PRISMS Project Analysis Protocol
PRISMS Project Analysis Protocol
The following procedure is based on Project 2061’s research-based methods for curriculum materials analysis:
First, it is determined whether the resource is a phenomenon or representation:
"Phenomena" are real-world objects, systems, and events that provide
evidence of key ideas in science. A phenomenon may be experienced first
hand or vicariously.
"Representations" are diagrams, models, animations, simulations, and analogies that can help clarify key ideas in science.
Resources being considered for inclusion in the PRISMS collection are then reviewed for content alignment and instructional quality.
CONTENT ALIGNMENT
After the learning goal to which this resource has potential alignment
is identified, the resource is reviewed for content alignment:
Scope: Which part of the key idea does the resource address? If it doesn’t address the entire key idea, the specific part that it addresses is identified.
Content alignment: Does the resource address the actual substance of the key idea? If not, is there a way that it could be used to address it? If it’s indirectly related, a suggestion is specified regarding how it could be addressed.
Sophistication: What are middle school students expected to know? What are they not expected to know? Does this resource fall into the area of what’s expected of middle school students? Or is there terminology, mathematical relationships, etc. built into the resource that must be used in order to understand the idea?
INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS - Phenomenon
Is there a relationship between the phenomenon and the learning goal? Does
this resource provide evidence (is it an instance of) the learning goal? If
it’s partial, what it does/does not make clear is explained.
Is this a first-hand (direct) experience, or will students be able to “feel” that they’re experiencing it through the video, picture, or text? Yes, partial, or no is justified with evidence from the resource.
Is this example comprehensible? Some things to consider in terms of comprehensibility:
- Is the number of steps from the phenomenon to the learning goal small?
- Are additional ideas needed to make sense of the phenomenon—and if so, are they appropriate for middle level students’? Would they have the prior experience?
- Are the reasoning skills manageable?
- If included, are the set-up, experimental procedure, calculations simple and unlikely to detract from the phenomenon?
Given the amount of time or money it would take to use this resource, is it worth it? Does it provide evidence that will help students believe the learning goal?
These issues are taken into consideration to write suggestions for what the user can do to improve instructional quality.
INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS - Representation
Are the parts of the learning goal identified in content alignment shown
in an accurate way?
Is this a comprehensible representation? Does it help students understand the learning goal? Or are there unintentional inaccuracies that might reinforce or lead to misconceptions? Some things to consider in terms of comprehensibility:
- Is the number of steps from the phenomenon that’s being represented to the learning goal small?
- Is additional knowledge needed to make sense of the key idea appropriate (given students’ grade level and prior experiences)?
- Are the reasoning skills needed manageable (given students’ grade level and prior experiences)?
- Is the set-up, experimental procedure, or intricacies of calculations related to measurements are simple and unlikely to detract from the phenomenon?
No representation is 100% accurate, or it would be a phenomenon! There will be intentional inaccuracies. Does the resource note what’s not accurate about the representation (e.g. color, scale)?
These issues are taken into consideration in writing suggestions for what the user can do to improve instructional quality.