep as well – thus the huge textbook. This read about it approach would not help anyone to
become a science literate 4th or 5th grader.
• I am not fond of a textbook approach, but this whole curriculum is spectacular. It matches
our standards nicely. I almost feel it was written to touch on each area.
• Suggested: When doing an experiment, let kids explore. Too much information is given for
the activity. Students need to come up with their own thoughts and ideas.
• Perhaps a little more depth per subject or content. Some of this is just surface knowledge.
• I like how careers and technology were included.
• Although these instructional materials are well-organized and the content is easily found
throughout the text, the inquiry and systems and application piece is not as explicitly taught.
• There are many resources for the teacher to differentiate for different reading levels, English
language learners, and gifted students.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4-5 PS1A: Students read about how a spring scale can measure pulling force, however they
do not use one or record measurements.
4-5 PS2B: The formula for finding speed is provided, but does not address the relative speed
of objects comparatively – students do not measure.
4-5 PS3D: The content standard is met, but students do not have the opportunity to meet
the performance expectation.
The content is present for the content standards, however very few of the performance
expectations are met.
Not a lot of background science for the classroom teacher in kindergarten but improves at 1st
grade.
Interesting that Michael Klentschy, Nancy Romance and Karen Ostland were contributing
authors.
Inquiries do come first sometimes! Directed, guided and full inquiry.
Uses learning cycle.
Gross amounts of resource material to the point of overkill! Actually a real turnoff at first
glance.
Too many topics to cover all in-depth, it seems, but program does a nice job of coverage.
Would not lend itself to a materials support system.
Use of the term “hypothesis” is inappropriate for K-1, I feel. But it is supported well in
materials.
Mention is made of honest collection of data and basing conclusions on evidence is
attempted and repeated throughout the 1st grade unit.
“Scientific Method” is used accurately.
Discovery School and NASA have partnered on this program.
2010 version – lots of research and good research is supporting this program.
Teachers will learn a lot of science as they use this program!
One objection is to closed questions. Instead of “what do you think the sun is made of?” the
program asks, “Do you know the sun is a ball of gas?”
4-5 INQB: Inquiries are very teacher directed.
4-5 INQD: Would like to see more graphing.
4-5 INQE: Needs to be explicitly taught throughout.
4-5 INQI: Needs to be explicitly taught.
4-5 APPB: Needs to emphasize cultures from around world.
4-5 PS1A: Students need to use a spring scale to measure weights.
4-5 PS2C: Content is there but not what students are expected to do.
4-5 ES1: Needs to explicitly have students model.
4-5 LS1E: Found very little on nutrition.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
14
2.4 Science Companion
An emphatic yes. These materials are science based, not language arts based, and would lead to the
development of excellent science practitioners. These materials, if taught with fidelity, would lead
to many hours of hands-on minds-on exploration for students. Wow!
• Very easy to understand.
• Goals/Big Ideas clearly stated and activities were easy to implement and understand.
• Concerns that teacher would have equipment and supplies plus notebooks.
• Loved the year long calendar.
• Age appropriate and engaging activities.
• Loved it!
• Skill builders book separate from materials and not part of lessons concept to reference a
page if needed.
• Background information in book and not with lesson - will teachers look at it?
• These would definitely be materials I would want to use in my class. The investigations, for
the most part, were cognitively appropriate, could be extended to include further
wonderings due to their natural curiosities.
• Liked how big ideas were explicit. Not a lot of over-the-top “razzle dazzle.” Seems more like
genuine science even at a K-1 level.
• K-1 INQB: Need to explicitly discuss how models are unlike represented objects.
• K-1 INQE: Repeating experiment definitely in Motion. I didn’t really see it elsewhere.
• K-1 APPD: Lots of measuring, but not used to solve a problem.
• K-1 ES1C: Saw little evidence of observing/describing objects made of more than 1 Earth
material.
• K-1 LS1A: Draws outline of body, but doesn’t identify external parts.
• K-1 ES1A: Doesn’t have kids observe the sky for things that change minute by minute.
• K-1 ES2C: Sort of alludes to this on p. 76 of Collecting/Examining Life.
• Other than books, there is limited multi-media. I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing.
• I didn’t find evidence of variety of languages. There may be.
• Very few illustrations from which to determine racial/gender/etc. balance.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
15
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most of the materials needed for labs are teacher provided.
Teacher Guide very basic – all words, few illustrations, little color.
“Body” section includes all five systems (not grade level appropriate for kindergarten).
Used the word “system.”
Kindergarten book – contained above grade level concepts – ex. Bridges, Simple Machines,
etc.
Weather unit – great looking unit but mostly not in new standards.
Lots of background information for teachers in back of manuals.
Big idea clearly identified for each lesson.
The book Science Skill Builder seems to be a professional development book for teachers.
Explains how and why to do…
Their material units are divided up differently, thus you get a lot of extra lessons – in order to
meet new standards.
Really like the notebooking materials – ☺ – good summative assessment pieces.
I appreciated the "Management Notes" and the time management ideas.
Many of the standards would be met if a teacher taught from 3 different kits, approximately
10 different teacher manuals and supplies --> lots of organizing!
Lots of joined ideas given. I like this because it reduces copying worksheets (as well as
allowing students to work like scientists). Saves money for districts and reduces amount of
paper used – eco-friendly!
Easy to follow and understand teacher manuals.
In a systems approach such as a science materials support system, having a kit in the
classroom twice during the course of a year is problematic. In this case, the life cycles unit is
recommended for use in fall and in spring.
In the Life Cycles unit, although the publisher indicates LS3 is present and agreed there are
many opportunities, the curriculum does not seem to get the students into comparing one
butterfly to another to take advantage of the opportunity to discuss variations within
species. Also not advantaged is the opportunity to talk about how a difference in
characteristics may improve chances of survival. The “What is a Scientist?” does some
examination of this!
Background for teacher sits at the back of the Teacher’s Manual oddly enough.
In the unit on solar systems, the opportunity exists to refer to “systems” but the opportunity
is never explicitly taken advantage of.
Solar Systems deals nicely with misconceptions in the Teachers Masters as it is also in the
children’s ideas sections in the Teachers Masters.
Missed opportunity in the “Sound” unit in not intentionally using the term “energy.”
Missed opportunity in “Electrical Circuits” due to not using term “energy” and discussing the
various forms of energy examined throughout the unit. Also, no use of the “system.”
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
16
•
•
Some 2-3 standards are met with core curriculum either up (4-5) or down (K-1) a grade band.
A district would have to adopt the science companion program in its entirety to avoid large
gaps in meeting Washington State standards.
• Lots of higher level thinking to go with guided activities. Self-reflection and self-assessment
is good!
• Not much full open-ended inquiry.
• Fun to teach. Great questioning. Love the literature connections.
• “Deep not wide.”
• Students learn best doing science rather than merely reading about aspects of science.
• I love the “I wonder” circle.
• It appears that teachers may have to gather materials on their own to teach many lessons.
• Would be helpful to have more pictures or illustrations of some materials to clearly
understand how to put them together.
• Would like to see more writing or use of notebooks and small group discussion rather than
teacher-led discussion.
• Some content such as light would be a big stretch for 2nd grade.
• Many modules meet only a few standards, but to put all the modules together would not be
feasible to do in two years.
• Would like more real-world examples of use of technology, people in history or jobs…
• + Deep level content.
• + Strong Inquiry.
• - No Equity issues in the program.
This program is clear, concise and supports science standards. It follows an organized approach that
helps teachers understand and communicate big ideas. Time is spent through sequential lessons to
help support conceptual understanding. A few more visual depictions in the teachers guide would
have been helpful. It allows students to pose questions and use inquiry to develop understandings.
Misunderstandings and learning styles are addressed.
These materials focus on science discovery first with plenty of support to allow students to become
more science literate. Students are encourage to EXPLORE in each module by "doing science".
Were a district to purchase the entire 6 modules for grades 4 and 5, and if I gave adequate time
weekly to teach the science, at the end of the 2 years, I would feel as though the students would
have tremendous opportunities to develop mastery in many disciplines.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
17
•
4-5 PS2B: The materials cover part of the standard. Air is a gas and fills a container, but
wind is not covered.
• 4-5 PS3E: The materials do not address the entire standard, but could with professional
development.
• 4-5 ES1C: Students use a model to see how constellations change over the course of a day,
but not at different times in the year. Year is briefly covered.
• 4-5 ES2B: The "Extending the Lesson" section on page 188 of Earth Changing Surface
strengthens the alignment to this standard.
• 4-5 LS1D: Animal structures and behaviors that respond to internal needs is well covered,
plants are not.
• 4-5 APP B: This is nicely discussed in one lesson, but is not cross-cutting. This is true for
other APP standards as well.
The Matter and Energy modules have a tight connection to Washington Standards.
These instructional materials were very well-balanced between the development of deep
conceptual knowledge and inquiry/application skills. The materials were well-organized and easy to
follow.
I would not want to teach from these materials. There is a lot of extraneous materials. I felt that a
lot of the domains were not represented in the curriculum for this grade level, although I did find it
at the 2-3 band. The background information was excellent as well as addressing student
misconceptions.
• It had a lot of good information – not enough tie back to the importance of systems in so
many of the domains. Getting kids to become aware of the interdependency of different
systems and subsystems.
• Also not enough opportunity for students to generate their own investigations from their
“natural curiosities” (cognitively appropriate) in whatever domain that is studying. This
might help link it back to their “real world.”
• Electricity and Solar Systems above and beyond the 6th grade band materials.
• Good real-world examples.
• Systems very weak but could be added.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
18
2.5 Science: A Closer Look
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The first grade program is very good. It has high expectations. I like how they incorporate
music into learning (for example, "Roots, Stems, Leaves" song). They have good
differentiation for Special Education, ELL suggestions and gifted. They don't have as many
inquiry experiments, but it is doable for an elementary teacher. Some of the publishers are
excellent for inquiry, but it would be difficult for some teachers to get through the modules
without totally integrating. This program covers the standards. It also addresses
misconceptions.
The Kindergarten program is less sequential and doesn't have the level of rigor that the 1st
grade program has, but it covers many of the standards.
Program contains Language Transfers that explain how different languages transfer. For
example, p. 200 of 1st grade Life Sciences says that Cantonese, Korean, and Vietnamese do
not have a plural marker.
This program helps with integration by having leveled readers, sections on developing
vocabulary, music, writing, math, and social studies ties. I really like their "Develop
Vocabulary" inserts that talk about word meanings and Latin roots. Good "Address
Misconceptions" sections.
If I were teaching First Grade, I would happily teach this program.
Reading level is a bit high. Covers a lot of 2-3 standards.
K-1 SYSB: Doesn't explicitly teach that some things can't easily be taken apart.
K-1 INQD: Lots of opportunity to draw and write about investigations, but didn't seem like
teachers were encouraged to have children share the information with others.
K-1 INQE: I found only one reference to telling students to repeat experiments for reliability.
K-1 INQF: Children repeatedly told to observe "carefully" but never told to report honestly
and accurately.
K-1 ES1C: Only minor references to being able to see moon during day. Every time kids are
told to observe the moon, it says observe the "night" sky.
K-1 LS3B: Found lots of sorting and classifying, but only one incidental sort of plants and
animals.
Each unit has a unit organizer which is very helpful.
Lots of teacher directed learning.
Couldn't find evidence of availability in other languages.
Supplemental readings linked to scholastic thus easy to find and get.
Several well known links, such as Time for Kids, Dinah Z. foldables.
Teacher’s guide has lots of questions that if the teacher knows the science and EALR they
would be fine. But if not, the lesson would have little focus or content being taught.
Many "hands on" activities seem to be an extra part of the lesson not an integral part.
Seems like the teacher is responsible for needed materials.
I am not familiar with what K – K-1 can do, but this book is laid out nicely.
I like the little activities for kids to do.
Maybe more ESL materials would be good.
I like the stations approach.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
19
•
•
Would like it to be more "authentic science", not so much pre-decided learning.
Doesn't include enough kid reflection and monitoring of their learning or opportunities for
students to tap into their curiosities. I felt it starts to getting them interested but then it just
stops.
• Too much like a reading/language art program – not inquiry based enough for me.
• Reading level for both grade levels seems high.
• Reading level differentiation.
• Reading essential – concepts strong also.
• No depth – hitting same topic in both grade levels.
• Many topics are 3-4 grade levels too high.
• Supplemental materials are nice but look expensive.
• Feels more like a reading program than a science program.
• Some of the hands-on activities are not realistic, such as having the children pull a plant from
the soil to examine root structure.
• The fast track mode makes the program more of a reading program with the content of
science than an inquiry-based program.
• This program consists of essentially six units per year or twelve over a two-year span. But
very few lessons are devoted to a topic so it is more of a “mile wide” type program.
Examples are that just one lesson is devoted to the topic of electricity.
• There are too many component parts (38 to be exact) for management of a program like
this.
• The opportunities for a first-hand observation seem limited.
• Big misconception on the scientific method → a static series of steps that are followed
without variance (pg. 15 in grade 2).
• The investigations are often misguided by introducing more than one variable such as pg. 23
on grade 2.
• I get the impression that the publisher just doesn’t understand the science in the standards.
• The hands-on portion of this program does not appear to ask students to do much of
anything over time – almost all lab activities are giving a directed hands-on experience with
equipment and materials for observational purposes.
• It is notable that folks like Joanne Vasquez and Jerry Wheeler were program authors and that
national partners such as the American Museum of Natural History, National Science
Foundation’s Joint Oceanographic Institute and National Science Digital Labs were on tap to
provide additional information.
Although this program contains many important science ideas and content, it relies heavily on
reading materials and pictures. Inquiry opportunities are embedded from time to time but are not
well used to reinforce vocabulary, scientific process and student opportunities to design follow-up
investigations. Students who require alternate learning styles – kinetic, English language learners,
special education may have difficulties engaging with this program. Teaching directions are
scattered and often difficult to follow. This is a reading program built around science content.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
20
•
4-5 EALRs 1, 2, & 3 meet standards extremely well. The Big Ideas are touched on in many
contexts but most are conceptually inappropriate.
• Lesson 1 of each unit is grade-level appropriate and well-done.
• Performance Assessments for grade 4 are nearly all art projects.
• Very reading heavy, more like reading curriculum.
• Too much vocabulary introduced without an experience base -- ELL and poverty populations
would not likely do well with this curriculum.
• High likelihood that teachers would not do many of the inquiry activities because much of
the time the "answers" or what is to be discovered, the information is already provided.
• The assessment of prior knowledge piece is nice; however, it would be stronger if more often
it probed more deeply in to conceptual understanding rather than facts and low level
cognitive thinking.
• The entire kit is prone to fostering misconceptions. Some potential misconception pointers
are provided, yet there are so many important places where it is not. (Ex, seasons
development at 4, 5)
• Like the organizing themes at each grade level and spiraling context, however there is just
too many facts presented so quickly, the context will not be accessible to most student.
This is a language arts based curriculum that attempts to teach science content. It is not a hands-on,
minds-on approach to science learning. A mile or two wide and 1-2 inches deep. Students may
memorize some terms but would not have the opportunities to discover on their own and therefore
to learn the concepts actively. Too much extra content is included that students merely read about.
No one can learn science by reading about it.
• At first, the program was confusing; however, as I grew in my understanding of the program,
I liked it!
• Concepts strongly taught.
• Weakest in systems and application.
• A lot of “teacher support” and resources offered.
Yes! Well organized, lots of hands-on experiences, incorporates a lot of reading, writing, math,
home connections. Identified misconceptions. Activities for advanced learners and English
language learning students. Good incorporation of science vocabulary. Aligns well with standards.
Life Science Manual missing page 89-90.
2.6 STC
These materials provide ample opportunities for science process skills, such as measuring,
comparing, observing and recording. Many content standards were missing or briefly addressed.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
K-1 SYSB: Found nothing.
K-1 INQB: How models are different from the real thing is never discussed.
K-1 INQF: Lesson cited is more about measuring accurately than reporting honestly.
K-1 PS1A: Could find nothing on position.
K-1 PS1C: Could find nothing on push or pull as a force.
K-1 LS3A: Doesn't sort living/non-living.
Publisher's Alignment often was incorrect. I was able to find some standards in places they
didn't list. No evidence of other languages.
Would be easy to teach from – would need to keep the standards “handy” and pick/choose
lessons.
This program has many of the lessons needed to meet the standards if a teacher reads the
standards and uses the vocabulary. I had to mark it lower because it doesn’t always use the
vocabulary of the standards (i.e., “force” “system” etc). It could be adapted with in-service
opportunities. The experiments, questioning, etc., are excellent.
K-1 PS2A: The idea that liquids take the shape of the container is developed; however
students do not predict (performance indicator).
K-1 LS1F: Although not reference in the publisher’s alignment document, students observe
plants with roots and leaves – professional development would allow this standard to be
addressed with the materials.
K-1 LS2: Ecosystems – This standard could be better met by adding discussion on habitats
and exactly how the terrariums and aquariums support the growth of plants and animals.
Also, recycling can be better connected to ways humans protect habitats – through
professional development.
K-1 PS1B-D: The opportunity to discuss motion and forces is present. Professional
development could help teachers know how to teach these standards.
K-1 SYSA: Students name and compare parts, but this is not related back to the “whole.”
Professional development would allow this standard to be met.
K-1 INQB: There are models used in several lessons; however, there are no toys used to
demonstrate modeling.
K-1 INQE: Professional development should address the need to explicitly address why we
repeat observations to be more reliable.
K-1 INQF: Students are recording observations, however they are not specifically asked to do
so “honestly and accurately.”
According to the Table 1 Alignment of STC Program grade levels 2-3 modules are 1) The Life
Cycle of Butterflies, 2) Soils 3) Changes 4) Balancing and Weighing 5) Plant Growth and
Development 6) Rocks and Minerals 7) Chemical Tests and 8) Sound. These are the modules
I received for 2-3.
I would teach these modules for the most part. I do feel there is too much material included
for these grade levels as well as a lot of missing material that can be found in other grade
level modules. It would be time consuming and difficult to have to pull small parts/lessons
from so many modules in order for this curriculum to somewhat align with Washington’s
science standards.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
22
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Soils
Butterflies
Changes
Balancing and Weighing
Plant Growth and Development
Rocks and Minerals
Chemical Tests
Sound
“Systems” need to be identified as a system.
Forms of energy implied without directly teaching energy forms.
Shows parts of many systems but don’t refer to as a whole.
Many citations outside of grade level. Since I was looking for EALR at this grade band (2-3), I
scored for materials that would be most likely taught.
• Super Application and Inquiry.
• Often objective was not “big idea.” With some modifications this program would score
higher.
• Seems high in process but lower in content.
• This program is strongly aligned with standards, processes and applications of science.
• The teacher guide is a bit “wordy” and is at times difficult to follow. Lots of preparation time
for teacher.
I would definitely teach some of these units. They have a lot of inquiry and good directions and
background for the teachers.
• STC's strength is in 4-5 EALR 1, 2, & 3.
• These alignments are exceptional.
• Many gaps in Earth and Life Sciences.
• All lessons are highly engaging and those units, i.e. Ecosystems, Land and Water, and Motion
and Design, are covered in great depth.
• None of the other Big Ideas are covered well in any units.
• Very teacher-friendly in all materials components.
• Program alignment worksheet didn’t always give good source pages which made reviewing
this time consuming and frustrating. Hard to find information.
• Very inquiry-based/hands-on.
• Relevant stories and information.
• I found the layout confusing, personally. Someone else might love it. Also, preparation time
would be prohibitive.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
23
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The program overall is great. Scores were high in Inquiry and Application. This is a great
program to get students involved in hands-on activities and asking “why” questions.
This program does need more materials that address “systems” assuming students know
what a system is – does not promote good learning. Clearly defined areas of a “system” with
a working definition would be good.
The kits in this program are specific to a particular subject which is helpful.
Suggestion: more materials in the areas of Physical Science, Earth and Space Science, and
Life Science would be helpful.
Plus: any teacher – experienced or beginner – can teach any of the kits and do an adequate
to great job based on materials presented.
Program included the kids discover series which I did not review as it is not core curriculum.
This program is nearly supported throughout the state in science materials centers in
Washington State LASER alliances.
Missed opportunity in this program is the diverse learner strategies and for differentiating
learning. This needs to be dealt with in in-service professional development. It is mentioned
in the Washington Core Comprehensive Review documents but not in the updated teachers’
guides.
Whoever put the alignment together was not terribly knowledgeable of the standards.
Use of the word “systems” must be added to the professional development program. Also
terms such as “input” and “output.”
Although this program is strong in inquiry there are professional development challenges
that should be met through the use of evaluation results and inquiry experiments to meet
standard INQC.
For an experienced science teacher, this program provides excellent guiding questions and
thinking skills.
Scaffolds learning well – building conceptual understanding. May be more difficult for an
experienced elementary teacher.
Process skills and cross-cutting science skills are very evident.
Some content is lacking. But it would be addressed if the publisher had provided measuring
time.
Comment: binder needs a pocket.
Needs more extensive unit overview and specific alignment to National Science Standards
per lesson. Harder to find alignments because it’s not well delineated.
Modules reviewed were those identified by STC as aligned with 4-5 band.
Modules are engaging. Vocabulary usage is weak in systems, subsystems, input/output.
Modules contain too much material. To meet standards per grade level lessons from
modules at all grade levels would need to be used – time consuming for planning as well as
locating standards through all the extraneous material.
I would teach from these materials if they were aligned to meet Washington standards using
more concise grade level specific standards for the modules. Standards are stretched out
and located in too many modules.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
24
Pluses:
• Lots of inquiry skills.
• Modules go in-depth on each topic.
• Authentic, hands-on tasks.
Minuses:
• Not much differentiation for English language learners, different reading levels, gifted, or
special education.
• No Earth/Space content.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
25
3 Middle School Programs
3.1 FOSS (6-8)
•
•
No mention of Plutoids & still 9 planets.
Concept of atoms and differences between atoms and compounds are not addressed until
final chapter.
• Seems to lack connections to human biology.
Very thorough program.
• Lots of good variety in activities – ways to assess preconceptions.
• Lots of background for teacher.
• More reflection and student generated questions needed.
• Very good readability level – colorful student resource book.
I would like to teach from these materials. I would also like to see clearer directions to the big ideas
of science.
• EALR 4 – Content is there but only a skilled teacher will be able to adequately teach or pull
out the concepts.
• In order to ensure coverage you must get all modules.
• I see no point in Human Brain? One lesson. I really have a problem with this program
holistically.
3.2 Glencoe Blue/Green/Red
•
Supplemental material item "science inquiry lab manual" would be needed in order to
increase inquiry (EALR 2) score. However 6-8 INQA would still not be met.
• Pacing might be a concern – a lot to cover and comprehend in one year.
• The content is strong.
• The activities and book do not encourage inquiry.
• Great support for English language learners, struggling readers.
• I would like teaching from these materials but I would use the text as a reference more than
the main teaching tool.
• I would have to include many more inquiry and application lessons which would not be too
difficult. A lot of assignments are similar (pencil and paper). I would work hard to create
different types of assignments/opportunities for students.
• It is one of the better textbooks I have seen.
• SYS: Many interesting systems. No elaboration on a system or subsystem.
• INQ: Many listings for models and conclusions. Although page numbers were "off" I did find
reference and they are reflected in the score. Few labs are controlled investigations.
Much of the text is extra and not related to standards.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
26
•
The student materials are primarily an encyclopedic text with conformational labs stuck at
the end of each reading section.
• Teacher guide gives random suggestions for various activities that are more of an extension
or application and don’t work to help students build a solid conceptual understanding.
• There are so many supplemental books to support the learning, it would be nearly
impossible to keep up with everything.
• Mutation lab 296-297 Ch. 10 Sec. 3.
• Energy unit – Energy Transformations Ch. 24.
No clear development or understanding of EALRs 2 and 3. EALR 1 is completely absent. Elements of
the content EALR are missing important ideas.
• I could use this material because the basic curriculum outline is good; but this curriculum
covers way too much in not enough depth.
• I’m very good at adjusting materials to fit what I know is needed and is excellent pedagogy.
A new teacher would be overwhelmed with this – but possibly would be with any new
curricula.
• The inquiry is weak.
• The “big ideas” they identify are too numerous and specific.
• One problem is that there is so much to this curriculum and I need to use it to truly see if and
how it all works.
• This publisher does not seem to know their book well as it relates to our standards. Pages
referenced do not connect with the specific standard, or pages that actually do are lift out.
• Inquiry approach is missing.
• It tries to cover way too much in not enough depth.
I thought the content was there but the labs would need tweaking to make them more inquirybased.
• Like the math and reading connections.
• Like science notebooks and Dinah Zike foldables
• Like web connections!
• Good ways to differentiate for a variety of levels.
• Misconceptions are clearly identified.
• Very "encyclopedia"-like: lots of information – too much.
• Virtual labs and online labs.
• "Cookbook" labs.
• Technology pieces are engaging.
• Many resources for teachers.
• Program doesn't develop ideas deeply. Lots of information but more shallow instead of
enriching key ideas.
Each book isn't enough to stand alone – but as a series, way too much information! Much of
information is outside the standards.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
27
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This book is a very good reference, but it is not a true science program. It does have
supplemental materials, but it is obvious that these were developed independently. There is
a performance assessment book that addresses some for the application standards very well.
The inquiry and lab supplements have too much scaffolding.
For most standards the content is “somewhat coverage” but it needs to be fully developed
by the teacher. This would involve reorganizing all the information and resources in an order
consistent with how students learn.
A lot of material is high school level.
Foldables are nice.
Accessing prior knowledge is shallow and doesn’t cover much.
When standards are met, they are generally buried in a bunch of extraneous stuff. They
don’t “pop.” (Or one little piece is here and another is there.)
Facilitating Instruction – looks like they provide support given all the resources – like ELL
Strategies – but they are generic – like “speak clearly.”
The standards are hither and yon, e.g. a little here and a little there.
Teachers would not get to the big ideas using this resource. There are too many extraneous
ideas.
3.3 Glencoe Earth/Life/Physical
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Very textbook based – I would use it as a reference book.
I would need to do a lot of work to supplement the program based on How People Learn but
I could definitely do that. It is a good starting point but needs more.
The assessments are very “fact based” and are often recall questions so I would write my
own assignments.
That said, I could make this program work but I would worry about other, more traditional
teachers making sure students are left with deep understandings.
Describes learning targets and justifies them.
Big ideas.
Vocabulary prerequisites.
Presents topics but little development.
Misconceptions in margins; no formative assessment to probe for that.
Differentiation minimal.
Nice text features but primarily a knowledge level reader.
Integrated with health, math, chemistry, physics.
Models: Reading more than learning.
Integrates How People Learn.
Not enough emphasis on inquiry.
Too early to focus on vocabulary.
Too much reliance on reading skill.
Many facts connected but not to a unifying concept.
Learning by reading more than doing.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
28
•
6-8 SYSB: Need to clearly define the boundaries of the system and discuss how climates can
be considered a system.
• Inquiry process needs to be explained more and additional scaffolding added for developing
investigable questions.
• In order to truly meet 6-8 APPB and 6-8 APPC, a teacher must be intentional about having
students complete the “integrate careers” activities.
• Does not address force and motion.
• The Program Alignment worksheet gives credit for virtually non-existent standards based on
evidence and does not credit (cite) other standards that are well evidenced. Example (SYSF)
Pgs. 600-617.
• Two hundred seven days for a traditional schedule, 50-60 minute period…how will lessons be
designed to maximize depth or content understanding?
• Good content (flow).
• Not a good connection to big ideas.
High reading level and access, especially for grade six. “Stuffed with content.” Lots of resources
available, but not focused on the “big” ideas – could never be covered in-depth in one middle school
year.
• Many resources for teachers.
• Great science notebooks and foldable addition.
• Misconceptions are present.
• Differentiated instruction ideas and web connections located easily.
• Fun Facts! – Kids love trivial information.
• Probe ware and math connections are great.
• This is a course on Life Science. The publisher has made connections to Physical and Earth
science, but not enough to meet the standards.
• Bury the students with facts!
• Little inquiry.
I think the labs are a bit too structured with not enough connection to student misconceptions, but
could be worked with.
Glencoe Introduction to Physical Science is a traditional curriculum which would require extensive
teacher supplementation to allow students to meet EALR1-3.
• No mention of open or closed systems.
• Analysis is usually limited to outcome of experiment and not why experiment may have
worked or not.
• EALR 1: Weak.
• EALR 2: Pretty good – Need to be reviewed and carried through by teacher.
• EALR 3: Application – Not as strong as content but present and acceptable.
• EALR 4: Very strong content and support for variety of learners.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
29
3.4 Holt Science & Technology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In EALR 4 frequently the activities noted in the Teacher’s Edition provided enough
repetitions to change score from 2 to 3 or 4.
Systems thinking isn’t evident except in Human Body.
Science error in Astronomy p. 117: Summary, second bullet point states that the amount of
sunlight on the side of the moon changes. This should state that the amount of sunlight
changes only on the side of the moon facing earth. The moon is always half-lit with sunlight
except during a lunar eclipse.
Another encyclopedic approach to science with useful supplements (differentiated
worksheets, instructional strategies, etc.) for a flawed core.
Too much stuff.
No use of microscopes during pretest activities.
Every text has same appendices (Scientific Processes, Math, etc.).
Very little use of microscopes for cell investigation.
Vague use of systems concepts, but nothing is explicit.
Books N (Electricity/Magnetism) and O (Sound/Light) were not included so could not be
reviewed.
Several sections and chapters of core materials are not necessary to meet standards.
Mile wide and inch deep particularly for curriculum that appears to be designed for a multiyear approach.
3.5 IAT: Earth/Life/Physical Series
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In-depth/circles back, outstanding inquiry, variety of activities/stations/presentations.
Excellent focus on big ideas.
Student misconceptions pointed out.
Lots of reading to get through activities. Would be very difficult for speed.
Best teacher background!! Awesome!
EALR 1: Hard time with evidence of system boundaries.
EALR 2: Not bad – good inquiry pieces.
EALR 3: Better applications than most.
EALR 4: Teacher edition difficult to get used to but then there are really cool places to reflect
and assess.
• Needs glossary in teacher edition and index.
• Really hard time locating the standards even with references.
• Six teacher editions?
• I would use this honors material.
This material flows very well from big idea to big idea. Good connections. Much evidence is present
for depth over breadth.
• Did not see any warnings for students in some jumping experiments.
• Eclipses seem to be left out.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
30
• Strong in systems and inquiry.
• Needs work on difference between explanation and conclusion.
• Lacking in application.
• Needs to address eclipses.
This curriculum hits the project/design/communication side of EALR 3 very well. There is a log of
lessons in the 4 modules.
• Focus on and build to big ideas.
• Design challenges.
• Making sense and reflection.
• Briefings and collaborative critiques.
• Read and discuss.
• Computer simulations, video - observational data, less authentic process.
• Not many controlled investigations.
• Good progression of skill development.
• Design of solutions through challenges which focuses lessons on big idea.
• The “Living Together” unit is a strong unit for the cross-cutting concepts.
• “Living Together” and “Genetics” units strong in content.
• I like the project/problem based approach – working towards an end solution to a project.
• I would only want to do one of the four books in any year though (any one except Animals in
Action).
• Animals in Action was not needed – did not meet standards not met with other books.
• Really hit Application EALR.
• A lot of reading – needs more inquiry.
• The materials rely on having students read a lot of text to get to content. Often the text
comes from before the activities and activities become an exercise in confirming an idea
rather than exploring it.
• Assessments are very weak, without rubrics, suggestion for differentiation or distinguishing
between formative assessments.
• The materials are uneven in their depth with not-so-important ideas frequently being wellexplored while others (e.g. flow of matter and energy in ecosystems) not so well developed.
• One entire book/module (AA-Animals?) met very few standards.
• Why in the world did this publisher not include the student text? To have to read reducedsize text embedded within the Teacher’s Edition was ridiculous!
• Publisher clearly does not understand Application standards.
• Good content and Systems approach, poor in Application, okay in Inquiry.
• Poor coordination of resources – hard to find items, organize what’s what!
• Navigation poor.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
31
•
Three volumes of Teacher’s Edition – all numbered (1-414 or 1-478 or 1-477). Very confusing
as to which volume is referenced in publisher’s alignment. Huge obstacle – they used
student pages – however disagreement about some standards.
• Where is the information? What pages??
• No glossary or index.
• Good references to AAAS Benchmarks.
• Seems like lots of worksheets.
• Doesn’t appear to motivate students.
Strong connection in units. Well thought out with the sequence. I would have a difficult time using
the teacher guide and other resources.
• I like these materials. But I am very concerned with amount of apparent copying – Do the
students have a record book or what?
• There are some goals that go beyond the 8th – but those months after testing would work. (I
always start kids on high school goals after WASL).
• Teachers would need loads of professional development.
• Application gaps need addressing.
3.6 KH: Investigating Series
I liked this one because it seems to have real inquiry.
• Nearly every task is collaborative with students making entries into their science journals.
• Vague notions of systems – nothing explicit.
• Focus questions not clearly defined.
• Lots of great ideas, but does not get to standards.
• No mention of the word system in either teacher edition or student – implied.
• It has no suggested timeline or pacing guide.
• Needs glossary in teacher edition.
• Needs index.
• Needs pictures of Blackline masters.
• Loved the real world connections (application).
• Although not marked, I found rich application and inquiry.
• Systems need to be stronger and clearly identified.
• I liked the questions and clarity of the text – student-friendly.
• Systems? No connection to systems in teacher or student’s manual where publisher
alignment worksheet says it is.
• I would need to expand their labs and fill in missing standards – I would be writing too many
materials to enhance their work.
This book presents a learning model consistent with how kids learn. They do an excellent job.
However, it falls short on inquiry content and ecosystems (LS2).
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
32
•
Materials don't include opportunities for more open-ended investigations. Students don't
have opportunities for generating questions or designing experiments.
• There is an explicit discussion of science and technology emphasis early in the teachers guide
but it is difficult to find this strand in the student materials.
• Neglects major ecology topics except population ecology.
This is too simplistic, has no inquiry and minimal systems and application.
• Not enough focus on students – uncovering prior ideas, generating questions and
predictions. Many simulations and not enough investigation. Many analogies and not
enough real life, relevant inquiries.
• I like the organization on themes and engaging kids with familiar examples, games and
problems.
• Discussion of pedagogical content knowledge on CD but little evidence in lessons.
• Index is weak – much more present than noted in publisher’s alignment.
Systems and Application is stronger than most materials.
The basic framework is sound but I would need to add a lot more content to meet our standards.
• Highly-developed social curriculum – I believe it would be highly engaging.
• Many standards not addressed explicitly.
3.7 LA: Issues Series
•
No information about eclipses – although it is shown as a possible reason for day and night
on a worksheet. Common misconception of students that moon phases are caused by
Earth’s shadow.
• Did not see any reference to water as a solvent and reason for salt water.
• Fabulous!!
• I would take this one home!
• Does the best job incorporating content standards, inquiry, systems, application!
Very interactive, great assessment bank. Aligned to our standards. Could be more open-ended
inquiry incorporated and possible student misconceptions in teacher background material. A nice
variety of experiences and literacy strategies embedded into text.
• Good inquiry.
• Missing cultural connections.
• Assessment good, however formative assessments are not prevalent throughout the
material.
• Needs professional development to understand the intended sequence.
• Excellent program with lots of challenges for students. Seems to be research-based (How
People Learn). Hands-on inquiry.
• Didn't see obvious "misconceptions" students may have (except for pre-test) or what to do
with them (the misconceptions).
• Assessment is a huge issue as well as connecting the lessons and labs together.
• Huge gaps in connections for differentiated lessons.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
33
I would enjoy teaching this curriculum. It is as if our standards were used to “build” it. A little weak
in application but this could be easily tweaked by a competent teacher. This connects a student to
real-life, interesting and relevant topics.
• The inquiry is kind of lazy – doesn’t build the steps enough in their skills. (Just jumps into a
broad direction to design an experiment – and does that frequently.)
• The big ideas are too buried in the midst of other things. Not apparent enough.
• I like it but am worried that not enough of the Big Ideas are covered.
• Teacher’s manuals are great! Good content and ideas.
• I love the project-based learning but most of the research is given to students.
• Assessments look good and are varied. Scoring guides are good!
• Develops concepts even though vocabulary is not always present.
• Use of “life cycle” for inanimate objects can create a misconception.
• Some standards rely on teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge to maximize potential of
lessons.
• Does a good job of developing investigational skills over course of total module.
• I like the connection to relevant social issues which gives it potential to address application
standards.
• Gives ample opportunity to evaluate questions. It does not give students a chance to
generate their own investigation question.
• Students complete many investigations, but variables are rarely discussed.
• Needs to emphasize repeated trials.
• Addresses cross-cutting concepts well.
• Force and Motion contains lessons that center on high school standards (F=MA, Second law).
• Overall, this is a good program. Concepts are developed well and the activities are engaging.
Some concepts such as systems and energy transformations are not explicit; teachers will
need to bring them out, and this may involve training, but the activities are already present.
• The only true “problem” of the curriculum is the means [by which] the book presents
content. Every lesson begins with a short paragraph about what the student should learn.
Most activities then prove that the initial statement is true. There is not an inquiry model in
which the student models their thinking and then revises it. Explained in a different way, it
seems that the “Explain” is in the wrong place.
3.8 ML: Science Modules
Some experiments have controls - but should be a part of most experiments to achieve mastery.
• Systems standards, although not explicit in language, are easily seen in this curriculum. But,
it scored low because of the lack of language specificity.
• Application is also weak but with the content and examples given, could be met with just a
bit of tweaking.
• This is a well organized, easily navigated, teacher friendly great curriculum.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
34
•
I felt most of the materials were above grade level and jumped too quickly to difficult
concepts.
• I felt this was text book heavy without enough conceptual experiences.
• Reading level was very high.
• Nice tie-ins to real world.
• Inquiry weak.
• I like the labs and mini labs. I think they tie in beautifully – easy to understand and various
types – some easier, some more difficult.
• Needs some work on inquiry but great examples in Application. Systems seem fairly strong.
Good resources well connected to big ideas of science. CD is a good resource for preparing 1)
assessments, formative, summative; 2) writing in science; 3) developing the mechanics of science
(developing a scientific question → hypothesis).
Excellent “visuals” and readability – lots of suggestions for differentiation. Clear about big ideas.
The strength of this program is the text. The activities are a bit simplistic in some cases – not sure
they will engage middle school students. One of the better “text” based programs I have seen.
3.9 Science – Diamond Edition
•
•
Too much of a stretch to meet standards.
Program Alignment way too difficult to try and meet standards. Very week on assessing
depth of understanding through the Big Ideas of Science.
• Formative assessments virtually non-existent.
• Overall, I felt that this was a weak kit to teach inquiry.
• Missing inquiry to support the reading text.
Page 559 states that the top photo is the Milky Way – it should say image is what the Milky Way
“might” look like.
3.10 Science Explorer
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
First - too many materials to review.
EALR 1: So much to look at and yet I really don't see good connections to boundaries,
systems input and output.
EALR 3: Really strong science tech. design book separate. Lots of reference to real life.
EALR 2: Inquiry - They have a skills section in the back of each book but throughout activities
in each book it is vague about the scientific method explicitly; variables, etc…
EALR 4: Lots of material; seems high level content; good support; good coverage overall.
The chapter projects are great.
The design problems are great.
The focus on big ideas is good.
I love the writing connections.
There is the opportunity here for a teacher to turn this into a non-inquiry program - which
would be sad since the labs are cool and the application is awesome.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
35
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The up side of this possible abuse is that at least the big ideas are apparent.
This series is very engaging (puppies, skateboards, sneakers, etc.)
Assessment could be stronger.
It has frequent differentiated learning strategies for English language learners, SPED (low
readers) and gifted. Very helpful.
Good online resources.
Easy to navigate.
A lot of extraneous information – more isn’t better, but could be additional resources.
Good connections to real life problems.
All grade levels would need the Nature of Science book to ensure systems being addressed
common.
Misconceptions identified in Teachers Guide and ideas given to help address these.
Integration opportunities within – reading/writing/math and history
Students keep portfolios.
Lots of “modules,” but if divided into grade levels – only three books per grade level (or so).
Many hands-on labs to enhance concepts.
Material covers all content standards quite well.
Labs need some tweaking but for the most part suggestions are there to make those
changes.
3.11 STC Earth/Life/Physical Series
This program is strong in content, inquiry and application. However, the organization of teacher
materials would require substantial time in preparation. Student guide is well organized and
balanced between inquiry, content and related articles.
Good program. The publisher did a terrible job with references. Many concepts are in the modules,
but no references were made.
• Excellent experiences for students.
• Many different activities/strategies.
• Number and types of assessments are weak.
• Systems weak but could be added.
• Good conceptual development that would lead to deep understandings.
• Easy materials for teacher to use once they are familiar with it.
These materials are designed to teach using inquiry and their conceptual sequencing is solid. Even
in areas where they scored low, minor modifications and/or awareness of the standards and
performance expectations would enable a teacher to successfully incorporate those into the
student’s experience.
• Appear to be limited explicit questioning of students’ metacognition.
• Publishers alignment (SYS and APP) seemed to be about vague notions of standards.
• Term “hypothesis” is not used in student text or teacher’s edition.
• Very little connection to math (scale models of solar system)
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
36
• Human body systems - strong for models, need to add "systems" language.
• Organisms - weak on ecosystems, flow difficult with all life cycles occurring at once.
If I were a middle school teacher I would hope to have the STC curriculum. Students really learn
science through the processes of science. One problem only; the publishers standards alignment
document was deplorable. It resulted in real damage to the STC program’s standing in this process.
• This is a tough one. The boxes are good factual books with good examples and a variety of
experiments. Fair to poor on systems yet they easily could make it. Spotty and inconsistent
on INQ – they make no claim! However, INQA, basic “lab stuff”, data collection, etc. is there.
But all directed no claim on communication or support.
• Very poor on APP – very disappointing because they easily could have. I can see “APPs” –
but they don’t make it clear, explicit, or use good performance expectations. EALR 4 LS1,
LS3, LS3 – Pieces are there! But very narrow, very minimal, no depth, minimal PE.
• Two different books were given, some EALRs were in one, some in others. They refer to
several books not supplied by them.
• I think if the whole program was reviewed it would go to 3 and 4 but we were not asked to
review the whole program – only 2 disparate books.
• Also – they were either using National Standards or old Washington standards.
• I like the Human Body Systems because no units tend to deal with that and our State Health
Standards are not very strong. Kids need to know this.
• I like organized discussion on cells.
• Rich, excellent lab/inquiry activities.
• “Reflecting” – Great student questions.
• Misconceptions present
• deep teacher background.
• The alignment document is abysmal. They fail to cite so many rich activities in their
alignment that unless a person is familiar with the curriculum so much will be missed!
• The page numbers given in the program alignment worksheet for SYSB, SYSC had nothing to
do with the standard.
• The program alignment worksheet was little or no help reviewing this program – it actually
made it more difficult to review the materials.
• An emphasis on Energy Flow/Variation Adaptation is lacking.
• Provides shared experiences for all kids.
• This program would lead kids into stronger science programs and the high school level.
3.12 SCI: Introductory Physical Science
•
•
•
This is a pretty straight forward program.
It is an introduction to Physical Science and does a fairly adequate job of addressing the
experiments and information pertaining to the content.
This is not my expertise, but the physical and motion/force sciences seem to be covered.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
37
•
•
•
•
•
I would love to try this program with gifted students. The development of concepts is
amazing. There is a lot of reading text due to how the experiments are formatted and
embedded. (Students are not reading about science!) This could be modified over the
course of a year to make it more inclusive of ELL and Special Education students. None of
this material is included. Formative assessment is explicit. You would have to build in the
systems and application experiences.
The FME is not as well developed nor as well aligned with our standards. It doesn't match
our energy standards (6-8 PS3) well.
Publisher listed no standards for force, motion, energy text even though it in materials.
This curriculum appears to be just about the core content standards.
Illustrations/photos rarely showed people.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
38
4 High School Biology Programs
4.1 Agile Mind Biology
Systems are addressed, although somewhat incompletely. Inquiry lacks opportunities for studentgenerated questions and investigation plans. The guided inquiry is good. Simulations, animations
and self-assessments help students build understanding and monitor progress.
• Simulations have great graphics.
• Very good for visual learners.
• Good for a self-paced program.
• Didn't see anything to assist teacher when there are technology problems - lack of internet
connection.
• 5E Instructional model (pg. 9 of Teacher Guide to Success).
• Delivery Instructions are very important!! While this is computer based it still requires direct
teacher intervention. Great videos (embedded) that bring Biology alive!
• Keeps referring inquiry into themes of Biology: Energy Transformation, Systems,
Organization, and Evolution -- Great!
• There are many mistakes in the first chapter/topic.
• Guided assessment: Almost all information from exploring is missing or presented for first
time.
• pg. 3: mixed and repeated sentences/answers.
• pg. 4: characteristics.
• pg. 6: both examples show dehydration synthesis.
• pg. 9: After being taught that fiber doesn't provide calories, the service includes them in
calorie count; this also refutes the total calories given in the example (120 does not equal
116 + 16).
• Overall I think the resources were very good at developing understanding.
• Needs more actual Inquiry support.
4.2 Biology: A Human Approach
Because of the extensive materials, it would take time to get up to speed on the use. An initial use
professional development would make this an extremely attractive curriculum – limited professional
development would make it harder to take advantage of the research/format.
Helpful layout of outcomes for teachers, student indicators of success and a variety of formative
assessment strategies and opportunities. I have some concerns about the human body focus (less
molecular approach) especially since there aren't state science standards focused on the human
body in high school.
• Systems presented and systems language used in the context of biological systems.
• Inquiry content and process well-developed and in appropriate context.
• Explicit applications throughout, emphasis on the influence of society.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
39
•
I enjoyed reviewing Biology: A Human Approach. In my opinion, it is one of the best
inquiring and "best practices" programs I have seen. It would be fun to teach with because
the students would enjoy its approach to learning and the students and I would definitely
learn from using it.
• I would have liked to have seen the DVDs that come with it.
• The program approach is definitely pointed towards inquiry and relevance. It also is directed
towards students doing science the way scientists do science.
I would definitely use this program! It is aligned with the AAA standards, connects with research on
How People Learn, has wonderful inquiry activities, is systems based, and applies the information
cross-curricularly (all the big ideas!) Content is excellent, well organized, doesn't have tons of extra
materials -- what is provided is valuable and easily integrated into the core. Teacher text supportive
and well organized.
When looking at our EALR's, they are covered but are done over several units. The student gets a
part here, a part there, but often not the entire idea covered in an EALR. This may diminish students
making the connection between these related pieces.
• An extremely well thought out program that has students participate in genuine inquiry.
• Major concepts are reinforced by activities.
• Teacher support material is outstanding.
4.3 Glencoe Biology
I would want to teach from these materials because of their strong inquiry-based labs. The
coverage of the core content, however, is inconsistent. Some of the Life Science content is well
covered, some very poorly. Publisher claims coverage of non-Life Science areas (chemistry, physics),
but it is very poor. The reading level can be quite high. There is a lot of extra material (probably
two-thirds of a book!) and many areas are covered in too much detail (at levels expected at Biology
101 courses). Other topics are glossed-over – very inconsistent!
The Biolabs are where the cross-cutting standards are primarily addressed. The tips for
differentiation are relatively general in nature, but good reminders. There is little opportunity for
students to reflect or integrate metacognition skills.
This is very much like two other books I’ve taught from by publishers other than this one. Albeit
updated, it is very much the huge, exhaustive catch-all text that I would use twenty percent of in
filling an entire year with my students. Lab manual labs are mostly old school worksheets with little
attempt to change questioning for inquiry. Twenty inquiry labs, why not rewrite the lab manual to
update existing labs?
4.4 Holt Biology
•
•
Multi language glossary.
Chapters begin with Activate prior knowledge.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
40
This program primarily involves reading about science. There are relatively few opportunities to do
science and think like a scientist. There is so much information presented without connections;
book structure doesn’t foster deep conceptual development. Student “preconceptions” that are
identified are not large conceptual ideas, simply “mistakes” a teacher can “correct.” No
opportunities for metacognition are included. This program has some helpful features for English
language learners and the interactive reader is a great tool for all students.
This is a very engaging, user-friendly curriculum that absolutely nails most of the biology standards
and provides ample suggestions and resources for differentiating instruction. It is reasonably strong
across the board and outstanding in many areas. My only real disappointment was a lack of inquiry
emphasis in the core materials. There may be more of that in the Lab Binder, but the publisher did
not include that in the review package, so I don’t know for sure. The publisher also did not include
the assessment book, so my assessment scores may be lower than they should be.
• Vocabulary laden – gets in the way of development of concepts.
• Text would be inaccessible to many students due to reading level and unique vocabulary.
• Some concepts expressed in one content standard are separated in the text, making it
difficult to connect them into a singular bigger idea. Lots of complexity gets in the way of
getting to big ideas.
• Learning objectives in the Teachers Guide are very broad and poorly stated. Difficult to
determine the performance level targeted.
• Assessment book is not included, so could not find evidence for evaluating assessments.
The Central Dogma connection of DNA to RNA is well defined, but the connection of the protein
produced expresses a specific trait is not as clear. Thus students may not get a clear connection
between what is inherited in a gene (DNA sequence), the function of a protein produces being the
expression of a trait.
• Most of the labs already had a procedure.
• I didn’t find a single lab in which students were asked to devise a hypothesis.
• In nearly all labs the problem was stated.
• I didn’t feel that the program followed a systems, inquiry, and application approach to the
big ideas in life science.
• The text would be a good source of factual information.
4.5 Insights in Biology
•
•
•
Based on How People Learn.
Good inquiry - on actual levels.
Honest publisher - see comment under APPB - gave examples instead of listing every
potential page.
• Engaging stories and investigative.
• Nice flow.
• No photos of people - no issue of balance.
Clearly identified storyline, great support for authentic inquiry for students, clear pedagogical
support for methods reflecting How People Learn principles.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
41
Material lacks support in terms of student misconceptions and development of inquiry. While there
is meaningful practice in inquiry abilities, some is at a lower cognitive demand than called for in
Washington EALRs. No real development of EALR 1, despite examples. EALRs 2 and 3 are not fully
developed and there are portions of Life Science EALR 4 that require significant supplementation to
reach the set standard. Material is presented in a more engaging manner and more consistent with
How People Learn but lacks significant portions of standards.
This curriculum has all the content and conceptual development and is structured based on How
People Learn research. There is a rich connection between applied work students do and the
readings provided. This curriculum provides a baseline opportunity in each learning experience to
reflect on the learning and activities are made more relevant through the culminating project at the
end of each unit.
These materials make an intentional effort to infuse a learning cycle approach combined with a
conceptual framework around the big ideas of science. Students are expected to build deep
conceptual understanding of big ideas across many lessons.
• SYSA: No mention of feedback systems – either positive or negative – opportunity to teach in
LE 8 and LE 2 and LE 5 but no explicit vocabulary or conceptual development is evident in
terms of systems – could be easily introduced with focus by teacher – need for professional
development accompanying implementation.
• APP: Materials don’t explicitly mention criteria or constraint.
• SYSD: No mention of dynamic vs. static equilibrium.
4.6 McGraw-Hill Life Science
•
•
•
•
I would not choose this curriculum, but if I had to use it I could definitely make it work.
Some of the strengths are background information, tips for differentiation, attractive
graphics and layout, reading level, general user-friendliness, and the Explore It! Suggestions.
I love the connections and Science Journals and would want to see more of these.
My reservations are in the area of inquiry and a general sense of lack of depth in some
critical content such as common ancestry and other concepts in the area of evolution.
Almost all the labs are completely scripted. There were very, very few opportunities in the
core sequence for students to run the whole process from generating a question to
publishing their findings.
I liked the lack of extraneous information and the learning cycle. The embedded assessment
and accommodations for diverse learners are also good.
This curriculum focuses to heavily on reading about science, instead of learning while doing.
The "Explore" phase is focused on engaging students, when it should have been either
bringing forth preconceptions or using inquiry to master concepts. Much of the inquiry and
scientific thinking features are included in sidebars and separate features, where they are
likely to be seen as extension and skipped. There is little opportunity for reflection (except
about reading comprehension) and no evidence of metacognitive activities.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
42
These materials are very poor in explicit, rich and embedded inquiry, systems and application.
Pieces are “there” but inquiry and systems are never defined. Performance expectations are vague
and weak. Science content is good and I “like” the materials. But they need to spend some time
being explicit on inquiry, systems, and applications. The workbook does not fulfill EALR 1, 2 or 3
performance expectations. There would need to be a lot of supplemental and professional
development on systems, inquiry, and applications.
• In general, the text has too low cognitive demand to be appropriate for high school level.
• Precursor skills are presented to students through textual methods. Laboratory activities are
too simple to get at evaluation, validity, and reliability.
• Prompts for students are at recall, describe for the most part – not at higher levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
• No conceptual development is apparent in the text – information is presented without
prioritization and at low level of concepts.
This book lacks almost any student-centered inquiry. It is very much a traditional textbook and one
that is more suited for middle school.
4.7 Pearson Biology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Copyright 2010.
No lab manual provided; difficult to evaluate some elements.
Support for using UbD was excellent.
Lots of focus on their chapter big ideas.
Engaging graphics.
Like the chapter mysteries.
Assessment of prior knowledge could have been better.
Problem: Too much text; both per page and overall.
Too wide – Not enough focus.
Many students probably could not move through this material at the pace required.
Too much extra information.
Not student centered; it is hard to see how the course could be inquiry based and still get
through.
Would like to have seen other versions.
P. 810: (Form a Hypothesis) – Misleading statement and question "Form a hypothesis that
explains your observation" rather than stating a hypothesis that which is an idea that leads
to an investigation to test the statement.
Difficult to completely evaluate (especially Inquiry) without – the Lab Manual A or B to which
the TE refers, "Big Idea" – does not mirror the standards main strand or "Big Ideas".
"Event-Based Science;" Modules were not reviewed with this evaluations, only core biology
materials.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
43
Many publisher-referenced pages only topically addressed Washington State standards, often
missing the cognitive level of success desired for students as described by our performance
expectations. Also, curriculum was limited in the extent it applied key findings from How People
Learn.
• Excellent graphics.
• Inquiry and application are present as stand-alone concepts. They are not used to facilitate
new learning throughout the text, i.e., “Biology and Society,” “Skills Labs” and “Technology
and Biology.”
• Students limited on analyzing their own lab data – they are given graphs and tables – less
ownership.
• Doesn’t address prior misconceptions.
• Lab manual is referenced, but none was provided.
4.8 What is Life? A Guide to Biology
•
Wow! I loved this approach, the up to date science, case studies, etc. His intro to science
was the best I've seen. Genetics and bio-tech great, good ecology and evolution.
• Problems: I couldn't see the Teacher's Manuel (not included) nor the lab manual, nor the
progressive difficulty computer based tests. Darn! I would've loved to see the "Technology
Supplements", etc.
• I think this is the best, least extraneous material, yet "deep" coverage text I've seen in years.
• Error: p. 125, the author failed to note chemosynthesizers @ ocean vents, the exception for
the solar "rule".
• It was difficult to evaluate some aspects of this program because the only material given for
review was the student edition of the text - no teacher’s edition, no lab manual, no
assessments. This led to low score in the INQ EALR and the student learning, facilitating
instruction, E and A and Assessment evaluations.
• The text itself is extremely engaging to read and would interest most students.
What is Life is a very engaging, easy to read, well illustrated study of cells and evolution.
Unfortunately, the students are never asked to do any activities. There is no attention to How
People Learn, no identification of prior conceptions, no building of concepts through discovery and
no application activities. This book is enjoyable to read, but reading is all students do with this text.
Because the text is rich with examples, some students could achieve the standards. However there
is no support for differentiation for English language learners, learning styles, or reading level
variations. There are no opportunities to apply math skills and students never design or complete
an investigation. Therefore, students never evaluate the work of their peers or justify their own
conclusions. This would be a nice resource for the teacher or student, but would need a great deal
of supplementation as a classroom text.
This is a very well written and developed biology text. However, no ancillary materials (e.g. lab
manual) were submitted for review, so ratings for inquiry and systems are low.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
44
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Questions stimulating.
Street biology → same application, do student do?
Take home message – summarizes key concepts.
This is a textbook only, not a curriculum.
Very high level, scored “2”s because not comprehensible to 10th grade level without very
heavy supplementation or outside activities.
Good book for AP Bio? Maybe. Good content but no learning opportunities.
Great visuals with explanations and comments that go with them.
I would only want this book in an AP course, not in regular 10th grade biology.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
45
5 High School Chemistry Programs
5.1 Active Chemistry
•
I would be excited to use these materials. I like the strong grounding in How People Learn
and the explicit guidance/support for this. The degree of explicit attention to actual Inquiry
and Application is unusually strong in these materials.
• The use of Problem-Based concepts to engage students is very well done: the structures and
activities are consistent with my training in Problem-based Learning (PBL) and the realities of
implementing PBL in my classes.
• Despite the atypical organization and approach to chemistry (compared to classical
approaches), the content is clearly present and sensibly organized.
• The materials are very learner centered, treating them and teachers with respect.
The only drawback would be amount of equipment and supplies. Many labs embedded in
curriculum. Students are investigating almost every day.
• Initial use professional development is unusually important for this curriculum.
• Test generator CD is linked to old WA state standards. Link to new standards would be much
better.
• A novice teacher could easily teach from these materials. Students who don't typically "get"
science should be more engaged and more successful using this curriculum.
• It appears a little weak in what might be called "college prep" chemistry. From personal
experiences, I am not sure this would prepare a student for AP chemistry or college level
chemistry.
Materials support a constructivist learning approach for students.
Open-ended inquiry opportunities are not addressed in the materials.
• Engaging project based approach to learning chemistry. Students have lots of opportunities
to be responsible for their own learning - and the scaffolding is present to help them.
• Not presented in the linear fashion of a traditional chemistry text, the big ideas of chemistry
are weaving in and out through the text and presented in context at an ever increasing level
of complexity.
• The multiple opportunities for students to reflect, explain, and discuss findings gives
evidence to a strong alignment with How People Learn. The 5E (7E) Learning cycle is
wonderful.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
46
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nice spiral.
Loved the challenge.
Elicit preconceptions.
Group work.
Like the four questions
What does it mean?
How do you Know?
Why do you believe?
Why should you care? (Not as strong as other questions.)
Easy to use.
5.2 Chemistry in the Community
•
•
Very strong in terms of application and relevance and therefore engaging.
Clear instructions on lab prep and execution would make it relatively easy to teach this off
the shelf even as a non-chemistry expert.
• Quite weak on the inquiry piece. Students do not have many opportunities to generate their
own question or design investigations and while there is a lot of application there is very
little reflection. There are only a few opportunities for students to critique an investigation.
• Overall, it is strongly oriented toward content mastery and application and not well
grounded in process and inquiry.
• Disappointed that the materials have not included research findings from the cognitive
sciences.
• Concept development is lean.
• Assessment is weak.
• The cross-cutting standards are weak and I like to teach a strong lab based program where
students do more inquiry and application.
• Students don't realize they are doing the work of scientists and rarely have to analyze,
defend or retest their answers to problems.
• No addressing of pre-conceptions to draw out learning problems with ideas/content.
• The engaging focus and conceptual development of chemical concepts are strengths of this
program. Students will do well in learning how to apply chemical ideas to everyday life.
• Unfortunately, as written, the program lacks the features necessary to ensure students learn
deep scientific inquiry skills. It also lacks the features supporting current learning research.
• I would teach using this curriculum if I had time to modify for these features. The basic
structures of the materials provide an adequate scaffold.
This is a nice product. I really like the practical applications. Where it was scored down was on
explicit definitions and consistent deep inquiry and systems and applications. They "do" a lot of
things, but not "This is Inquiry", "Generate Your Own Questions", “This is a System", “Describe How
Subsystems Interact", "Critically Analyze". No citation guides. They could easily embellish the
System Inquiry and Application with a consistent explicit approach.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
47
5.3 Chemistry: C&A
• Margin questions used for metacognition.
• What do you think? Used for pre-conceptions.
• No teacher materials to help teach (activities, ideas, etc.).
I wouldn't reject it; however, I wouldn't necessarily teach in the sequence of the text. In addition,
there are several useful things at the end of the text that correlate to the standards. Supplemental
material, especially performance assessment is a valuable tool.
• Overall this is an acceptable high school chemistry C&A book. It covers the appropriate
topics adequately. It does have a good variety of diverse examples and applications.
• It is very weak on systems and inquiry even though "inquiry extension" boxes are there, they
are add-ons. The activities and labs are not Inquiry (no question generation, very
prescriptive).
• Systems thinking and examples are non-existent.
• Application is quite good but needs more on performance expectations.
• EARL is fine, the other claims are minimal cross examples, but can be used well by
appropriate teachers.
• Seems more like reading text.
• Coding on alignment form not clear.
• T - Teachers Edition?? Or TE - Teachers Edition??
• There is a study TE too!
• Labs never cited.
• Mostly summative assessment.
• Few opportunities for students to reflect on their own thinking.
This program is very traditional. It does not emphasize the learning of science content through the
processes of science. Inquiry, systems and application standards are weakly covered. A particular
program strength are the tie ins to life science
• Wow!
• Best so far :-)
• Science vocabulary is being introduced in Kindergarten!
• Formative and summative assessments.
• ELL connections throughout -- materials and suggestions.
It is clear that this curriculum provides many opportunities to connect chemistry to real world
situations and applications, however it appears no different than so many encyclopedic chemistry
curriculums in that there are numerous supplemental pieces, a lack of application of How People
Learn research, a substantial lack of students being able to generate their own investigations, and
lack of a broader metacognitive component to complete learning cycles.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
48
5.4 Chemistry: Matter and Change
•
•
•
•
Few opportunities to do inquiry other than extremely structured tasks.
Big ideas get lost in all the details.
Formative assessment not well-developed.
Connections and applications to real-world problems and examples are separate from the
main body of the text – too easily ignored by students and teachers.
• Lacks prompts to encourage students to analyze and evaluate.
• Metacognition and reflection are missing.
• Copyright 2008.
• Materials are not strong in their use of EALRs 1, 2 & 3.
• Not enough embedded practice problems.
• Labs are mostly cookbook; not inquiry.
• Too much excess material to allow students to develop deep understanding.
• There are many opportunities for students to conduct scientific investigations, but the labs
they do plan - they do not perform. Also, they do not analyze why the labs are designed a
specific way or analyze their own lab.
• There are "Activities" and research projects listed in the teacher’s edition which are the main
way some standards are met. However, when looking at the planning guides and pacing
guides, they are not listed. This included many of the Application standards.
• Some chapters give reference in the teacher’s edition about common student
misconceptions in their prior knowledge, but don’t give tools to address or re-address at the
end of the lesson.
The Inquiry, Applications and Systems standards were not met as well because the essence of the
"System", "Application", and "Inquiry" cross-linking connections. System was not clearly specified
throughout the curriculum. Application standards all needed to address solving a problem. Inquiry
was limited in the area of the students asking questions and designing an investigation.
• Chemistry: Matter and Change is a well-done traditional chemistry course. It meets many of
the EALR 4 standards for domain content but falls down in application and is very weak in
the inquiry EALR.
• Missing metacognition.
• Weak on real-world application.
5.5 Holt Modern Chemistry
Even though this text lacks a strong, explicit background in inquiry, it is a strong analytical book that
specializes in chemistry. The inquiry lab and microscale books definitely cover the application of
inquiry but were not cited by the publisher.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
49
Extensive content coverage is a strength of this program. Holt Modern Chemistry is a traditional
program with a comprehensive textbook that includes most chemistry topics covered over two
years. The program does not provide opportunities or guidance for inquiry learning, as defined by
EALR 2. It also does not allow for engaging preconceptions or metacognition, as defined by How
People Learn. These areas would require extensive teacher supplementation. I was confused by the
“Chem File C Inquiry Experiment” because complete procedures and questions were given to
students. Teachers would need to use their own creativity to create inquiry scenarios. In the
program overview in the Teachers Edition (pg. 11) it says the inquiry experiments book has students
“developing their own procedures and laboratory techniques,” but I didn’t see this in the book.
Although the materials produced by the publisher are solid in encyclopedic content, they are not
well designed for student learning. Inquiry, application, diagnostic assessment and formative
assessment are very weak. I did not see hardly any connection with How People Learn, or the “best
practices” of teaching and learning. There was not a very high level of technology shown.
Computer and DVDs were referenced. I also did not see a strong connection to probes and
software. Overall this program looks like a good “traditional” program that I would not look forward
to teaching from.
Currently, this is the curriculum adopted by my District. I have used Modern Chemistry for several
years (I like the 80’s version better). However, I do not go through the text in its entirety or in order
– and generally, the text ends up as a reference and source of supplemental problems. It is an
encyclopedic approach to chemistry – too much content – mile wide, inch deep. No true inquiry –
labs are cookbook-type.
5.6 Investigating Chemistry
•
How are students going to develop deep conceptual understanding when their reading,
being presented PowerPoint lectures and doing labs investigations that don't develop the
concepts?
• It's a nice idea to teach chemistry through the context of forensic, but they’re not using
these materials.
• Support for teachers was poor.
• Not student centered learning.
• Chapter cases were interesting, but did not involve student inquiry.
• Lots of material not directed at Chemistry standards.
• Not enough student development of concepts.
Very engaging, slim book. Very tight text, little or no distracting fluff. Program based on forensic
investigation. Student role in labs is one of criminal lab technicians. Scenarios well chosen to
highlight chemistry concepts. I can see students getting into this program. Chemistry concepts
framed in real-world context, especially since the crimes are real. I wish I had this book both as a
teacher – and as a student. Would benefit from Teacher’s Guide information with strategies to
better nail the PEs in systems and inquiry…but the program as a whole provides a wonderful
foundation as instructional support material in an inquiry-based classroom.
No, this text does not reflect the findings of educational research or best teaching practices.
Absolutely no features of inquiry and is very skill and drill.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
50
5.7 Kendall/Hunt Chemistry
I don't think they were very engaging. See notes on standards sheets for specifics.
While not perfectly aligned with the standards, it is more progressive than the book I am currently
using to teach chemistry. I liked the chapter looks and the use of everyday substances in the labs. It
is a nice blend of traditional chemistry and current ideas on student learning.
• Kendall/Hunt Chemistry is organized around themes as opposed to traditional chemistry
topics.
• Curriculum is focused around fewer topic themes and covers these in depth.
• Inquiry and Application are real strengths of this program. Students are given frequent
opportunities to define their research questions, hypotheses and procedures, as well as to
analyze and share their results.
• The text is clear without a lot of extraneous information or boxes.
• Scientific error: Carbon-14 is not the isotope used to determine the age of Tyrannosaurus
Rex (p. 425).
• Relevant materials students can relate to.
• Hire someone to redesign PowerPoint slides – they are all the same design and include no
real visuals.
• Essential questions for each chapter – nice!
• Student learning objectives – none there except at the start of the chapter then only subjects
covered are listed.
• Inquiry components are nicely embedded throughout the curriculum →designing labs,
answering questions, etc. (across the continuum).
• I teach 9th grade basic chemistry but I would be comfortable using this curriculum. Put
together very well, not intimidating.
• While a little low in systems cross-cutting content, the program is very strong in both inquiry
and application.
• The content standards appropriate for chemistry are well-developed without including
extraneous concepts that are inappropriate for a first-year chemistry course.
5.8 Pearson Chemistry
Inch deep, mile wide approach, very little student-based inquiry opportunity.
I could use much of this book to teach chemistry. The connections and cross-curricular pieces aren’t
strong but a teacher could build it into the lessons. I felt the labs didn’t have much student-based
design, alternate explanations or communication, but this could be improved by upgrading the
questioning strategies. Likewise, the tests were pretty standard multiple-choice and fill-in-theblanks.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
51
This text does not align well with the How People Learn research. Some concepts, especially in the
area of chemical reactions, are well developed with numerous activities and experiences that could
be implemented to help students construct meaning from the text. The text is good at trying to
make connections for the student with engaging examples, visuals and thoughtful questioning, but
does not provide adequate opportunities for students to build their own understanding.
The overall design and teaching supports in this program are excellent. The core content is well
addressed, although supplementation will be needed to underscore a systems approach.
Assessment is excellent.
5.9 World of Chemistry
World of Chemistry covers fairly well the core content and performance expectations of the EALR4s
dealing specifically with chemistry. In this respect, it is a fairly traditional text. It is lacking in all of
the cross-cutting EALRs 1-3. The potential for covering all of them exists for a chemistry text, but is
not well-executed. All of the labs are very “cookbook” and do not allow students much exploration
into Inquiry.
• It appears to be very good at standard chemistry. The pedagogy appears a bit “old school” –
drill and practice would make them very proficient at some things. Not very good at multidisciplinary connections, connections to social or environmental issues. Biology connections
could add more relevance to student life.
• Labs fairly “cook-book”, not much work at making them open ended or having them do
much classroom discussion or discussing alternate hypotheses. By updating their questioning
strategies and delivering the labs differently, they could definitely improve the inquiry
component of their labs. Students express themselves mainly by reading/working examples.
This would serve as a good secondary resource; much of the teaching would be augmented by other
materials not included here – a reference curriculum at best.
• No clear learning model.
• No clear work with metacognition.
• Covers every possible chemistry topic.
• Very little work with prior knowledge and misconceptions.
• This would be a good traditional college prep/honors text. It goes way beyond the standards
in items like measurement, formulas, gas laws, and inter-molecular forces. A student
completing the program successfully would be well prepared for college chemistry.
• It does a poor job of integrating the “big ideas” into its materials. Much of Inquiry is
relegated to the spring project.
• I can’t visualize myself ever adopting these materials to reach the standards-based goals. The
best feature is the “Team Learning Worksheets”, but they are not used in a manner
consistent with How People Learn, nor are they incorporated into the student textbook so
that they can see the centrality of their use.
• The labs are confirmation, not inquiry, and are super-scaffolded. At least there is an editable
electronic version.
• I like the tech tools, making it easy is prepare projected PPT, video, and animation – but
these are intended only for explanatory use by teachers.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
52
6 High School Earth Science Programs
6.1 Discovering the Universe
•
Cross-cutting EALRs not well-represented. Systems language not explicit so that aspect could
be overlooked by students and/or teachers. Observing projects at the end of each chapter
provides opportunities for inquiry but all seem to be very structured not giving students the
chance to plan their own investigations/field studies.
• Publisher's alignment document was extremely incomplete. For example, the
documentation indicated no standards in the physical science domain, in spite of the fact
that force, motion, energy, and fusion were all addressed in the text.
My students would find the material too dense and inaccessible as core curriculum, though I'd like
to use the text and electronic resources as good supplements.
• Margin questions used for metacognition.
• What do you think? Used for pre-conceptions.
• No teacher materials to help teach (activities, ideas, etc.).
• This is just a text with information and review questions.
• Suitable for a single subject course in astronomy.
6.2 EarthComm
• Program is definitely student-centered.
• Program focus is definitely hands-on activities based!
• Excellent assessment – diagnostic, formative, and summative.
• Program aligned to How People Learn.
• Excellent reflections for students.
• Program involves application and inquiry throughout.
• Guidance and help for teacher is comprehensive in the teacher’s guide.
Initially, I did not like the organization of the teacher editions; however, after going through all five
teacher editions thoroughly, I changed my mind. The organization is quite logical, separating major
units. The amount of material to inform an educator of concepts, expected responses and
misconceptions is nice and would benefit a person like me (not my primary content area) if I had to
teach this course. Most of the activities use common items, which is helpful (some obviously
require unique/specialized equipment). Lots of good tips included to help teach the program
successfully.
There is a tremendous wealth of information in the teacher editions.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
53
•
•
•
•
•
EarthComm is composed of fifteen chapters organized into three books. Chapters are
designed to stand alone, so can be taught in any order. Because of this, there is not a
progression of inquiry skills, and some concepts are repeated.
Some modules/chapters focus on areas not emphasized in EALR 4 domains. All EALR 4
domains could be addressed using a partial set of chapters.
Publisher provided alignment sheet was incomplete and contains many errors. I think Earth
Science EALR 4 calculations were placed in Physical Science boxes.
Many opportunities to examine real data are a strength of this program.
This program has many activities – which can be hard to do in Earth Science.
6.3 Essential Earth
This is an interesting book, but that’s all it is. It is not a package or a curriculum. No teacher support
materials to speak of, no background information, no teaching strategies, no labs, no inquiry, none
of the things that I would expect to see in a high school science curriculum.
In addition, it reads at a very high level. Every reader whose name is listed in the
acknowledgements is a college professor, and this definitely looks and feels like a college-level book.
If I had to use this in high school, it would be only with my very best readers and most accomplished
honors students.
A beautiful book with lots of background on earthly systems, but not appropriate for high school
students.
• Regretfully, it wouldn't work as curriculum due to the lack of cross-cutting state science
standards - Systems (participation from students), Inquiry (same) & Application (labs, etc.)
• I really like the content and societal issues -- if the authors wanted to help developing labs
and other parts of the cross-cutting standards, I would enjoy helping.
• The book is an excellent supplemental and content rich material.
This book is a pretty reference presenting a mass of facts about the Earth. It is not appropriate or
useful as instructional material. Conceptual development of big ideas is almost nonexistent. The
support material consists of a test bank of low-level recall questions and PowerPoint slides for direct
instruction. There is nothing to support inquiry or actually doing science. No laboratory or activities
are mentioned. Not aligned with current research on learning.
6.4 Glencoe Earth Science: GEU
I would enjoy teaching with these materials. Interesting, important applications of Earth Science
concepts. Good supporting materials - multimedia, labs, help with student-support, connections to
online. The use of visuals and models is extensive, helping the understanding of long term
processes.
• Shotgun approach, mile wide but some excessive depth.
• Very little learner focus inquiry.
• “East Coast” text – virtually no Pacific Northwest examples. Teacher would need to have
extensive Pacific Northwest background to apply text to Washington.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
54
Limited reach for learners – does not attempt to provide new situations for learners to apply what
they are learning often enough.
• Cool peer review feature where students can post their work on the publisher’s Web site and
compare their results with students across the country.
• Lots of real-world connections – very engaging.
• Lots of modeling, material intensive.
• Traditional encyclopedic approach but strong on thinking skills.
6.5 Holt Earth Science
•
Open systems, closed systems, Earth system are mentioned but “systems” is not crosscutting across the materials.
• No mention of positive/negative feedback was found.
This book is filled with interesting information. Unfortunately in 962 pages only a limited number of
Washington State standards are met. Learning science through the processes of science is not a
major theme.
• Not enough open-ended questions.
• Students didn’t generate many of their own questions.
• No lab reports created just by students.
• Labs were prescriptive.
• Assessments were more multiple-choice than short answers.
• Overall, the elements are there. Content big ideas are there.
• System pieces are there. In some places they are explicit, others are spotty.
• SYSA and SYSB are not explicitly addressed that I can see.
• This is probably the weakest piece but it is there at a 3. Teachers who can/want to be more
explicit could be.
• The application and technology is also spotty but there.
• EALR 2 and 3 are acceptable – the pieces are there but are inconsistent, not always where
the alignment sheet says. Not always explicitly stated, e.g., “systems thinking include…”
(SYSB), “Feedback is…” (SYSA).
• APPF “You can apply science in the global warming/climate change debate.”
The activities are not necessary to the learning. The book could be used without any student
activity. Inquiry is not woven through the book. The content is not approached through systems –
they are only touched on. The materials are heavy on facts and light on student engagement. There
is not a clear learning cycle – basically direct instruction with tacked on student activities. Content is
good. Well illustrated and provides examples. But its best use would be as a reference book. There
is too much content for the amount in our standards. This might serve as a text for a stand-alone
elective class.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
55
6.6 McGraw-Hill Earth & Space Science
•
This program is an excellent "traditional" program. The material contains the "big ideas" of
an introductory earth science course however, except for the 5E instructional model the
content is set up to transfer more like an encyclopedia than an inquiry application - systems
based program.
• I like the ELL strategies and the interdisciplinary connections.
• The assessment components were OK, however, I would like to have seen more/stronger
diagnostic - formative components.
• The suggested labs were weak on inquiry and strong on a cookbook approach.
• McGraw-Hill Earth and Space Science is a traditional textbook. It does not incorporate
inquiry learning as defined by EALR 2. Research on How People Learn is incorporated by KW-L-S-H charts in many chapters.
• The text disappoints with the depth of information. For Example, the green house effect is
described with a picture and caption, but not in the text. The picture shows clouds blocking
outgoing infrared radiation, which is not relevant to CO2. On page 453 evidence of the
universe's expansion is listed only as "scientific observations," with no mention of what
those observation are.
• The use of inquiry would be entirely up to the teacher, and the text would require extensive
supplementation to meet EALRS 1-3.
• Page 448 could lead to confusion between binary stars and galaxies.
• Page 456 photo of crab nebula as a supernova remnant more appropriate in star chapter
than galaxy chapter.
This book is a typical text packed with information – concepts are covered in a few paragraphs –
some re-occur. Questioning strategies do not promote critical thinking and do not connect with
How People Learn research. The activities are “old-school” (outline chapter) with new ideas (use a
journal), but not effectively used in this material unless the teacher knows how to implement that
type of learning experience to develop metacognitive practices and critical thinking regarding all the
topics of the text. Activities are “cookbook” type, which don’t require students to develop their
own thoughts, discover current misconceptions and any changes following the information/activity
* Please note: the representative referenced all standards.
The text seems more suited to middle school. It barely covers the standards and does not expand
upon them.
• Investigations are at a superficial level.
• Not enough inquiry learning.
• Too much memorization of material.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
56
6.7 Pearson Earth Science
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reviewed base program only.
Tarbuck text.
Standardized test prep.
Lesson plans.
Guided reading and study with level A and B.
Lab Manual.
Progress monitoring assessments.
Chapter tests.
Although the first chapter is intended to set the stage for inquiry and systems approach, it is
not practiced anywhere else in this curriculum!
• Materials are encyclopedic, making it difficult for a student to identify the most important
concepts.
• Materials are not organized in a way to encourage meaning-making and inquiry.
Content-rich – I could make it work with teacher-generated and teacher-modified activities.
Publisher did not understand Washington State big ideas. These could have been developed within
the content, but did not.
• No topic developed in depth.
• Encyclopedic without fully meeting any of the standards.
• “Natural Hazards” extra test – can’t see connection to core program. Isn’t it referred to in
the Teacher Edition? Significantly harder reading level and no lab/activity.
6.8 Science of Earth Systems
No, I wouldn’t use this text. The questions in the text do not solicit any information other than
recall. All the content is nice, but doesn’t ask anything of students other than reading. Clearly, this
text needs much support material (which, some was included) – however, the text would become
simply a reference/backup to all the ancillary materials – those are more core-like.
Bare bones material at a very low cognitive level.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
57
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Science of Earth Systems is an informational textbook. The teachers guide contains only
solutions to problems. Although systems are in the title, a systems approach is not applied
throughout the body, although it is applied well in the section on “Flow of Energy and Matter
Through Ecosystems (Ch. 33).”
The text does not provide for inquiry as defined in EALR2, and does not provide application
of this from How People Learn. This curriculum would require extensive supplementation by
the individual teacher to meet state standards.
Many explanations are incomplete or unclear. I noted several scientific errors (see below):
Photo captions should say where picture was taken. Many figure captions do not completely
explain what is in the figure.
Fig. 3-8 is illegible.
Science errors: P. 136 Earthmath #1 refers to “Center of the Universe.” Cosmology (p. 135)
does not reflect recent data that indicates cosmic expansion is accelerating. P. 411-1A does
not reflect findings of most recent IPCC report. Greenhouse effect refers to all gases that
absorb infrared radiation, not just CO2. P. 2-13 in E=mc2, E is not electromagnetic radiation –
it is rest mass energy.
No reference to any of the DVDs or lab, so this was just a textbook where students read and
answer questions at the end of the chapter.
Seems like there may have been some nice connections on DVD or even models of different
materials. They were never referred to in the Teachers Guide on Publisher’s notes. Too bad.
Basic recall only. No higher level.
There is a lab manual but it is not referenced in the text at all.
Teacher’s edition only gives answers.
Questions are short-answer recall directly from the text, multiple choice or matching. There
is no application.
Text covers many topics but lacks depth.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
58
7 High School Physical Science Programs
7.1 Active Physical Science
•
Uses ideas of velocity and acceleration for Newton's laws before discussing and developing
velocity and acceleration conceptually.
• Speed and velocity initially used interchangeably. Velocity defined nearly 300 pages after
speed introduced. Possibly nice cycling back to deepen concepts, but may lead to deepening
misconceptions about speed, velocity and acceleration. Many concepts beyond WA
standards developed more in depth than WA concepts.
• Very structured approach with more breadth than needed in some areas and not enough in
other. Lacks opportunities to develop understanding of inquiry as done by scientists and to
practice all abilities. Key ideas not fully developed. Lacking a system approach and weak in
development of EALRs 2 and 3, although stronger in 2 and 3 than many other curriculums.
This curriculum's strength is its conceptual development building around the chapter challenges and
the activities leading up to the challenge. All chapters seem to reflect aspects of the three key
findings of How People Learn and the application standards are very strong. In both activities and
chapter challenges are references to 'Designing a process" and correlated nicely to our new
standards. The references of standards to the text could have been much more explicit.
7.2 Conceptual Physical Science
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Although there are some inquiry and application weaknesses (students not in the role of
science-inquirer/designer), these materials have good potential because of the numerous
and routine questions embedded.
Sometimes it answers the questions when posing them. Lots of use of evidence to let
students grapple and explain phenomena.
Many diagrams and descriptions reinforce misconceptions or may create new ones.
Most pictures in text are of much younger children than a high school student.
Cartoon mouse to parrot throughout giving text a distinctly immature feel.
This is very encyclopedic and many topics covered superficially.
Too much, too superficial.
Multiple choice / plug-n-chug too evident.
Was not able to access online support due to login problems. Nor the CD included because it
would not allow progress without entering name and school information.
I could teach from these materials with volumes of teacher made materials and other
supplements.
Student inquiry, evaluation and communication are not evident.
Text is an example of mile-wide, inch-deep traditional curriculum.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
59
7.3 Foundations of Physical Science
Good to see manipulatives being used. However, kit is not enough for an entire classroom. I like
the investigations. They seem well developed and aligned with Big Science ideas. I like graphic
organizer on CD.
This product “gets” systems and inquiry! In short – send this to all publishers of science
instructional materials as the example! I wish chemistry and life science products were framed this
way. This is the best I have seen across the board!
• The procedure for the majority of the labs was already laid out.
• The question for each activity was already stated.
• Although the program makes excellent use of technology, analyzing data, writing graphs,
etc., I didn’t see much analysis of alternative explanations.
• Only two labs actually had students designing their own experiments and actually writing a
lab report.
• Program contains a lot of good information and a variety of questions, worksheets, activities,
etc., however, it is not strong in the “systems inquiry application.”
I would like teaching from this program provided I had all of the requisite lab materials for my
classroom. This program will not work without the equipment. The program does not emphasize
the learning of science concepts through the processes of science. I think this could be easily
modified though. There is no such thing as “pressure energy”!
7.4 Glencoe Physical Science with Earth Science
•
•
Glossary - English and Spanish - pretty cool.
Note books used for writing formulas, findings and/or to record data. Not for reflection,
questions, to determine meaning or making sense of a science concept.
• A mile wide.
• Some cook book some more open ended.
• No storyline.
• Low level?
• Love the foldable.
• The text book has 900 pages.
While I would teach from this curriculum based on a fairly good inquiry component and good
application base, the amount of content and lack of a clear sequence makes it cumbersome. I really
liked the “Design Your Own” as it reflected a stronger inquiry approach and this component
extended throughout the curriculum. I did not find the listings under “systems” helpful and
subsequently found other “systems” references in the text.
• Program identifies opportunities for inquiry but could be more inquiry-focused.
• Program does not develop ideas in a depth for students to process and construct deep
understanding.
• Support for non-traditional learners is present but fairly shallow.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
60
There is little, if any, systems language and concepts in spite of ample examples for teaching
systems. Inquiry and application are confused and not well developed. Important ideas and
concepts are not fully addressed and language at times presents ideas in a way that would lead to
new misconceptions.
7.5 Glencoe Physical Science
Program would require extensive augmentation.
Text too busy. Reading mostly consisted of definitions linked together to make paragraphs. Labs
supplemental – mostly cookbook in nature. Students are not prompted for preconceptions. Engage
section at starting chapters stops there – little or no link to activities in chapter. Activities in book
are conformational in nature and involve little inquiry.
• Life science resource (“Leveled Resources”) was mislabeled as physical science – no physical
science “leveled resources” could be evaluated.
• Much of the main text is superficial with limited development. This is an example of “mile
wide/inch deep.”
I would use this as a reference, but not as my primary curricular material. Not much in the way of
reflection; preconception is surfacing and is more focused on specific details rather than big ideas.
I could teach from these and make it work well. Two things it lacks for me: 1) a learning cycle deeply
committed to How People Learn; 2) formative assessment materials that support an instructionassessment link throughout the lessons. Also, too much emphasis on reading-to-learn.
I would not want to teach from this curriculum as I have found it to be very fact-oriented. It is in
fact encyclopedic in its coverage of physical science. The curriculum is very weak in the areas of
systems, application and the ability to do inquiry. The use of the processes of science to develop
understanding of science content is not strong.
7.6 Holt Physical Science
• Weak on some of the cross-cutting abilities.
• Most of domain standards covered.
• Could use more depth in some areas.
• Labs are placed at the end of the chapter.
• No buy-in or ownership for kids – “Why do I need to know this?”
• Has many concepts without student involvement.
• Resembles a “traditional text” with limited student involvement.
The materials had a traditional format with marginal items inserted to assist learning based on
current research.
Many content standards found in the text of the materials, but was lacking when it addressed the
ways in which students would demonstrate understanding (performance expectations) as well as
development of conceptual idea for student understanding.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
61
•
•
•
•
•
•
Basically a traditional physical science curriculum with some improvements in levels of
inquiry and real-world applications.
Includes several chapters/topics not addressed in standards.
Does not have a clear learning cycle to guide students.
Significantly lacks metacognition.
Great for Probeware teachers. Has a probe lab for every chapter.
Good on hints for differentiation.
7.7 Holt Physical, Earth & Space
Too much covered in the book at too shallow depth. The labs don't give a student much questioning
that elucidates deeper understanding or inquiry. I would use this but would have to generate lots of
stuff to spend more time so students would really get some concepts.
This material has some really good points, but would need extensive supplementation. The “Why It
Matters” and Application Labs are good – need more of them to drive home the cross-cutting
standards.
Although this text has great support for English language learning students and differentiated
instruction, the depth of concept development was lacking for many content standards. Systems
thinking and authentic inquiry experiences were also not well-developed.
7.8 McGraw-Hill Physical Science
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Seems more like a reading text. 3 labs per chapter but the (A) is just short intro, and 2(B)
and 3 (C) are scaffolded according to difficulty.
Is it enough doing of science?
Students never generate their own equations.
Workbook introduces vocabulary 1st before students have had time to know why they need
to know the word. Lots of fill in the blanks. Where do students complete their own
sentences – graphic organizes challenges.
Definitely not “systems” based. Definitely not “Inquiry” based. Definitely not “Application”
based. (These are cross-cutting ideas in Washington State’s science standards.)
Content standards are present.
Overall, this meets the spirit of all big ideas in Systems, Inquiry and Application but misses
out on a top score by not being explicit. Systems and Inquiry are never explicitly mentioned.
9-12 INQG and -H are weak – no rich explanation of communication and support – just
“research, report and support” – they could have nailed it with a few more explicit examples.
But this set of instructional materials can easily be used to practice systems and inquiry.
On EALR 4 – excellent for PS1, PS2, PS3. Poor on all the rest – but they claimed it on the
publisher alignment worksheet, but they had another publisher alignment worksheet where
they did not. For Physical Science it is fine.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
62
7.9 Pearson Physical Science
This package of materials represents and encyclopedia collection of science topics and concepts. It
will be difficult for students to differentiate Big Ideas from details. Labs labeled "Design Your Own
Experiment" are more open-ended but limited.
• Narrow the scope – more is not better.
• Less topics, more conceptual development.
• Cookbook “inquiry” more often than not.
• Pg. 16 bad analogy. (figure 16)
• Not based on How People Learn.
• + Spanish vocabulary.
There is a huge amount of material in this curriculum, and only part of it is actually necessary to
meet Washington State standards. While many content standards are addressed, their depth of
coverage varied. I also noted that there seemed to be a weakness in the NSES-defined description
of inquiry in the text and the publisher seems to not fully understand systems based on their lack of
explicit mention of several common systems that they actually mentioned in their curriculum.
Very little support for EALRs 1, 2 and 3. Much stronger in content EALR 4 with exception of ES2 and
ES3 which are not as strong overall. Concerned with superficial approach to cross-cutting EALRs that
may lead to those concepts not being adequately addressed in the classroom.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
63
8 High School Physics Programs
8.1 Active Physics
•
I would love to teach using these materials. The one weakness is the alignment to the
systems: EALR1. While systems are utilized and manipulated throughout the activities within
sections and chapters, there was no place where the systems were explicitly defined as such.
• 9-12 INQD: Students method used to report evidence is always via active physics log. While
an accepted method, at no point are students writing detached lab reports.
If I had to teach Physics (not having a strong background in it), I would totally feel comfortable using
this curriculum. It has a lot of support in addition to solid content and the lessons seem very
engaging and do a great job of enlivening student thinking.
• Many pages the publisher lists as addressing standards are not related to the standard in any
way.
• The book provides lots of opportunity for inquiry however the publisher did a poor job of
providing evidence for this.
• The publisher provides an enormous amount of background information, accommodations
and possible prior conceptions.
• I want a copy of the teacher materials for my own reference; however the amount of
material can be overwhelming and would make it difficult to implement the program.
• Consistent learning model/cycle. That moves students through complex concepts and is
consistent with learning theory.
• Inquiry and applications embedded in the materials. Students have to be actively engaged.
This is not a traditional "Read the text, answer the questions, then (maybe) do a
confirmation lab" type of program.
• Use of the Engineering design cycle incorporated application through the program are a nice
addition.
• Teachers’ materials include typical misconceptions, strategies on differentiation, and for ELL.
8.2 Conceptual Physics
•
This program is very solid in its conceptual approach, and this is its strength. The illustrations
are very helpful, do not perpetuate misconceptions, and lend themselves to concept transfer
from one idea to the next.
• I found only some evidence of How People Learn concepts (mostly in the 2nd key finding).
However, the curriculum does not seem to get students doing inquiry. Most questions are
generated by the publisher rather than students. I also have questions about the quality of
student reflection and how that relates to students monitoring their own understanding or
how it helps the instructor inform instruction.
• I would classify this as a post WASL curriculum though and feel it would be adequate for a
district.
This material encourages a largely didactic approach to physics instruction. The text materials will
appeal to students. It is highly readable text.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
64
Conceptual development of targeted ideas is strong and consistent with research on How People
Learn. Development of EALRs 1 and 3 is inconsistent, but stronger than most similar types of
curriculum. Development of EALR2 is lacking, but many labs could be modified to help develop
abilities and understandings of inquiry.
• Traditional textbook.
• Not truly based on How People Learn.
• They talk about a learning cycle - but they missed the boat.
• Lots of reading.
• Low-end questions.
• Little student responsibility for learning group work, reflecting, questioning.
• Step by step labs.
• Math - plug in the numbers - not a lot of why.
8.3 Foundations of Physics
•
•
Copyright 2009.
There is a disconnection between the components of this curriculum, particularly with
regard to the investigation and text integration.
• To meet standards well, much of the supplemental material must be added to units.
• Used text materials primarily for evaluation.
• Curriculum is weak in EALRs 1, 2 & 3.
Electronic (computer) tools for this curriculum were reviewed briefly – but not the main source of
the evaluation. Velocity and average velocity were not explicitly defined and thus did not match the
Physical Science standard. I think the students would still be able to meet the standard’s main
understanding but may not recognize it as “average velocity.”
• Foundations of Physics book set (including Volume 1 and Volume 2) – only one student
edition.
• Velocity material lacks reference to direction except in regards to velocity vectors.
• Teacher resources are extremely cumbersome to coordinate. The teacher’s guide, however,
supports the labs tremendously and would be a great guide to new teachers and those
teaching outside of comfort zone.
• Pressure energy.
• Text lacks color and interesting graphics.
8.4 Glencoe Physics
My students would have problems following and staying engaged. Explanations should be more
concise at the front and allow for development later so kids’ minds aren’t kept at bay for so long.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
65
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems language (system, subsystem, feedback, inputs, etc.) not explicit.
Inquiry is very structured. Questions are given, not generated or evaluated. Method of
investigation is always provided. Missing opportunities to evaluate.
Traditional high school physics text, for the most part. Level of content is significantly
beyond our standards, as would be expected in a year-long physics course.
Teaching cycle: 1. Focus 2. Teach 3. Assess. Not a learning cycle (per “Facilitating Instruction
#1”).
“Design Your Own Labs” – Pg. 160 (ch. 6), pg. 392 (ch. 14), pg. 532 (ch. 19), pg. 554 (ch. 20),
pg. 660 (ch. 24), pg. 824 (ch. 30): must cover these topics to do these “design” labs. Pretty
simple to design. The Launch Labs could be modified to get students to ask investigative
questions.
Addresses technology and society through readings but doesn’t address student’s designs or
the trade-offs of such technology use.
Systems also defined/discussed on pgs. 236-237, 319. Examples on 319.
Traditional textbook. Does not show a teacher how to teach it. Just gives materials.
Very little background information for teachers.
Copyright 2009.
Not many people shown.
8.5 Holt Physics
Even though I have not taught physics, these materials provide enough background and
commentaries to allow for some success. How to integrate the concepts into "Big Ideas" would
require more support. This is clearly a 3rd or 4th high school science course. Students need to be
Algebra 2 or beyond to comprehend the concept development.
• Traditional encyclopedia of Physics.
• Good use of alternative assessments but not enough teacher support for effective
implementation.
• Although I like some of the lab activities, 1) the lack of learning cycle grounded in How
People Learn, and 2) the superabundance of computation prompts that put equations at the
fore – a real turnoff.
• Not true inquiry.
• Good application (EALR 3) in labs.
Even as a reference, this group of materials is of limited use. Many of the student materials
reinforce misconceptions and promote stagnant learning.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
66
8.6 Physics: A First Course
An activity-based program. Activities are not structured using an inquiry learning cycle or model –
they investigate a concept. Little opportunity for problem-based investigations or true – even
guided – inquiry. Text is straight to the point, very definition based with good examples and clear
illustrations. Hands-on with minimal minds on. Little opportunity for students to surface prior
learning or challenge preconceptions.
This curriculum has some good activities but is lacking many key standards.
• I have a problem with the author giving pressure as a form of energy. There are many other
problems as well:
• Doesn’t explain how to find average velocity until free fall;
• Could give more examples of balanced and unbalanced forces;
• Nothing on preconceptions or commonly held student ideas on metacognitive strategies;
• Most labs are very cookbook.
• Felt strong in representing motion and energy, but did not extend enough into explaining
regulatory mechanisms, subsystems within a subsystem, and how a simplified model may
not be adequate to reliably predict consequences.
• Giving students the key investigative questions and having them generate an investigative
question are not the same thing!
• Speed and velocity are not the same thing. No mention of velocity within lab investigations.
• Acceleration is not appropriately defined – is a change in velocity for a time interval, not a
change in speed.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
67
9 High School Integrated Programs
9.1 Conceptual Integrated Science
•
•
This goes for integration and covers most everything as a thin veneer.
The package as submitted combines two extremely dissimilar materials sets into one
package. The textbook looks like a shuffling of existing materials into an "integrated" book
but depth suffers and there would be no "soak time" for concepts to sink in for students
before you moved on unless you added the "Event Barred Modules".
• I'm afraid many districts wouldn't add these due to budget constraints. The "Event Barred
Modular" wouldn't stand alone as curriculum, so both would be needed.
• This feels like a middle school level product. Good treatment of geology, ok for physical
science at middle school level.
This text has wonderful depth of content, but lacks the attention to cross-cutting themes. Although
many of the standards and performance objectives are covered in the text, several are addressed in
pieces of various units. The chapter review sections are well constructed with high level thinking
required of the student. The program, as presented, lacks inquiry and authentic application
opportunities to build concepts.
• While many of the standards are touched on, few are fully developed enough for even 80%
of students to achieve mastery. Extensive supplementation would be necessary.
Inconsistent coverage of standards – Life Science better than others.
• Cross-cutting standards are not well developed or are absent.
9.2 Coordinated Science
•
I feel overall this is a good set of materials. Some alignment gaps, like student generated
questions and lab reports, are easy to fill based on awareness of gaps and good teaching
practices. One serious gap that would need supplementation is the students are never
calculating average velocity or acceleration as defined within the standards.
• Also the system alignment is strong within the Earth/Space Science chapters, but is not
explicitly utilized within Physical Science chapters.
Lots of instructional and content support built in!
• Having just finished reviewing Active Physics, I found some very interesting differences.
Active Physics has been updated and includes a lot of teacher support including:
differentiated instruction, student prior conceptions, and modifications for English lectures.
Even though Coordinated Science has many of the same activities, this support is lacking
coordination.
• While Coordinated Science looks good, it leaves out some essential standards such as
radioactivity, fission and fusion. Individual books such as Active Physics, Active Chemistry,
and EarthComm contain more lessons aligned with Washington standards.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
68
•
•
•
•
Very inquiry based. High student involvement. Scenarios based and lined to real life
experiences.
Consistent learning model.
Teacher resources available - but not overwhelming. Just what you need when you need
them.
Some topics missing – but most there are well done.
9.3 Science and Sustainability
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Innovative program that unites chemistry, physics, biology and earth science under theme of
sustainability.
Because program covers a variety of Washington State standards but also leaves a variety
out (in other words, it covers some biology standards but not others), it would require
extensive supplementation in high school. It might be more appropriate to middle school.
Topics such as Newton’s Laws are covered at insufficient depth to meet 9-11 standards.
Coverage of EALR 4 topics is sometimes too superficial to ensure student understanding.
Lack of quality art work to enhance student understanding is especially problematic for low
readers and English language learning students.
Excellent application cross-cutting content and inquiry. One of few that understands the
difference.
4-2-1 Learning approach – cooperative.
Appendix G – key skills.
11 weeks, 8 weeks, 9 weeks, 7 weeks = 35 weeks per the suggested teaching time.
Teacher’s role/directions very clearly stated.
Definitely not an inch deep and a mile wide! Very nice progression of concepts while
incorporating social issues. Really relevant issues.
Great teacher materials, a novice or experienced teacher can be guided through this.
For chemistry, doesn’t explain the role of electrons but does do a good job with bonding
(general) to make compounds.
Pg. 407 – explanations of why H2O is polar is not correct (?)
Challenges students to think about what they know then challenges them to provide
evidence.
“Material World” book is out dated (1994). If not the photographs, then maybe the statistics
could be updated.
Wide variety of formats to meet all learners.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
69
Plus:
•
•
Very hands-on and a wide variety of topics, which will engage students.
Strong emphasis on designing investigations, interpreting evidence, and working on
community.
Minus:
• Sacrifices depth for breadth. Would require a lot of supplementing. Would be better as a
two-year program, not to add more topics, but to add time to better develop the ones that
are there.
• Very, very few opportunities for students to start with their own question. Every activity
begins with a scripted question.
• I wish more activities started with a prediction. It doesn’t do enough to bring
preconceptions to the surface.
The program is very strong in inquiry skills, but lacks language and concepts related to systems
analysis. Many of the content standards are introduced but not developed. The standards that are
developed are done well. Identification of preconceptions and formative assessment are not strong.
9.4 Science: An Inquiry Approach
This program was solidly based in research, current and thorough. The inquiry method and focus on
student thinking is clearly emphasized. If I were to teach using it, I would carefully pare out major
portions and focus on the standards and performance expectations. There is too much extraneous
information for students to work around.
• My ability to review this curriculum was severely compromised by the publisher’s decision to
send only one year of a three year program and not include the Teacher Resource CD. There
are many areas where I gave a low score where I strongly suspect I could have given a higher
score if I’d had all the materials.
• The concept of an integrated curriculum is very appealing to me, but this one doesn’t quite
make it. It is “content light” in several areas.
• Very strong on inquiry, the best feature.
• Some glaring omissions: what exactly, is a theory? Also some annoying errors: population of
the U.S. on page 762.
• Layout of student text is unappealing. Too many pages are all black and white.
Requires broad content background in all areas of science from a single teacher.
Unit 1 “Matter is Marvelous” observations: what I see – what it means – format. Ecological
Footprint.
Science Core IMR Report – Reviewer Comments
70