Takeaways:

• phenomena as a coherent thread

• emphasis on investigation and discovery

• lessons are structured similarly to EM2

Questions:

1. How will districts/schools/teachers provide the tools, materials, and equipment for the investigations?

2. Is the number of modules consistent across grade-levels?

Connection - opportunities for peer-interaction and discourse are woven into the lessons, similar to EM2

3 Take-Aways

• Phenomena ties together the Three Dimensions: SEPs, CCs, DCIs

• S&E is DO, RTC is METHOD, and DCIs is WHAT.

• multiple access points to "doing science" vs learning about science

• phenoMENA muppets style made an appearance in session 1 :)

2 Questions

• How are assessments aligned to TEKS and show mastery of learning?

• How do we get teachers/leaders to understand and buy into the "new science"

1 Connection

Lessons are structure like EM - launch, learn, land

3 Takeaways:

1. New shifts that lead to the way students will learn science.

2. Phenomena can be both everyday events and extraordinary events. This supports students in making sense and connections.

3. Building a body of knowledge! Not standard based.

2 Questions:

1. Does science have a progression doc similar to math?

2. Can EM and PHD be taught as a STEM based experienced?

1 Connection

Students own the learning through discovery and connections.

3 key takeaways

·        PhD science is phenomena-based, which aligns with the shift in the TEKs.

·        There is a shift of students gaining knowledge and memorizing to students thinking, doing, and acting out science.

·        Lessons are structured with launch, learn, land.

2 questions

·        For people who have been presenting PhD science to teachers and leaders:

o   What are the biggest hesitations from folks?

o   What are people most excited about?

1 connection

·        Our curriculum weaves concepts together, similar to EM. Students have multiple access-points for learning and coherence/learning over time is a focus of PhD science just like EM.

Takeaways

1. There is an anchor phenomena (multi-layered) and supporting (investigative)

2. Students will discover in depth understandings through constant connections and experiences.

3. 3 anchor visuals to support students in the learning - anchor model, driving question board, and anchor chart

Questions:

1. How will Spotlight lessons be empathized in TX? Experience tells me that this may be a hurdle.

2. Are the bolded portions of the TEKs similar to achievement descriptors in EM²?

Connection - Driving question boards allow students to develop questions to own their learning.

Takeaways:

• 3 modules per grade-level

• multiple opportunities for assessment (both formative, summative, and STAAR-like)

• learning is supported by the use of anchor models, driving question boards, and anchor charts

Questions:

• If a lesson checkpoint is a paper-pencil task, where is it located for teachers and students?

• Are core texts provided as hard copies? e-books?

Connection:

• lesson checkpoints for each lesson, similar to Exit Tickets in EM

3 takeaways:

• The three visuals teachers will create with students are: anchor model, driving question board, anchor chart

• Phenomena creates equity because students can access learning through their own experiences. The curriculum also creates equity by creating experiences that allow students access points (such as observing a tree in the Mangrove module).

• There are many ways that teachers can collect data of what students are learning including assessments such as CFUs, conceptual checkpoints, science or engineering challenges, EOM assessment, and benchmarks.

  
  

2 questions:

• What is the purpose of having spotlight lessons? Do they cover content that might not fit into the phenomena of the module?

• I am curious if we have guidance for teachers around what to use for grades (ie: in EM we say not to use exit tickets, is that the same for CFUs?)

1 connection:

• PhD science builds coherent knowledge over time to develop conceptual understanding of science just in the same way that EM does

3 Takeaways

• In prioritizing coherence, the instructional flow is driven by students in a way that makes sense for them.

• Coherence supports knowledge-building in science. Students go on a journey throughout modules + across grade levels. Knowledge is layered on at various touchpoints.

• Doing science in a student-driven, inquiry-based way supports lasting scientific connections.

2 Questions

• Is a 6-12 version of PhD Science a consideration?

• (Posted in Slack channel) @Sunny Can you please drop the shortcut you use to remember the 3 dimensions?

1 Connection

• The RTC are reminding me of the models/language/strategies in EM. Both are the lenses through which we look at + engage with the content.

Takeaways

1. Essential question is the anchor phenomenon.

2. Spotlight lessons do not connect to the concept of the original lessons in the module but covers the needed TEKs.

3. Phenomenon Question- is the supporting phenomenon.

Question:

1. Where do I find the actual lesson in the spotlight lessons.

2. When do teachers use these lessons? Is it after the other lessons are taught in the module?

Connection: I really like the related phenomenon it reminds how we use real world examples in students lives with EM.

Takeaway

1. Phenomena has three dimensions: Crosscutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices.

2. The TEKS are focused on three dimensions but broke up into more granular parts.

3. Phenomena is new to TX teachers.

Questions:

1. How are teachers grasping phenomena?

2. Do you hear push back from teachers with the alignment to PhD to the TEKs? (even though it is aligned)

Connections:

Story of units is very similar to Phenomena!

Takeaways:

1. The "Prepare" section of each lesson can help provide clarity about the RTCs elevated within that lesson

2. Learning is layered over time, from one grade-level to the next, as phenomena get "bigger" and more abstract. ie. Water can move sand and rocks > Water can create landforms such as canyons

3. Coherence is a part of all the lesson elements, from the way the read-alouds build upon one another, to the way the anchor models are added to over time, to the way the investigations flow.

Questions:

1. When schools are in Y1 implementation, what guidance will we have for addressing the needs of their intermediate students, who won't have had those pre-requisite experiences in the earlier grades?

2. In EM2, there are margin boxes in the Module Overviews, "Before this Module" and "After this Module" that elevate for teachers some of that coherence. Does PhD Science Texas include anything like that?

Connection:

• PhD Science Texas uses a lot of visuals and concrete experiences to help students build enduring knowledge

Takeaways:

1. Anchor phenomena are focused at the module level

2. Supporting phenomena are focused at the concept lesson and shape the arc of the lesson sets

3. Related phenomena are student-generated and may occur at any point; honor student voices and experiences as it relates to the concepts of the module

Questions:

1. Why are the spotlight lessons embedded within other modules, if they don't align to that work?

2. It appears that Spotlight Lessons are assessed with a End-of-Spotlight Assessment. Does the pacing include days for these assessments, in addition to the End-of-Module Assessments?

Connection:

• Modules are broken down into concepts that are composed of a series of lessons called a lesson set. This is similar to how modules are broken down into topics in EM.

Takeaways:

1. Engineering challenges are designed for students to problem solve. They are doing the science.

2. Engineering process is structured - ask, imagine, plan, create, improve, share

3. Engineering challenges are a release from teachers. Teachers' role is to give guidance to support the process but not to give the process.

Questions:

1. Do teachers struggle with time management with the challenges? I wonder how quickly this can be derailed.

2. Is there guidance on how to group students when it comes to the challenges? I wonder how teacher will group students. (High with low and how will that impact equity for ALL students)

Connections:

1. This is embedded to support the shifts in science, however this may feel very different for teachers inTX.

3 Takeaways

-There is a distinction between "scientist" and "engineer". They have different products and purposes. Scientists are explaining and predicting while engineers are solving problems. Scientists produce new knowledge while engineers produce new designs.

-The design process reminds me of productive struggle in math because students are solving a problem that does not have an obvious answer, revising their thinking as they get feedback, and applying their knowledge.

-I think teachers would need to study the engineering project ahead of teaching the module so that they are careful to build their students' capacity to problem solve.

2 Questions

-What type of pushback do we normally get from teachers regarding the engineering projects?

-For districts that have implemented these engineering projects with fidelity, what best practices did they put in place to create that success?

1 Connection

-The engineering project gives students an opportunity for productive struggle which they experience with the application problem and student debrief discussion questions in EM.

Takeaways:

1. Check for understanding - lesson level; conceptual checkpoint - concept level; module assessment - module level; + benchmark assessments for 3-5

2. Assessment items mimic the variety of item types included on the revised STAAR (multi-select, hot spot, multi-part, etc.)

3. STAAR will be applicational; shift away from rote memorization of vocab and isolated facts

Questions:

1. Is there something like the OARS in EM2 for teachers to use as they collect formative information with the Checks for Understanding?

2. If 5th grade has 3 benchmark assessments, what will the "assessment calendar" look like with both End-of-Module and benchmark assessments?

Connection:

• Conceptual checkpoints are like Topic quizzes in EM

3 takeaways:

• Slides are meant to be simple because they allow for teachers to facilitate the learning and pose questions instead of giving the information away.

• There are 3 different bundles available for schools – the program which includes TE, implementation guide, logbooks, and student + teacher digital access; basic which includes program + core texts and materials kits; complete which includes basic + assessment and student science pack

• It is important for us to have highlights that we can demo for the digital platform in the beginning PD sessions

2 questions:

• For schools that do not purchase the basic or complete product bundles, how do they navigate not having the core texts or materials kit? (Is this common?)

• No other questions – just things that I need to explore myself

1 connection:

• The mindset shift around using the slides to facilitate exploration vs. giving answers/information to students reminds me of the mindset shift we talk about in EM as well and I think it will be important for me to be prepared to have those conversations

Takeaways:

1. Content same in printed TE's and on the Digital Platform. Some differences in printed TE's teacher notes are mostly on the margin, digitally it might look different but it will be in the same logical order.

2. Using the online platforms take time to navigate- this can be the case for all platforms. We want to model how to navigate during foundational sessions and also this learning will take time. We also want to give teachers the student experience view.

Questions:

1. Could there be a Q&A time or an "office hours" with members of the product team as we continue to prepare for coaching? I am thinking this might be even more beneficial when I get into studying the facilitator guide?

2. Before we support a school or district with implementation will we know what materials they have purchased and have access to?

Connection:

1. PhD science is very student driven and focuses on teachers being the facilitators of learning. We want students to engage with one another and build deep knowledge.

Takeaways:

• students as co-authors

• integration of knowledge and practice

• "navigation requires skill on the part of the teacher to to be responsive to student ideas and connect where they need to go with students’ questions and intuitive explanations"

Questions:

1. Young children tend to be very open with their questions and wonderings...intermediate students less so. Are the instructional routines enough to overcome that hesitancy, especially early in the implementation?

2. Since the IG is such a rich resource, will foundational PD sessions include opportunities for participants to engage with it and build familiarity with what it offers?

Connection:

• teacher preparation is going to necessitate studying the trajectory of learning across the entire concept and the entire module; lesson-by-lesson prep is not going to work well

Takeaways:

• Content Learning Cycle: Wonder > Organize > Reveal > Distill > Know

• CLC is focused on student actions, whereas 5E/7E is focused on teacher actions

• The content learning cycle is not linear, but iterative

Questions:

1. Do districts require lesson plans be submitted that are aligned/formatted to the 5E model?

2. If so, how might we support those teachers?

Connection:

• the CLC is focused on student actions just as the content design focuses on students as co-authors

Takeaways:

• Launch includes multiple instances of classroom footage (YAY!)

• The student-hat experience can be tailored by grade-band to the participants

• Participants have multiple opportunities to explore their specific grade-level content/resources

Questions:

1. In a K-5 session, is there a recommendation for which student-hat experience to utilize?

2. We mention "Mix-and-Mingle" as being one of the instructional routines used in PhD Science Texas. Do we, at some point, share some of the others?

   
   

   Connection:

   • The overall structure and flow of this session, especially the inclusion of the student-hat experience, is similar to the Launch session for Eureka Math Squared.

3 Takeaways When we experienced the student-hat experience in our PL session, it was not stated that the experiences were from various lessons (not just one). I think that has to be stated before the experience. The entire time, I was wondering how this would be done in one class period. It's important to name for participants that they are going to experience the student-hat activities before we front load too much info about the curriculum so the participants are not confused or disoriented. We, of course, need to spend time outside of our PL sessions studying these materials.

2 Questions For the 7th through the 9th, we're doing DP for this Launch session, right? Which parts? Are there any other PD materials we'll be unpacking or doing DP for?

1 Connection I'm glad you are sharing multiple ways to internalize the session FG. You mentioned you are a "rogue" internalizer but you also shared the template from the CPL team. I'll need to figure out the best way for me to navigate the resources. The FG talking points really are just talking points and not at all script so I'll need to annotate.

Takeways:

• this is a replicable process that can be done collaboratively or by teachers individually

• there's almost always an existing resource to address a teacher's need - Can you find it? How easily? Can they find it? How easily?

• 6 hour session includes both Module and Lesson study; can also be 3 hours of just Module or just Lesson

Questions:

1. In both EM and EM2, there is guidance for studying at the Topic level. Why do we not study at the Concept level, especially since the modules are so lengthy?

2. Where can teacher's reference this process for future use? Is it in the TE like in EM?

Connection:

• This process is very similar to the one used in EM2. The difference being that at the Module and Topic level, Explore the Assessment is it's own piece.

Takeaways:

1. This session can be offered as a 6-hour module and lesson set study or as 3-hour module OR lesson set study. What we looked at today is meant to be used as a workshop PD session but can be adjusted for a coaching session as well.

2. A replicable process is to ask these 4 questions: What question are students exploring, what investigations and activities are students engaging in, what are they figuring out, what connections are they making?

3. Module study: the questioning structure + coherence; lesson study: more nitty-gritty with those 4 questions above

Questions:

1.      What is the best way for us to identify the “main point” of a lesson? I find myself getting lost in the details sometimes! I am thinking it would be to (1) identify the phenomenon question and (2) find the CFU of the lesson? [You answered this question and emphasized the language of the standards, as well.]

2.      I know you said that there is not formal guidance for cutting lessons. When this comes up with schools, what kind of guidance do you provide? (Do you make suggestions for ways to combine lessons?)

Connection:

1. In EM, we “do the math” with people to help them build content knowledge. In PhD, if participants are struggling to see the connections between the questions in the module, guide them to the module overview to help build content knowledge or the “prepare” section for a lesson overview.

2. Preview the learning = discern the plot. Investigate the development of learning = find the ladder. Prepare for instruction = hone the lesson.