Saturday, August 4, 2012

Chemistry Standards 2012

Alright. Here they are. These are my newly updated chemistry targets. 

One thing I changed from before is the wording. Each one is now written as an "I can" statement. I started this last spring and simply changing the words "the student will..." was an amazing psychological shift for my kids. 

Right now, my total stands at 31. This seems like a LOT of standards. However, ten of these are lab skills that are assessed nearly every time we do a lab. Since these are assessed in a different way, I'm not sure if they fully count toward the total or not. 

The standards preceded by * are my gold standards. No zeros allowed on these if you want to get credit for learning chemistry. As of now, I have ten. 



Lab Skills
1. I can identify the hypothesis to be tested, phenomenon to be investigated or the problem to be solved. (ΔHS.1.2.2a)
2.  I can identify the tested variables and conditions to be kept constant during an investigation. (ΔHS.1.2.2b)
3.  I can communicate the details of an experimental procedure clearly and completely. (ΔHS.1.2.2c)
4.  I can record and represent data in a meaningful way. (ΔHS.1.2.2d)
*5.  I can analyze laboratory data in order to clarify the questions, hypotheses or methods of an experiment.
6.  I can use common mathematical functions to analyze and describe data. (ΔHS.1.3.3b)
7.  I can use statistical data analysis techniques. (ΔHS.1.3.3c)
*8.  I can report data and calculations in a precise and accurate manner.
*9.  I can use equipment properly and safely. (ΔHS.1.3.3f)
10.  I can follow all lab clean-up procedures.

Physical Properties of Matter
1.  I can define mass, volume and density in terms of a substance's particles.
*2.  I can apply the Law of Conservation of mass.
3.  I can apply density as a conversion factor between mass and volume.

Energy and States of Matter
*1.  I can represent at the particle level, the characteristics (motion, spacing and arrangement) of particles in different phases of matter. (ΔHS.2A.2.a)
2.  I can relate the temperature of a substance to the average kinetic energy of its particles. (ΔHS.2A.2.1)
3.  I can predict the effect on a gas of changing pressure, volume or temperature on any of the other variables.
*4.  I can recognize energy as a conserved, substance-like quantity that is always involved when a system undergoes change.
5.  I can describe the energy transfer between a system and it's surroundings during a phase change. (ΔHS.2A.2.1b)

Describing Substances
1. I can distinguish between mixtures, pure substances, elements and compounds.
2. I can separate a mixture into its component substances.
3. I can use Avagadro’s Hypothesis along with combining volumes of gases to deduce the composition of some compounds.
4. I can describe the Law of Definite Proportion and the Law of Multiple Proportions.

Atomic Structure
1.  I can determine the number of protons, neutrons and/or electrons in an atom or ion.
2.  I can calculate the average atomic mass of an element
3.  I can write the orbital diagram or electron configuration for an atom or ion.

Bonding
1.  I can distinguish between ionic, molecular and atomic solids. (2A.2.2c)
*2.  I can name and write formulas for ionic compounds. (2A.2.3b)
*3.  I can name and write formulas for molecular compounds. (2A.2.3c)

Counting Particles
1.  I can determine the molar mass of an atom or compound.
2.  I can convert between the number of particles and the moles of an atom or compound. (2A.3.2)
*3.  I can convert between the mass and the moles of an atom or compound. (2A.3.2)
4.  I can determine the empirical formula and/or the molecular formula of a compound.

Chemical Reactions
1.  I can describe chemical reactions in terms of the microscopic behavior of atoms. (2A.3.1)
2.  I can write balanced chemical equations. (2A.3.1a)
3.  I can describe endothermic and exothermic reactions in terms of storage or release of chemical potential energy. (2A.2.3d)

Stoichiometry
*1.  I can calculate the masses (or number of moles) of reactants and products in a chemical reaction from the mass (or moles) of one of the reactants or products. (2A.3.2)
2.  I can determine the limiting reactant of a chemical reaction.
3.  I can determine theoretical and percent yield of the products of a chemical reaction. (2A.3.2)
4.  I can determine the partial pressure of a particular gas in a mixture.
5.  I can predict the moles of another reactant or product when given the temperature, volume and pressure of a gaseous reactant or product. (2A.3.2)
6.  I can relate the molar concentration (molarity) of a solution to the number of moles and volume of the solution. (2A.3.3)



Okay. Hit me. 

What am I missing? Does everything (anything) make sense? I tend to get stuck on wording and edit things to death, so if you have any wording that would be better, please let me know. 


12 comments:

Mark Hammond said...

Thanks for this list! I am teaching Chemistry this year for the first time in seven years, and I'm going to be using SBG (I've been using it in Physics). I'll check back as I work to create my own standards over the next couple of weeks.

Bryna Goeckner said...

Tracie,
First, let me thank you for sharing these (and apologize for the long response)! As a fellow Modeling Chemistry teacher and SBG newbie, it is so helpful to see what someone else is thinking – and as far as I know you are the first to share this publicly (at least from what I could find).

I had mentioned before that I’d be willing to collaborate on these standards. I’m not sure I can add much (or much of substance) to what you have already come up with, but here’s my input…
• I think you are right in wording them as “I can…”statements. I agree that would lend itself to better student buy-in.
• I know what you mean as far as struggling with an appropriate number of standards. The physics standards I have seen seem to be shorter lists, but I think the lab component in a chemistry class is different enough that it may warrant extra standards like you have included.
• I have also thought about having a subsection of “Scientific Communication” standards that might include something like your “Lab Skills” #3-5 and a couple additional standards something like:
- I can use significant figures to appropriately communicate the precision of data and calculations.
- I can use graphs, tables, and charts to display data, and communicate and analyze information about the energy of a system. (Okay this might need to be two or more standards, and is really underdeveloped at this point…)
• Although this would again add to the number of standards, I also think I might include this for chemical reactions:
- I can identify basic patterns in the way substances react and generalize them to other chemical reactions (synthesis, decomposition, combustion, single replacement, double replacement reactions).
• Do you roll heat capacity and heat of fusion/vaporization into Energy and States of Matter #5?
• A couple nitpicky suggestions:
- For Lab Skills #8 did you mean “I can recognize that accuracy and precision…”
- For Counting Particles #1-3 do you mean “element” where you have “atom”?

Thanks again for sharing this!!

Tracie Schroeder said...

Bryna - long responses are good :)
I hadn't thought about creating a separate Scientific Communication section. I put those all under lab skills just because that's what I have them put in their lab notebook.

My lab skills 8 has always been about SF and I have rewritten that thing a hundred times. I like how you wrote yours a LOT better.

At one point, I had a standard for different types of reactions. I have debated about putting that back in. At first, I just had them identify the types, and ended up only testing them on it once. Later on, I find myself asking them to recognize the types in different labs. It became more of an informal assessment, so I took the standard out. I might wait until we get closer to that to make a decision.

My Energy standards are not my favorite. Yes, the HC and HF and HV are all wrapped up in that standard. I had them all separate and it seemed overwhelming (especially when reassessing) to try to keep up. I figured they are all based on the same idea, so I just combined them into one. It's one of those things that I don't really come back to, either, so I felt one standard covered the idea well enough.

Oh, element sounds much better for the counting particles standards instead of atom!

You are very welcome to steal these and rewrite them however you need to. I haven't been able to find much in for chemistry either, so I really have no idea if these are in line with what other people do or not.

Tracie Schroeder said...

Hey Mark
Definitely let me know what you come up with. This is more or less what I have used the last couple years, but I can't seem to leave them alone :)

I should probably mention that these are written to go along with the ASU Modeling, so using a traditional approach might change the order or number of standards.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Bryna Goeckner said...

I really like your idea of keeping these fluid - giving yourself some room to change these until you are actually teaching the unit. I will try to remind myself to have a bit of wiggle room to make changes as necessary.

If you don't mind, I would like to post these (with major credit given to you of course) on the AMTA site and on my own blog (which I am just getting off the ground).

Tracie Schroeder said...

No problem. Steal away. I did change my Lab Skills 8 to your wording. I also changed atom to element in the counting particles. Those just made so much more sense to me.

I don't give kids the entire list at the beginning of the year. I just give them a short list for each unit. This lets me edit them at the last minute if I have to. I have also been known to change a target in the middle of the unit. I be sure make sure kids are all on the same page and let them know why I am making the change.

Corey said...

I like the lab skills section. Here are my content standards, I have almost 60 total. But I'm thinking about moving to modeling instruction next year. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hcAiI_es0XrVqoyrH6oYfqkMSrpOPMXM-sBQyiiKUgg/edit

Tracie Schroeder said...

Corey - Looks good! 60 seems like a lot, but depending on your assessment style, it might be perfect for you. Don't be afraid to change anything that doesn't work, even if it is in the middle of the year. Kids would rather you fix it than have to keep struggling in that way.

I HIGHLY recommend the modeling. You don't get to cover as much material as in a traditional classroom, but I don't worry too much about that. Where are you located? Check out the ASU site and keep an eye out for any workshops nearby (or far away for that matter). The mentor teachers who teach them are amazing and actually learning the process by doing it is incredibly valuable.

John Thacker said...

Tracie
Quick question. I've noticed in the physics area, they keep the SBGs to a brief number; You have about 40 (incl. lab skills); Corey has 60; do you know of a rationale for keeping the SBGs to a short list?

Also, really liked your "I" wording.
John

Tracie Schroeder said...

John - To truly implement a system like this well, you need to be able to assess each target multiple times and also allow for reassessment of targets. My first draft of chemistry standards had way too many and trying to fit them all in to various assessments became overwhelming really quickly. I had to take a good look at, not only what I really thought was important enough to assess, but what I was able to assess well. This was NOT easy to do, but I ended up getting rid of a lot of things that were NICE to know but not really vital to understanding chemistry. While this is the best draft I've come up with, I am still not completely happy with it, so any suggestions are more than welcome :)

Anonymous said...

How is this working for you this year? I'm intrigued. I really like the idea and I'm thinking very seriously about trying it next year

Tracie Schroeder said...

Hey Anon...not sure how this slipped through my radar.

It is going really well. I got rid of the "gold" standards. I still like that idea, but this was such a major upheaval for my kids that I didn't bother separating them out like I had planned. I realized this pretty quickly and adjusted accordingly (http://adventureswiththelowerlevel.blogspot.com/2012/10/calling-audible-and-adjusting-my-grading.html)

I did do some editing to my Lab Skills 8. I have never liked the way this has been written. I'll have to look at the exact new wording, but basically, it includes how close students are to the accepted results.

Here is the latest update...
http://adventureswiththelowerlevel.blogspot.com/2013/02/this-years-great-grading-experience.html

My Menu