Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.95



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 340


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 339
APPENDIX B Based on the feedback, the following changes were made between the first and second public drafts: RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC DRAFTS • 95% of the PEs were rewritten based on feedback, with more specific and consistent language used • After a college- and career-readiness review, some content was removed • Some content shifted grade levels in the elementary grades EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Engineering was integrated into the traditional science disciplines Several rounds of review were built into the development process • More math expectations were added to the PEs of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to make sure • Course models were drafted for middle and high school that all educators and stakeholders would have opportunities to • “Nature of science” concepts were highlighted throughout the provide feedback. The first public draft of the NGSS was posted document online from May 11 to June 1, 2012, and the second public draft • The practices matrix was revised was posted online from January 8 to January 29, 2013. The draft • A new chapter was added to describe the intent and use of received comments from more than 10,000 individuals during crosscutting concepts each of the two public review periods, including those in lead • A new chapter on equity was drafted about implementation of state review teams, school and school district discussion groups, the NGSS with diverse student groups and scientific societies. The writers then used this feedback to • A glossary of terms was added make substantial revisions to the draft standards. • More flexibility in viewing the standards was provided by Overall, the feedback received on both public drafts of the NGSS arranging the PEs according to both topic and disciplinary core was very positive. Almost all reviewers indicated that they liked idea (DCI) the pedagogical vision, the integration of the three dimensions • Additional flexibility was added to the website, allowing users in the NGSS, and the structure of the NGSS itself. Most reviewers to turn off pop up description boxes. scored the performance expectations (PEs) highly, but some also The feedback on the second public draft indicated that changes critiqued specific issues and suggested improvements. The follow- had completely addressed some issues, and the percentage of ing themes emerged from the comments on how to improve the reviewers concerned about the remaining issues was greatly first public draft: reduced. Those remaining issues included: • Concern that there was too much material • Concern that there was still too much material • Suggestions for additional topics • Suggestions for a few additional topics • Lack of language clarity • Lack of language clarity • Concern about how engineering and technology were included • Concern about including and addressing engineering and and addressed technology • Confusion about the role of the one practice specified in • Confusion about the role of the one practice specified in each PE each PE • Lack of guidance for incorporating crosscutting concepts • Concern about the amount of support needed for implementa- • Lack of specificity in connections to other standards and other tion of the standards subjects • Confusion about the coding/naming of PEs • Concern about the organization of the standards • Concern about the amount of support needed for implementa- tion of the standards 5

OCR for page 339
Based on the feedback, the following changes were made result of the first public review and subsequent state review, 95% between the second public draft and the final release of the of the PEs were rewritten. After the second public draft review NGSS: period, 75% of the PEs were edited to add clarity and consistency • 75% of the PEs were edited to increase clarity, consistency, and across the document. specific feedback Overall, the feedback received on both public drafts of the NGSS • A review of the central focus of each DCI from A Framework was overwhelmingly positive. Almost all reviewers indicated that for K–12 Science Education (Framework) resulted in the removal they liked the pedagogical vision described in the Framework, and of about 33% of the PEs and associated DCIs while retaining the integration of the three dimensions in the NGSS: Science and the progression of DCIs across the grade bands Engineering Practices, Disciplinary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting • Separate ETS1: Engineering Design PEs were added to each Concepts. The structure of the NGSS received high praise, includ- grade band to supplement PEs that had integrated engineer- ing the foundation boxes that show the source of the language ing design into the traditional science disciplines and ideas in the PEs. The presence of clarification statements, • “Storylines” with essential questions were added to the begin- assessment boundaries, as well as connections to other standards ning of each grade band and section to describe the context and the Common Core State Standards, were also almost univer- and rationale for the PEs sally approved. While these elements were applauded, some com- • The “All Standards, All Students” appendix was expanded to menters suggested improvements regarding specific wording and include several vignettes about implementation of the NGSS foundation box connections. with diverse student groups • PE names were changed from lowercase letters to numbers to In addition to the overall positive feedback the first draft avoid confusion with the DCI names; for example, MS-LS1-a received, there were critiques of specific issues. The following became MS-LS1-1 themes emerged from the comments about ways to improve the first public draft: • Concern that there was too much material INTRODUCTION • Suggestions for additional topics • Lack of language clarity Several rounds of review were built into the development process • Concern about how engineering and technology were included of the NGSS to make sure that all educators and stakeholders and addressed would have opportunities to provide feedback. The first public • Confusion about the role of the one practice specified in draft of the NGSS was posted online from May 11 to June 1, 2012, each PE and the second public draft was posted online from January 8 to • Lack of guidance for incorporating crosscutting concepts January 29, 2013. The draft received comments from more than • Lack of specificity in connections to other standards and other 10,000 individuals during each of the two public review periods, subjects including those working together in lead state review teams, • Concern about the organization of the standards school and school district discussion groups, and scientific society • Concern about the amount of support needed for implementa- commenters. tion of the standards Feedback on the public drafts was reviewed, coded into sortable Based on this feedback and on additional interim reviews of the spreadsheets, and summarized for state and writing team con- standards by the lead states, many changes were made to the stan- sideration. Where feedback was unclear or conflicting, lead state dards between the first and second public drafts. The feedback on teams engaged in additional discussions. The writers then used the second public draft indicated that the changes to the draft had this feedback, along with that of the college- and career-readiness completely addressed some of the issues and had greatly reduced reviews, to make substantial revisions to the draft standards. As a 6 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 339
the percentage of reviewers who had concerns about the remain- teams of higher education faculty and the Lead State Review in ing issues. Those remaining issues included: September led to a further reduction in the content designated in • Concerns that there was still too much material the DCIs. • Suggestions for a few additional topics to include Feedback on the January 2013 draft indicated that the previous • Lack of language clarity reductions in content were not sufficient to allow for the instruc- • Concerns about including and addressing engineering and tion time necessary to build student proficiency in all of the prac- technology tices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. Therefore, additional • Confusion about the role of the one practice specified in content was removed by deleting both the PEs and associated DCI each PE endpoints that covered content beyond the central focus of each • Concern about the amount of support that will be needed for core idea. For example, the central focus of HS.LS2.B is the effect implementation of the standards of cell division and differentiation on growth, so the DCI end- Below is a representative sampling of how each issue identified points that described the details of cellular differentiation were above was addressed, after a thorough review of the feedback. deleted from the expectations of the standards. The teachers on the NGSS writing team then performed a validity check with Too Much Material the PEs to ensure that the scope of the expectations was practi- cal within the realities of a typical school year. In many cases, the The Framework and the NGSS set out to define a small set of core deleted endpoints could serve as the beginnings of instructional ideas that build on each other coherently through the grade lev- extensions when time allows. els. While most reviewers of both the first and second public drafts In addition, changes were made to ensure that the practice and indicated that proficiency in the standards was sufficient for stu- core idea pairings for each PE were appropriate for all students at dent success at the next level, they also noted that practical class- each grade level. Writers ensured that all of the K–12 PEs would room time constraints could prevent many students from getting be implementable within realistic timeframes. The knowledge to the depth of skills and knowledge required by the standards. and skills required by particular PEs are not intended to be taught In the first public draft, several topics, such as nuclear processes, independently of others at the same grade level and should take were identified as being beyond the scope of knowledge necessary into account student knowledge and skills learned at previous for college and career readiness. These topics, for example, were grade levels. For instance, in high school physical sciences, one deemed important only for those students who planned to con- would not teach chemical reactions without also addressing the tinue in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) law of conservation of mass, and these skills should build on asso- career paths. Similarly, some topics in the elementary levels were ciated middle school endpoints. deemed more appropriate at either a higher or lower grade level. To address these issues, the standards underwent extensive review Suggestions on Inclusion/Exclusion of Certain Topics to ensure that all content is both necessary and sufficient for stu- While recognizing the sizable amount of content mastery expected dent success after high school in the 21st century. In the K–5 stan- of all students in the NGSS draft, many reviewers of both public dards, several PEs were shifted from one grade level to the next drafts voiced concerns about the omission of particular areas of based on the feedback. content. As writers were tasked with creating a set of standards In June 2012, university and community college faculty met with faithful to the Framework, many of these concerns paralleled those workforce-readiness experts to examine all of the standards in raised during the Framework development process. Major themes depth. Their feedback, together with that from the first public from the feedback on the first public draft included requests for draft review, led to deletion of many PEs and a greater focus in more ocean science context to be used in examples, for computer many discipline areas. In addition, reviews from cross-disciplinary Responses to the Public Drafts 7

OCR for page 339
science concepts to be added, and for “nature of science” concepts having a separate PE requiring that all students do gram-to-gram to be made more explicit. calculations. One of the important components to the vision of the Framework A small number of reviewers in both public draft review periods and the NGSS is the focus on a smaller set of core ideas that asked that evolution not be included in the standards. However, build over time. With the practical constraints of class time avail- an understanding of evolution was identified in the Framework as ability and the commitment to remain within the scope of the the basis for understanding all of the natural sciences. As such, it Framework, the NGSS writers were not able to add new core ideas was included in the NGSS. to the standards. They were, however, able to add more context In their feedback on the first public draft, several commenters and examples demonstrating potential connections to ocean sci- perceived that “inquiry” was missing from the standards. A few ence and computer science between the first and second public emphasized the importance of students’ joy and passion for learn- drafts. In addition, where nature of science connections already ing, indicating that this should be made explicit in the standards existed in the standards, they were made more explicit in the documents. second public draft and called out in the appropriate foundation boxes. This addition received very positive feedback from most The concept and practice of “inquiry” has not been omitted reviewers. from the NGSS—instead, it is now specified in the eight practices throughout every PE. In both the first and second public drafts, many reviewers expressed concern that specific content normally included in high In addition, many reviewers requested more guidance for imple- school elective courses was not in the NGSS, including thermo- mentation with diverse student groups. A thorough discussion of dynamics, stoichiometry, solution chemistry, and nitrogen cycles. equity and diversity issues had been planned for inclusion in the Much of this feedback indicated a misunderstanding of the pur- standards. A draft version was included in the second public draft pose of the NGSS. In contrast to many current state standards, the of the NGSS, and an expanded version with several vignettes is NGSS specify content and skills required of all students and are included in the final release. Each PE and associated examples have not intended to replace high school course standards. The NGSS been reviewed for appropriateness with all student groups and for are meant to specify the knowledge and skills that will provide a relevance to student interests. The writers were committed to the thorough foundation for student success in any chosen field and creation of a document that will help encourage all students to they can be supplemented with further in-depth study in particu- engage in and enjoy the study of science. lar upper-level science courses. Some reviewers of both public drafts requested that the standards A key consideration with regard to missing or additional content specify the intermediate knowledge necessary for scaffolding was its relation to college and career readiness in science. As toward eventual student outcomes. However, the NGSS are a set described, a large team of postsecondary faculty and hiring man- of goals. They are PEs for the end of instruction—not a curriculum. agers from across the country met to review the May draft specifi- Many different methods and examples could be used to help sup- cally to determine if the content represented, as understood by port student understanding of the DCIs and science and engi- high school graduates, would allow for success in postsecondary neering practices, and the writers did not want to prescribe any education and training. In each discipline (earth/space, biology/life, curriculum or constrain any instruction. It is therefore outside the chemistry, and physics), the outcome did not support adding addi- scope of the standards to specify intermediate knowledge and tional content. In some cases, like stoichiometry, the conceptual instructional steps. For example, MS-LS3-1 includes, as a student understanding for why chemists do stoichiometry was already in outcome, some general knowledge of the role of gene mutations. the standards. The teams wanted to make the mathematical prac- No part of the NGSS specifies the student outcome of defining a tice more explicit through the clarification statements, without gene—it is instead implicit that in order to demonstrate proficiency 8 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 339
on MS-LS3-1, students will have to be introduced to the concept of in this subject. Still others requested that additional engineering a gene through curriculum and instruction. content be added to the NGSS. Of those who liked the inclusion of engineering, many voiced concern that having separate engi- Clarity of Language neering PEs, especially in middle school and high school, would either lead to instruction separated from science content or to an Many reviewers of the first public draft remarked that the lan- omission of the engineering components altogether. guage in the PEs was unclear and not user friendly enough to sup- Upon direction from the lead states, writers integrated the ETS1 port consistent implementation—that multiple users would have (Engineering Design) core ideas into the other disciplines for the different interpretations of the same language. More examples January 2013 draft. For example, some PEs described the out- and guidance for instruction, assessment, and curriculum develop- comes from both physical sciences and core ideas and engineering ment were requested. Requests for clarification were particularly design core ideas. This integration resulted in a reduction of the abundant in the feedback describing the practices; the feedback total number of PEs. In the January 2013 draft, there were two suggested confusion about the meaning and scope of certain different ways to view these same integrated PEs: listed within practices—particularly “developing and using models.” the traditional disciplines and listed in separate Engineering In early drafts of the standards, the writers purposefully did not Design standards. control for consistent language, in order to provide several differ- Feedback on the integration of engineering in the January 2013 ent writing styles as models. Based on the public draft feedback draft was mixed. Reviewers enthusiastically praised the idea of and additional feedback from lead states, the different writing integration as a way to help ensure that engineering design core styles were assessed and the highest-rated writing style was then ideas would be incorporated into science instruction, but com- adapted for all of the standards. All PEs were carefully reviewed for mented that the intended engineering design core ideas were not clarity of language. Although some examples were added, the writ- always explicit. The feedback indicated that the integration was ers were careful to use language that was general enough to avoid not consistently successful. prescribing curriculum and to ensure that PEs could be met in mul- tiple ways. To help clarify the meaning of each practice, a separate The writers therefore reintroduced a small set of separate PEs chapter on the practices was added to this draft of the NGSS. addressing ETS1 core ideas at each grade band, to ensure that the engineering design core ideas from the Framework would be clearly The percentage of people with concerns about language clarity represented. In addition, some of the successfully-integrated DCIs are was much lower when reviewing the second public draft. Because still present throughout the other disciplinary standards. some concerns still remained, however, the PEs that received the highest scores for clarity were used as models for editing most of In addition to this core idea integration, the engineering, technol- the other PEs. This created clearer and more consistent language, ogy, and application of science (ETS) core ideas from the Framework more closely aligned to that in the Framework. are included in the other two dimensions of the draft NGSS. Engineering practices are incorporated into PEs at every grade level. Inclusion of Engineering and Technology Due to their crosscutting nature, ETS2 (Links Among Engineering, Technology, Science, and Society) core ideas have been integrated The initial inclusion of engineering practices and core ideas in the throughout the standards in a manner similar to that of crosscutting May 2012 draft NGSS generated a large number of comments. concepts. A thorough discussion of the inclusion of engineering in Most reviewers responded positively to the inclusion. Others indi- the NGSS is provided in Appendixes I and J. cated that engineering should not be in the science standards because of the total amount of content already present in the traditional disciplines and the scarcity of teachers with training Responses to the Public Drafts 9

OCR for page 339
Specifying One Practice in Each Performance Expectation neering practices and concepts. Many reviewers also commented that implementation of the standards will, in practice, be impossible While the NGSS draft was widely praised for integrating practices until aligned assessments are proposed. throughout the standards, many reviewers in both the first and second public drafts remarked that specifying a particular practice Response in each PE was too restrictive and that it would be interpreted as The NGSS writers recognize the differences between current prescribing instruction. education practice and that envisioned by the Framework. Many organizations, including the National Science Teachers Response Association, are currently planning for programs and support The writers, upon direction from the lead states, have revised the for teachers and states that adopt and implement the standards. front matter documents to provide a more detailed explanation The National Research Council is now researching ways to assess of the nature of PEs—that they specify student outcomes and not the kind of science education envisioned in the Framework. instruction. To help support student learning, all practices should be Ultimately, the decision of what assessment to use or develop will used in instruction throughout each discipline and each year. be up to each state choosing to adopt the NGSS. It is important to note that the Science and Engineering Practices are not teaching strategies—they are indicators of achievement as well as important learning goals in their own right. As such, the Framework and the NGSS ensure that the practices are not treated as afterthoughts. Coupling practice with content gives the learning context, whereas practices alone are activities and con- tent alone is memorization. It is through integration that science begins to make sense and allows student to apply the material. State standards have traditionally represented practices and core ideas as two separate entities. However, observations from science education researchers have indicated that the result of having these two dimensions separate is that they are either taught sepa- rately or the practices are not taught at all. Implementation Support Needed Almost every reviewer in both public drafts noted that the vision laid out in the Framework and embodied by the NGSS will likely require additional professional development and possibly large-scale changes in education systems to ensure that all students can meet all of these standards. For example, it was noted that science is not currently taught at the K–3 level in many schools and that many students do not take chemistry, physics, and earth sciences classes at the high school level. To help them fully understand the vision of the NGSS, reviewers requested vignettes of classroom instruction showing integration of the three dimensions and inclusion of engi- 10 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS