Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.95



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 448


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 447
APPENDIX K of complexity that are developmentally appropriate for students to build knowledge both within courses and over the sequence MODEL COURSE MAPPING IN MIDDLE of courses. It is also important to note that these are merely the AND HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE NEXT first of several models that will be developed. There are also plans GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS in the works to develop accelerated models to propel students toward Advanced Placement courses earlier in their high school careers as well as models that integrate the NGSS and career tech- nical education pathways, such as engineering and medicine. FOUNDATIONAL UNDERSTANDINGS FOR THE REACHING THE POTENTIAL NGSS MODEL COURSE MAPS A Framework for K–12 Science Education (Framework) (NRC, 2012) To use these model course maps effectively, it is essential to casts a bold vision for science education, and the resulting Next understand the thought processes that were involved in build- Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have taken a huge leap ing them. This section outlines the foundational decisions that toward putting this vision into practice, but there is still work to be were made in the development of all the model course maps and done as states contemplate adoption and move toward implemen- it attempts to clarify the intent for use of the course maps. Each tation. This appendix focuses on one aspect of this work—organiz- of these six foundational understandings is more fully explained ing the grade-banded performance expectations (PEs) into courses. below; they serve as the basis for effective use of these model The NGSS are organized by grade level for kindergarten through course maps. grade 5, but as grade-banded expectations at the middle school 1. Model course maps are starting points, not finished products. (6–8) and high school (9–12) levels. This arrangement is due to the 2. Model course map organization is built on the structure of the fact that standards at these levels are handled very differently in Framework. different states and because there is no conclusive research that 3. All standards, all students. identifies the ideal sequence for student learning. 4. Model course maps are not curriculum. 5. All science and engineering practices and all crosscutting As states and districts consider implementation of the NGSS, it concepts in all courses. will be important to thoughtfully consider how to organize these 6. Engineering for all. grade-banded standards into courses that best prepare students for post-secondary success in college and careers. Decisions about this organization are handled differently in different states. Sometimes 1. Model Course Maps Are Starting Points, Not Finished a decision is prescribed by the state education agency, sometimes Products. by a regional office or a local school district, and other times it falls States and districts/local education agencies are not expected to to the lone 6–12 science teacher—who may not only move between adopt these models; rather, they are encouraged to use them as two buildings and teach seven different preparations each day, but a starting point for developing their own course descriptions and also is active in school-sponsored extracurricular activities—to deter- sequences. mine what science gets taught at what level. The model course maps described here are both models of pro- Recognizing the many ways in which decisions about what to cess for planning courses and sequences and models of potential teach are made, this appendix provides a tool for guiding this end products. Every attempt has been made to describe the intent decision-making process. To realize the vision of the Framework and assumptions underlying each model and the process of model and the NGSS, courses need to be thoughtfully designed at levels 113

OCR for page 447
development so that states and districts can utilize similar processes Though the disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) were used as a starting to organize the standards in a useful way. These models illustrate point for building these model course maps, it will be impor- possible approaches to organizing the content of the NGSS into tant for coordinated learning that the other dimensions of the coherent and rigorous courses that lead to college and career readi- Framework—science and engineering practices (SEPs) and cross- ness. The word “model” is used here as it is in the Framework—as a cutting concepts (CCs)—be woven together in classroom instruc- tool for understanding, not necessarily as an ideal state. tion (see #5 below). Curriculum designers should consult the Framework and the NGSS appendixes for progressions of learning 2. Model Course Map Organization Is Built on the for SEPs and CCs. Structure of the Framework. 3. All Standards, All Students. The Framework is organized into four major domains: the physi- cal sciences; the life sciences; the earth and space sciences; and All standards are expected of all students. Though this is a foun- engineering, technology, and applications of science. Within each dational commitment of the Framework and is discussed at length domain, the Framework describes how a small set of disciplin- in Appendix D of the NGSS, it bears repeating here because of its ary core ideas was developed using a set of specific criteria (NRC, implications for course design. This approach is much more than 2012, p. 31). Each core idea is broken into three or four compo- just a way to refute the common notion that learning physics nent ideas that provide more organizational development of is only for students in advanced math, or that taking earth and the core idea. Figure K-1 provides an example of how one core space sciences is only for students who are not on the college idea, Matter and Its Interactions (PS1), includes three component track. All standards, all students. ideas: PS1.A: Structure and Properties of Matter, PS1.B: Chemical For the 6–8 grade band, this clearly indicates that all of the grade- Reactions, and PS1.C: Nuclear Processes. banded standards should be addressed within the 3-year span and the flexibility of the high school science courses sequence with required and elective courses provides a challenge to ensure that all students are prepared to demonstrate all of the PEs. The model course maps for the 9–12 grade band are all organized into three courses. This decision was made by balancing the “All standards, all students” vision with the reality of the finite amount of time in a school year. It would certainly be recommended that students, especially those considering careers in a science, technology, engi- neering, and mathematics (STEM)-related field, go beyond these courses to take STEM courses that would enhance their prepara- tion. It should be noted here, however, that an extensive review of the NGSS by college professors of first-year science courses determined that the content in the NGSS does adequately prepare students to be college and career ready in science (see Appendix C). Furthermore, it should also be noted that there is no set amount of time assigned to these courses. Although traditionally these would be considered year-long courses, there is nothing in these FIGURE K-1 Physical Sciences Core Idea (PS1) and Component Ideas. models that requires that a course fit into a set amount of time— NOTE: This in an example from the Framework organization to demonstrate the relation- ship between “domains,” “disciplinary core ideas,” and “component ideas.” courses could be spread over a longer time than 3 years, extended to meet student needs, or accelerated. Some modes and settings 114 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
of instruction—such as proficiency or mastery-based learning, level as scientific inquiry when teaching science disciplines at all online learning, or alternative learning centers—may even find levels, from kindergarten to grade 12. Engineering standards have that structures other than courses are better fits for their situa- been integrated throughout the science domains of the physical tion. Even in these situations, the model course maps and the sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences. The NGSS also processes used in their development can help guide curriculum include PEs that focus explicitly on engineering design without a development. science domain context. Within the range affected by these model course maps, there are four engineering design PEs in the 6–8 4. Model Course Maps Are Not Curriculum. grade band and four in the 9–12 grade band. All of the model course maps place the stand-alone engineering PEs with all courses The NGSS are student outcomes and are explicitly not curriculum. as they help organize and drive instruction of the integrated engi- Even though within each NGSS PE the SEPs are partnered with a neering PEs within each course. particular DCI and CC, these intersections do not predetermine how the three are linked in the curriculum, units, lessons, or instruction; they simply clarify the expectations of what students MODEL COURSE MAPS will know and be able to do by the end of the grade or grade band. Although considering where PEs will be addressed within Three model course maps are included as concrete examples to courses is an important step in curriculum development, additional begin conversations about realizing the vision of the Framework work will be needed to create coherent instructional programs and the NGSS. Before reading this section, it is important to read that help students achieve these standards. the preceding section, Foundational Understandings for the NGSS Model Course Maps. 5. All Science and Engineering Practices and All Including the three options presented in this section does not Crosscutting Concepts in All Courses. preclude other organizational sequences. As states, districts, and teachers engage in conversations about the strengths and weak- It is the expectation of all the model course maps that all SEPs nesses of the model course maps presented here, it is expected and CCs will be blended into instruction with aspects of the DCIs that a wider variety of course maps will be collaboratively in every course in the sequence and not just the ones that are developed and shared. For example, a curricular and instruc- outlined in the PEs. The goal is not to teach the PEs, but rather to tional program could be built around the National Academy prepare students to be able to perform them by the end of the of Engineering’s Grand Challenges for Engineering in the 21st grade band course sequence. The PEs are written as grade-band Century or a community-based theme that runs through all the endpoints. Even though a particular PE is placed “in a course,” it courses and connects the PEs to science, engineering, and tech- may not be possible to address the depth of the expectation in nology used in everyday life or could focus on the Framework’s its entirety within that course. It may, for example, take repeated CCs or SEPs instead of the DCIs. Furthermore, as was mentioned exposures to a particular SEP over several courses before a student above, even the term “courses” may be an unnecessarily limit- can achieve the proficiency expected in a given PE, but by the end ing definition that privileges a time-based system. Some teachers, of the grade band students should be prepared to demonstrate schools, districts, and states are moving toward a proficiency- each PE as written. based system, but even in such a situation these model course maps can help guide conversations about the connections 6. Engineering for All. between PEs and how to begin moving from standards to instruc- tion focused on the NGSS student performance/outcomes. As is more carefully detailed in Appendix I, the NGSS represent a commitment to integrate engineering design into the structure After the following list, details about each model course map, of science education by raising engineering design to the same how it was developed, and ideas for next steps are provided. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 115

OCR for page 447
1. onceptual Progressions Model (grades 6–8 and 9–12)—The C Students should have multiple opportunities to engage all of the grade-banded PEs are organized so that student understand- SEPs and CCs in each course. The premise of this Model Course ing of concepts is built progressively throughout the course Map 1, however, is that the DCIs do contain content that can be sequence. This model maps PEs into courses based on what logically sequenced. Creating a logical sequence for the DCI por- concepts are needed for support without focusing on keeping tion of the PEs for this model course map was a multi-stage effort disciplines separate. that relied heavily on the Framework. 2. cience Domains Model (grades 6–8 and 9–12)—The grade- S banded PEs are organized into content-specific courses that To develop a thorough understanding of scientific explana- match the three science domains of the Framework: physical tions of the world, students need sustained opportunities to sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences. Because work with and develop the underlying ideas and to appreciate the engineering domain is mostly integrated into the other those ideas’ interconnections during a period of years rather three disciplines in the NGSS, it was integrated in these course than weeks or months. This sense of development has been models rather than presented as a separate course in this conceptualized in the idea of learning progressions. If mastery sequence. (The four stand-alone engineering PEs in each grade of a core idea in a science discipline is the ultimate educa- band are connected to all three courses at both levels.) tional destination, then well-designed learning progressions 3.  odified Science Domains Model (grades 9–12)—The grade- M provide a map of the routes that can be taken to reach that banded PEs are organized into content-specific courses that destination. match a common high school course sequence of biology, Such progressions describe both how students’ understanding chemistry, and physics. To ensure that all students have access of the idea matures over time and the instructional supports to all standards, the PEs connected to the earth and space and experiences that are needed for them to make progress. sciences domain of the Framework are divided among these Learning progressions may extend all the way from preschool courses. This model was included as a model for comparison to grade 12 and beyond—indeed, people can continue learn- because it is currently a common sequence in high schools ing about scientific core ideas their entire lives. Because learn- across the United States. ing progressions extend over multiple years, they can prompt educators to consider how topics are presented at each grade Course Map 1—Conceptual Understanding Model level so that they build on prior understanding and can sup- (grades 6–8 and 9–12) port increasingly sophisticated learning. Hence, core ideas and their related learning progressions are key organizing prin- Process and Assumptions: How Was This Course Map ciples for the design of the framework. (NRC, 2012, p. 26) Developed? This model course map arranges PEs so that the component ideas of the DCIs in each course progressively build on the skills and knowledge described in courses that precede it. The fifth of the The first step in this process was separating the core ideas based six foundational understandings for using model course maps on their reliance on other core ideas. For example, it is clear just includes the idea that although all three dimensions described from the titles of the core ideas that to learn about LS1: From in the Framework are specifically integrated within the grade Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes, a student band endpoints, curriculum and instruction will provide students would benefit from an understanding of core idea PS1: Matter with opportunities to learn the components of the dimensions in and Its Interactions. Knowing about atoms, molecules, and how a variety of ways to prepare them to perform these endpoints. they interact should enhance a student’s understanding of how 116 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
molecules operate in living organisms. This would put core idea and drive instruction of the integrated engineering PEs in all three PS1 in a course before core idea LS1. Just looking at the titles of courses and they will appear in subsequent tables. the core ideas, however, is not enough to understand the full scope of what content is included in a core idea. Ordering core Sorting core ideas is a step in the direction of course mapping, ideas for this model course map was done by thoroughly compar- but core ideas are at far too big a grain size to be useful for cur- ing the descriptions for each core idea in the Framework. Any core riculum development. To get closer to a useable grain size, the ideas that did not have significant reliance on the content in other core ideas were reanalyzed by splitting each one into its compo- core ideas were placed in the first course. Core ideas that required nent ideas (identified in the Framework) and again sorting them support from those in the first course were placed in the second into courses to refine their positioning. Essentially, the process course, and core ideas that required support from core ideas in the used for sorting the DCIs was repeated, but the component second course were placed in the third course. The resulting skel- ideas disconnected from the core idea and, when appropriate, etal sequence based on disciplinary core ideas is shown in Figure moved to a different course in the map based on the grade band K-2. As was discussed in the sixth foundational understanding for endpoint descriptions in the Framework. For example, although all model course maps, there are four PEs in each grade band that PS1: Matter and Its Interactions was originally placed in the first focus exclusively on engineering design. Although these PEs are course, its component idea PS1.C: Nuclear Processes requires not represented in the figure below, the stand-alone engineering content in both Courses 1 and 2, so it was shifted to Course 3. PEs are included in all three courses, as they should help organize PS1.A: Structures and Properties of Matter and PS1.B: Chemical Course 1 Course 2 Course 3 PS1: MaƩer and Its LS1: From Molecules to InteracƟons Organisms LS4: Biological EvoluƟon: Unity and Diversity PS2: MoƟon and Stability: LS3: Heredity: Inheritance Forces and InteracƟons and VariaƟon of Traits ESS2: Earth Systems LS2: Ecosystems, PS3: Energy InteracƟons, Energy, and Dynamics PS4: Waves and Their ESS3: Earth and Human ESS1: Earth’s Place in the ApplicaƟons in Technology Universe AcƟvity for InformaƟon Transfer FIGURE K-2 Organization of DCIs for Course Map 1. NOTE: This figure outlines the first step of organizing the NGSS into courses based on a conceptual progression of the science content outlined in the DCIs in the Framework. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 117

OCR for page 447
FIGURE K-3 Component idea organization for Model Course Map 1. NOTE: This figure outlines the result of the second step of mapping the NGSS into courses—refining the arrangement in Figure K-2 by evaluating the DCIs at the finer grain size of the component ideas of which they are made. The arrows illustrate the connections that were used to sort the DCIs into courses, not to determine an order for curriculum. 118 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
Reactions remained in course one because they do not require TABLE K-1 Conceptual Progressions Model Course Map—Middle School content from other component ideas. Figure K-3 shows the end COURSE 1 COURSE 2 COURSE 3 result of reassigning component ideas to courses. Because this MS-PS1-1. PS4.C MS-PS4-3. LS1.D MS-LS1-8. organization is based on the Framework, it works for both the MS-PS1-2. MS-LS1-1. MS-LS2-4. PS1.A LS2.C 6–8 and 9–12 grade bands. MS-PS1-3. LS1.A MS-LS1-2. MS-LS2-5. MS-PS1-4. MS-LS1-3. MS-LS4-1. The final step in the process of building Model Course Map 1 was MS-PS1-5. MS-LS1-4. LS4.A MS-LS4-2. PS1.B LS1.B to reevaluate the organization at the level of the PEs themselves. MS-PS1-6. MS-LS1-5. MS-LS4-3. The tables below outline the first step in this process—connecting MS-PS2-1. MS-LS1-6. MS-LS4-4. PS2.A LS1.C LS4.B MS-PS2-2. MS-LS1-7. MS-LS4-5. the component ideas with their PEs. These tables were built using MS-PS2-3. LS2.B MS-LS2-3. LS4.C MS-LS4-6. the information in the NGSS foundation boxes, which document PS2.B MS-PS2-4. MS-LS3-1. ESS1.C MS-ESS1-4. LS3.A the connections between the PEs and each component idea. Due MS-PS2-5. MS-LS3-2. MS-ESS3-3. ESS3.C to the overlapping nature of the content in the component ideas, MS-PS3-1. ESS2.A MS-ESS2-1. MS-ESS3-4. MS-PS3-2. MS-ESS2-5. ESS3.D MS-ESS3-5. some PEs are linked to more than one component idea. In these PS3.A ESS2.D MS-PS3-3. MS-ESS2-6. cases, PEs are only listed once in the top section of the table. PE MS-PS3-4. ESS3.B MS-ESS3-2. COURSE 3 Repeats repeats—PEs that are connected to more than one component PS3.B MS-PS3-5. LS4.D MS-LS2-5. idea within a course or between courses—and secondary connec- MS-PS4-1. COURSE 2 Repeats ESS1.C MS-ESS2-3. PS4.A MS-PS4-2. PS3.C MS-PS3-2. MS-ESS2-5. tions are identified in the bottom section of each table. ESS2.D MS-LS2-1. MS-LS1-6. MS-ESS2-6. LS2.A PS3.D MS-LS2-2. MS-LS1-7. ETS1.A MS-ETS1-1. Next Steps for Course Map 1 MS-ESS1-1. PS4.B MS-PS4-2. MS-ETS1-2. ESS1.B MS-ESS1-2. LS1.B MS-LS3-2. ETS1.B MS-ETS1-3. It should be clear at this point that this course map will need MS-ESS1-3. MS-LS3-1. MS-ETS1-4. revision as curricula are developed, but this arrangement should LS3.B ESS2.B MS-ESS2-3. MS-LS3-2. MS-ETS1-3. ETS1.C give a good starting point for conversations about what is taught MS-ESS2-2. ESS1.A MS-ESS1-1. MS-ETS1-4. when and why. To help guide these conversations, here are sev- MS-ESS2-4. MS-ESS1-2. ESS2.C MS-ESS2-5. ESS2.A MS-ESS2-2. eral recommendations and steps that states or districts should MS-ESS2-6. ETS1.A MS-ETS1-1. consider as they work from this starting point toward developing ESS3.A MS-ESS3-1. MS-ETS1-2. Key to Highlighting curricula and instructional unit plans: ETS1.A MS-ETS1-1. ETS1.B MS-ETS1-3. PE appears in two DCIs within MS-ETS1-2. MS-ETS1-4. the same course 1.  Revisit the suggested arrangements of DCIs and DCI compo- ETS1.B MS-ETS1-3. MS-ETS1-3. PE is identified in the NGSS as a nent ideas to ensure that they progress from course to course ETS1.C MS-ETS1-4. MS-ETS1-4. secondary connection to this in a logical fashion. In this process, make sure to read the MS-ETS1-3. component idea descriptions of the core ideas and the component ideas in ETS1.C MS-ETS1-4. PE is connected to two the Framework, rather than only relying on past experiences component ideas between two with those concepts or topics. This may mean ending up with courses COURSE 1 Repeats a different arrangement than what is presented here, but col- MS-PS1-2. laboratively engaging a broad group of teachers and admin- PS1.B MS-PS1-3. istrators in this process will result in courses that work for PS3.A MS-PS1-4. schools, teachers, and students and offers greater buy-in for MS-PS3-3. PS3.B MS-PS3-4. implementation. NOTE: This table connects the middle school NGSS PEs to the component ideas from the 2.  PEs are bundled into curriculum units and lesson plans, it is As Framework. These connections are based on the information in the NGSS foundation boxes. important to balance this structured arrangement of PEs with In this table the component ideas are arranged into courses based on the organization shown in Figure K-3. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 119

OCR for page 447
TABLE K-2 Conceptual Progression Model Course Map—High School creating courses and units that flow well and engage students COURSE 1 COURSE 2 COURSE 3 in learning. Use the final PE arrangement that is developed HS-PS1-1. PS3.C HS-PS3-5. PS1.C HS-PS1-8. (or the one provided by Model Course Map 1) as a starting PS1.A HS-PS1-2. PS4.B HS-PS4-4. LS2.C HS-LS2-6. point for building instructional units. As the student outcomes HS-PS1-3. HS-LS1-1. HS-LS2-7. described in the PEs are bundled into meaningful units to build HS-PS1-4. LS1.A HS-LS1-2. LS2.D HS-LS2-8. HS-PS1-5. HS-LS1-3. LS4.A HS-LS4-1. flow within and between courses, PEs may well be pulled from PS1.B HS-PS1-6. LS1.B HS-LS1-4. LS4.B HS-LS4-2. different courses in the map to make this happen. The course HS-PS1-7. HS-LS1-5. HS-LS4-3. map is there to make sure that when PEs are moved from one HS-PS2-1. LS1.C HS-LS1-6. HS-LS4-4. PS2.A HS-PS2-2. HS-LS1-7. LS4.C HS-LS4-5. course to another, instruction is moved accordingly; it is not HS-PS2-3. HS-LS2-3. LS4.D HS-LS4-6. meant to be a prescriptive, static document. For example, one HS-PS2-4. LS2.B HS-LS2-4. HS-ESS1-5. might decide to connect HS-ESS2-3 (“Develop a model based ESS1.C PS2.B HS-PS2-5. HS-LS2-5. HS-ESS1-6. HS-PS2-6. LS3.A HS-LS3-1. ESS2.E HS-ESS2-7. on evidence of Earth’s interior to describe the cycling of mat- HS-PS3-2. HS-LS3-2. HS-ESS3-3. ter by thermal convection.”) and HS-PS3-2 (“Develop and use PS3.A LS3.B ESS3.C HS-PS3-3. HS-LS3-3. HS-ESS3-4. models to illustrate that energy at the macroscopic scale can be HS-PS3-1. HS-ESS1-1. HS-ESS3-5. PS3.B ESS3.D accounted for as either motions of particles or energy stored in HS-PS3-4. ESS1.A HS-ESS1-2. HS-ESS3-6. HS-PS4-1. HS-ESS1-3. fields.”) from Course 1 with HS-PS3-3 from Course 2 (“Design, PS4.A HS-PS4-2. HS-ESS2-1. COURSE 3 Repeats build, and refine a device that works within given constraints HS-PS4-3. HS-ESS2-2. HS-ESS1-5. ESS2.A PS1.C to convert one form of energy into another form of energy.”) HS-PS4-5. HS-ESS2-3. HS-ESS1-6. HS-LS2-1. HS-ESS2-4. LS2.C HS-LS2-2. in an instructional unit that has students engaging in argu- LS2.A HS-LS2-2. ESS2.D HS-ESS2-6. HS-LS4-2. mentation about sources of energy (gas, electric, geothermal, ESS1.B HS-ESS1-4. ESS3.B HS-ESS3-1. LS4.C HS-LS4-3. solar, etc.) for heating and cooling homes as a part of Course 1. HS-ESS2-1. HS-LS4-6. ESS2.B HS-ESS2-3. COURSE 2 Repeats HS-ESS2-4. 3.  PEs are bundled into instructional units and these units are As ESS2.C HS-ESS2-5. HS-PS3-3. ESS2.D HS-ESS2-7. tied together into courses, units may need to be moved from ESS3.A HS-ESS3-2. HS-PS3-4. HS-ESS3-6. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1 PS3.D HS-PS4-5. ESS3.A HS-ESS3-1. one course to another to make sure that courses are balanced. ETS1.B HS-ETS1-3 HS-LS2-5. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1 This does not necessarily mean that the courses have the same HS-ETS1-4 HS-ESS1-1. HS-ETS1-3 ETS1.B number of PEs. Curriculum units with fewer PEs may take lon- ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2 HS-PS4-3. HS-ETS1-4 PS4.B HS-PS4-5. ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2 ger than those with more PEs, depending on how those PEs COURSE 1 Repeats HS-ESS1-2. are addressed in the lesson plans. It is recommended to pay HS-PS1-2. PS4.C HS-PS4-5. particular attention to the repeat PEs listed in the tables in this PS1.B HS-PS1-4. HS-ESS2-1. Key to Highlighting ESS2.A process. PEs that are connected to more than one component HS-PS1-1. HS-ESS2-3. PE appears in two DCIs within PS2.B idea may bundle better with the PEs in just one course rather HS-PS1-3. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1 the same course than being represented in two courses. PS3.A HS-PS2-5. HS-ETS1-3 PE is identified in the NGSS as a ETS1.B PS3.B HS-PS3-1. HS-ETS1-4 secondary connection to this 4.  When rearranging PEs and building instructional units, remem- PS4.A HS-ESS2-3. ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2 component idea ber that the PEs are grade-banded student outcomes and to ESS1.B HS-ESS2-4. PE is connected to two map out student course expectations appropriately. It may be ESS2.B HS-ESS1-5. component ideas between two courses that, although a PE is placed in a course, students may not be ready to perform all aspects of that PE by the end of the NOTE: This table connects the high school NGSS PEs to the component ideas from the course. For example, a PE may be placed in the first course Framework on which they were based. These connections are based on the information in the because the DCI dimension is determined to be foundational to NGSS foundation boxes. In this table the component ideas are arranged into courses based a PE in the second course, but the depth of the SEP described on the organization shown in Figure K-3. 120 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
in the PE may not be reached until the third year. The cur- NEXT STEPS EXAMPLE: MIDDLE SCHOOL REVISION riculum will need to be designed in a way that accounts for this reality. In other words, although the expectation is that all With work left to do on these models, it might seem overwhelm- SEPs will be in all courses, it would make sense for students in ing and difficult to move forward, so this section provides an grade 6 to engage differently from those in grade 8; one needs example of the types of decisions that might be made to advance to deliberately build complexity of practices over the middle a revision. In this case the focus is on revising the Conceptual school sequence. Model Course Map 1 attempts to organize Progressions Model Course Map described in Table K-1. This revi- PEs in a way that scaffolds the content from course to course, sion pulls from several of the suggested next steps described but as these are rearranged for curriculum development, it above to provide an example of a result of this revision process. may be that some core ideas in PEs may need scaffolding with- in a course to prepare students to learn the content. Unsure about whether the Conceptual Progressions Model 5.  The math and English language arts (ELA) NGSS connections Course Map would work in their middle school, John, Deb, and boxes and their supporting appendixes (Math—Appendix L; Carmen—the only grade 6, 7, and 8 science teachers for Randolph ELA—Appendix M) should be consulted to make sure that Middle School—decide to dig into the middle school course map courses are not expecting math or ELA content or practices and see how it looks after they do a bit of rearranging. In a local- before they are expected in the science sequence. At the high option state that has recently adopted the NGSS, the decision for school level, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) also what will happen with the grade-banded middle and high school have grade-banded expectations, so this discussion will need standards ends up at the district level and John, Deb, and Carmen to occur at the state, district, and building levels to make sure are the district’s middle school teachers. They had been teach- that the course map for science does not demand math and ing middle school science courses that were discipline specific as ELA performances before they are expected in those curricula. John likes biology, Carmen likes the physical sciences, and Deb At the middle school level, there are two PEs (MS-PS3-1 and has always enjoyed the earth and space sciences. But following a MS-PS4-1) that are presented in the course map before they recent K–12 district science meeting in which they took a stab at are expected in the CCSS. This issue is addressed at length in sorting the disciplinary core ideas into courses, both the middle the middle school revision below. and high school teachers walked out of the meeting seriously 6.  also may be determined that getting all students prepared It considering using Model Course Map 1. At their next in-service for all PEs requires more than three courses at the high school day, John, Deb, and Carmen were able to schedule a half day to level. Organizing the standards into four science courses would work on what their courses might look like next year. simply mean repeating the process as described above, but Not sure where to start, Deb suggests beginning with the sug- sorting into four courses instead of three. In order for this to gestions in the next steps section for Model Course Map 1. After still align with the vision of the Framework of all PEs being reading through the steps, the three teachers decide that they for all students, all four courses would need to be required still do not have a good sense of what this course map might for all students. Alternatively, some education systems—espe- look like in the classroom, so their starting point is to look for cially those heading toward a proficiency-based system—could related component ideas that could be bundled for coordinated address some of the PEs in other course structures such as instruction. Maybe by looking for related PEs and organizing career and technical education, agriculture education, elective them into units of instruction, they will get a better sense of science courses, integrated mathematics or STEM courses, alter- what it would mean to teach more interdisciplinary courses. In native education, or online modules. performing this analysis, they notice that several component ideas had only a few PEs and they did not seem to relate too Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 121

OCR for page 447
closely to the other component ideas in that course. Whenever map: PS1.C Nuclear Processes, LS2.D Social Interaction and Group the three teachers found what they started calling “orphan PEs,” Behavior, ESS2.E Biogeology, and PS2.C Stability and Instability in the component idea and attached PEs were moved to a course Physical Systems—all of which were placed in Course 3 in the origi- that had related ideas, as long as the repositioning did not alter nal component idea organization. the concept flow. For example, John noticed that LS2.B Cycles of Having moved several component ideas from Course 2 to Course 1 Energy and Matter Transfer in Ecosystems in Course 2 had only and having eliminated a number of component ideas from Course 3, one PE directly linked to it (see Table K-1). Although there were the group had a growing concern about courses becoming unbal- other life sciences PEs in Course 2, Carmen suggested they move anced, so they changed their approach and each looked at their LS2.B and its orphan PE to Course 1 because it would bundle content area specialties for component ideas that might be a good nicely with LS2.A Interdependent Relationships in Ecosystems. fit to move. Deb nominated PS3.B Conservation of Energy and John was initially unsure about moving the component idea to Energy Transfer as a good candidate to move from Course 1 to another course because it also had some connection to compo- Course 2. She explained that there was only one PE unique to this nent ideas in Course 2 until Deb pointed out that LS2.A (and its component idea and it had good connections with other chemistry two PEs) was the only life sciences PE in Course 1 and that adding PEs in the second course; PS3.B was moved to the second course. another life sciences PE not only found a home for the orphan PE, John suggested moving LS3.A Inheritance of Traits and LS3.B but also made Course 1 more coherent. They quickly reviewed the Variation of Traits to Course 3—both PEs tie in well with the LS4 math and ELA connections and did not discover any reason not to component ideas that focus on natural selection and evolution— move this component idea to Course 1 at the middle school level. and Carmen proposed moving ESS3.A Natural Resources to Course 3 A similar line of logic led the group to move ESS2.D Weather and because it fits well with the PEs from ESS3.A Natural Hazards and Climate from Course 2 to Course 1—there was only one PE con- ESS1.C History of Planet Earth. nected to the component idea—and a closer examination of the PEs revealed that it bundled well with ESS1.A Universe and Its Thinking that they were getting close to something that might Stars and ESS2.C The Roles of Water in Earth Surface Processes. work, the three teachers turned their thoughts to what they could make work in their school. They realized that with the room As the three teachers more closely examined the PEs (their previ- arrangement at Randolph Middle School and the differences in ous work was with the Framework), they had concerns that some schedules between grades 6 and 7, it simply would not work to PEs were not in the right course based on the cognitive complex- have PS1.B Chemical Reactions at the grade 6 level. They just did ity demanded. Sometimes the aspect of the component idea not have the chemistry lab space, safety equipment, or supplies emphasized in a PE at the middle school level seemed different available to make it happen. They decided that advocating for any than what they remembered from conversations with their high big changes in room arrangements or schedules was not where school colleagues at the K–12 district meeting. For example, at they wanted to spend their energy, and so they moved PS1.B to the middle school level, ESS1.A Universe and Its Stars focuses on Course 2. In looking closely at PS1.B, Carmen noticed that a couple the motions of the solar system. Deb suggested that they move of PEs were connected to both PS1.A (still in Course 1) and PS1.B this component idea to Course 1 because it fits well with compo- (now in Course 2). Rather than having these PEs listed in both nent idea ESS1.B Earth and Its Solar System. (At the high school courses, the teachers decided to evaluate MS-PS1-2 and MS-PS1-3 level, ESS1.A includes ideas about the Big Bang theory—a better to determine which course was better to bundle with other PEs. fit with PS4.B Electromagnetic Radiation in Course 2). By compar- After comparing the PEs, they decided to list MS-PS1-2 with PS1.B ing Tables K-1 and K-2, John picked up on another difference in Course 2 and MS-PS1-3 with PS1.A in Course 1. between middle school and high school: Several component ideas do not have PEs at the middle school level, so they eliminated Feeling like they had now successfully arranged the science content the following component ideas from their middle school course into a conceptual progression that could work for their school, the 122 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
John, Deb, and Carmen’s revisions are by no means exhaustive— three teachers decided to double-check that the model course more could be done along these same lines to truly adapt this map they had developed did not require mastery of a level model course map to local realities, and the decisions they made of mathematics that students did not yet have. By examining may not fit another’s reality—but continuing to engage in similar the NGSS mathematics connections boxes and Appendix L: processes and collaborating on course map development within Connections to CCSS—Mathematics, it became apparent that a and between schools, districts, and states, along with continued couple of PEs needed to be reconsidered. MS-PS3-1—Construct research on the relative effectiveness of the implementation of and interpret graphical displays of data to describe the rela- different course maps, will better inform the next round of stan- tionships of kinetic energy to the mass of an object and to the dards revision. speed of an object—was of concern because the concept of squares (as would be found in the graphical analysis of kinetic The revised middle school course map showing all of these energy) and the graphical analysis of lines are not expected changes can be found in Figure K-4, a component idea concept until grade 8 in the CCSS. In their current arrangement (and map, and also in Table K-3. the one listed above in Table K-1), this PE (which is connected to component idea PS3.A Definitions of Energy) was placed Course Map 2—Science Domains Model (grades 6–8 and in Course 1. Rather than moving this isolated PE to the third 9–12) course, the teachers decided to move the entire component idea to Course 3 (where it is in Figure K-4), but they were Process and Assumptions: How Was This Course Map concerned about how exactly it would fit in this course. They Developed? decided to talk with their school’s math teachers about devel- This model course map was built by placing the NGSS PEs into a oping a cross-disciplinary unit. If the math teachers were ame- course structure defined by the science domains outlined in the nable, the concept of kinetic energy would remain in Course 1, Framework: One course is assigned to each science domain of the where it bundles well with related PEs. They would also then Framework—life sciences, physical sciences, and earth and space collaboratively develop a unit for grade 8, in which the math sciences. A fourth course is not included for the fourth domain of teachers would build on this conceptual foundation by using the Framework—engineering—as most of the NGSS PEs connected the science concept of kinetic energy as a context for teach- to engineering are integrated into the science domains through ing about squares and graphical analysis. Then when these the SEPs and CCs. The NGSS do include four PEs in both the mid- students reached the grade 8, the science teachers would loan dle and high school grade bands that focus exclusively on core some equipment (and a bit of science knowledge) to the math idea ETS1: Engineering Design. As noted in the sixth foundational teachers so that they could collect data in their math classes understanding, these stand-alone engineering PEs are included and use the analysis of these data to teach the mathematics with all three courses as they help organize and drive instruction components of the PE—preparing the students to be able to of the integrated engineering PEs. perform the PE by the end of the grade band. MS-PS4-1—Use mathematical representations to describe a simple model for This model does not assume a particular order for these three waves that includes how the amplitude of a wave is related courses. There is no conclusive research at this point to recom- to the energy in a wave—requires math that would not be mend one sequence over another, and there are a variety of fac- expected until the grade 7 and this PE was also housed in tors that may affect the order determined for these courses if this Course 1. In this case it was decided to move the PE to Course 2. model course map is selected as a starting point. Ideas for guiding There it bundles nicely with the component ideas PS4.B this conversation are included in the next steps section following Electromagnetic Radiation and PS4.C Information Technologies the presentation of the model. and Instrumentation. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 123

OCR for page 447
TABLE K-4 Science Domains Model—Middle School 2.  Regardless of the final sequence of courses, it is likely that some component ideas from other domains will need to be Earth and Space brought into each course. For example, if the life sciences Physical Sciences Life Sciences Sciences course is taught before the physical sciences course, some MS-PS1-1. MS-LS1-1. MS-ESS1-1. content from the physical sciences will need to be included ESS1.A MS-PS1-2. LS1.A MS-LS1-2. MS-ESS1-2. PS1.A MS-PS1-3. MS-LS1-3. ESS1.B MS-ESS1-3. in the life sciences course as prerequisite understandings for MS-PS1-4. MS-LS1-4. ESS1.C MS-ESS1-4. biological processes. As PEs are bundled into curriculum units LS1.B PS1.B MS-PS1-5. MS-LS1-5. ESS2.A MS-ESS2-1. and lesson plans it is important to balance this structured MS-PS1-6. MS-LS1-6. MS-ESS2-2. LS1.C arrangement of PEs with creating courses and units that flow MS-PS2-1. MS-LS1-7. ESS2.B MS-ESS2-3. PS2.A MS-PS2-2. LS1.D MS-LS1-8. MS-ESS2-4. well and engage students in learning. The model course map MS-PS2-3. MS-LS2-1. ESS2.C MS-ESS2-5. can be used as a starting point for building instructional units. LS2.A PS2.B MS-PS2-4. MS-LS2-2. MS-ESS2-6. When bundling these student outcomes into meaningful units MS-PS2-5. LS2.B MS-LS2-3. ESS3.A MS-ESS3-1. to build the flow for courses, PEs may be pulled from different MS-PS3-1. MS-LS2-4. ESS3.B MS-ESS3-2. LS2.C courses in the map to make this work. The course map is not MS-PS3-2. MS-LS2-5. MS-ESS3-3. PS3.A ESS3.C MS-PS3-3. LS3.A MS-LS3-1. MS-ESS3-4. meant to be a prescriptive, static document; it is meant to pro- MS-PS3-4. MS-LS3-2. ESS3.D MS-ESS3-5. vide structure for decision making PS3.B MS-PS3-5. MS-LS4-1. MS-PS4-1. LS4.A MS-LS4-2. Earth and Space 3.  While rearranging PEs and building instructional units, it is PS4.A MS-PS4-2. MS-LS4-3. Sciences Repeats important to remember that the PEs are grade-banded student PS4.C MS-PS4-3. MS-LS4-4. MS-ESS1-1. LS4.B ESS1.B outcomes and to map student course expectations appropri- ETS1.A MS-ETS1-1. MS-LS4-5. MS-ESS1-2. MS-ETS1-2. LS4.C MS-LS4-6. ESS1.C MS-ESS2-3. ately. It may be that although a PE is placed in a certain course, ETS1.B MS-ETS1-3. ESS2.C MS-ESS2-2. students may not be ready to perform all aspects of the PE MS-ETS1-4. MS-ESS2-5. Life Sciences Repeats ESS2.D by the end of the course. For example, it could be that a PE is MS-ETS1-3. MS-ESS2-6. ETS1.C placed in the first course because the DCI dimension is deter- MS-ETS1-4. LS1.B MS-LS3-2. ETS1.A MS-ETS1-1. LS3.B MS-LS3-1. MS-ETS1-2. mined to be foundational to a PE in the second course, but Physical Sciences MS-LS3-2. ETS1.B MS-ETS1-3. the depth of the SEP described in the PE may not be reached Repeats LS4.D MS-LS2-5. MS-ETS1-4. MS-PS1-2. ETS1.A MS-ETS1-1. MS-ETS1-3. until the third year. The curriculum will need to be designed in PS1.B ETS1.C MS-PS1-3. MS-ETS1-2. MS-ETS1-4. a way that accounts for this reality. In other words, although PS3.A MS-PS1-4. ETS1.B MS-ETS1-3. the expectation is that all SEPs will be in all courses, it would MS-PS3-3. MS-ETS1-4. Key to Highlighting make sense for students in grade 6 to engage in these differ- PS3.B MS-PS3-4. MS-ETS1-3. PE appears in two DCIs within PS3.C MS-PS3-2. ETS1.C MS-ETS1-4. the same course ently than those in grade 8. Deliberately building complexity MS-LS1-6. PE is identified in the NGSS as a of practices over the middle school sequence is needed. PS3.D MS-LS1-7. secondary connection to this PS4.B MS-PS4-2. component idea 4. f, during the implementation process, restricting the 9–12 I PE is connected to two grade band to three courses does not meet local needs, a component ideas between two fourth course could be developed. If all four courses are courses required, a course map variation like this could still meet the vision of the NGSS and the Framework. Because the three NOTE: This table connects the middle school NGSS PEs to the component ideas from the Framework on which they were based. These connections are based on information in the domains fit fairly well into courses, there is no obvious way to NGSS foundation boxes. In this table the component ideas are arranged into courses based siphon PEs into a fourth course, but an examination of Course on the organization described as the Science Domains Model—one course is assigned to Map Model 1 could provide direction to this process. Because each sciences domain of the Framework—life sciences, physical sciences, and earth and space the third course in that sequence contains PEs that are most sciences. 126 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
TABLE K-5 Science Domains Model—High School Earth and Space Physical Sciences Life Sciences Sciences HS-PS1-1. HS-LS1-1. HS-ESS1-1. HS-PS1-2. LS1.A HS-LS1-2. ESS1.A HS-ESS1-2. PS1.A HS-PS1-3. HS-LS1-3. HS-ESS1-3. HS-PS1-4. LS1.B HS-LS1-4. ESS1.B HS-ESS1-4. HS-PS1-5. Physical Sciences HS-LS1-5. HS-ESS1-5. ESS1.C PS1.B HS-PS1-6. Repeats LS1.C HS-LS1-6. HS-ESS1-6. HS-PS1-7. HS-PS1-2. HS-LS1-7. HS-ESS2-1. PS1.B PS1.C HS-PS1-8. HS-PS1-4. HS-LS2-1. HS-ESS2-2. LS2.A ESS2.A HS-PS2-1. HS-ESS1-5. HS-LS2-2. HS-ESS2-3. PS1.C PS2.A HS-PS2-2. HS-ESS1-6. HS-LS2-3. HS-ESS2-4. HS-PS2-3. HS-PS1-1. LS2.B HS-LS2-4. ESS2.C HS-ESS2-5. PS2.B HS-PS2-4. HS-PS1-3. HS-LS2-5. HS-ESS2-6. ESS2.D PS2.B HS-PS2-5. PS3.A HS-PS2-5. HS-LS2-6. HS-ESS2-7. LS2.C HS-PS2-6. PS3.B HS-PS3-1. HS-LS2-7. HS-ESS3-1. ESS3.A HS-PS3-1. HS-PS3-3. LS2.D HS-LS2-8. HS-ESS3-2. PS3.A HS-PS3-2. HS-PS3-4. LS3.A HS-LS3-1. HS-ESS3-3. ESS3.C HS-PS3-3. PS3.D HS-PS4-5. HS-LS3-2. HS-ESS3-4. LS3.B PS3.B HS-PS3-4. HS-LS2-5. HS-LS3-3. HS-ESS3-5. ESS3.D PS3.C HS-PS3-5. HS-ESS1-1. LS4.A HS-LS4-1. HS-ESS3-6. HS-PS4-1. PS4.A HS-ESS2-3. HS-LS4-2. LS4.B HS-PS4-2. HS-PS4-3. HS-LS4-3. Earth and Space PS4.A HS-PS4-3. PS4.B HS-PS4-5. HS-LS4-4. Sciences Repeats HS-PS4-5. HS-ESS1-2. LS4.C HS-LS4-5. ESS1.B HS-ESS2-4. PS4.B HS-PS4-4. PS4.C HS-PS4-5. HS-LS4-6. HS-ESS1-5. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. ESS2.B HS-ESS2-1. HS-ETS1-3. HS-ESS2-3. ETS1.B HS-ETS1-4. Life Sciences Repeats HS-ESS2-4. ESS2.D ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. LS2.C HS-LS2-2. HS-ESS3-6. HS-LS4-2. ESS2.E HS-ESS2-7. LS4.C Key to Highlighting HS-LS4-3. ESS3.B HS-ESS3-1. PE appears in two DCIs LS4.D HS-LS4-6. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. within the same course ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. HS-ETS1-3. ETS1.B PE is identified in the NGSS HS-ETS1-3. HS-ETS1-4. ETS1.B as a secondary connection to HS-ETS1-4. ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. this component idea ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. PE is connected to two component ideas between two courses NOTE: This table connects the high school NGSS PEs to the component ideas from the Framework on which they were based. These connections are based on the information in the NGSS foundation boxes. In this table the component ideas are arranged into courses based on the organization described as the Science Domains Model—one course is assigned to each sciences domain of the Framework—life sciences, physical sciences, and earth and space sciences. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 127

OCR for page 447
dependent on content from other PEs, this would be a good The most challenging domain to organize into these three courses starting point in determining which PEs should be considered was the earth and space sciences as these PEs did not have a course for being a part of a fourth course. of their own. Because a fundamental assumption of all of the model course maps is that all of the PEs of the NGSS are for all stu- Course Map 3—Modified Science Domains Model dents and many states do not require four courses of science for (grades 9–12) high school graduation, the decision was made to attempt to dis- tribute the earth and space sciences in a logical fashion across the Process and Assumptions: How Was This Course Map biology, chemistry, and physics courses. This was done in a two-step Developed? process: First the 12 earth and space sciences DCI component ideas were assigned to a course based on their best conceptual fit; then The model course maps presented here attempt to organize the the individual earth sciences PEs were sorted by their alignment to 9–12 grade band PEs based on the frequently taught courses of those component ideas. This was done using the alignment of PEs biology, chemistry, and physics. These courses represent a very to component ideas in the DCI foundation boxes of the NGSS. common course distribution across many states—either through legislation, regulation, or tradition—so these examples are pre- As with Model Course Map 2, no course sequence has been sented as tools for evaluating how this commonly used course assumed in this model. sequence overlays with the expectations of the NGSS. The chal- The assignment of the life sciences DCIs to biology is self-evident lenge of this model course map was to also address the earth based on conventional course descriptions, as is the assignment of and space sciences because they are a domain outlined in the the earth sciences DCI component idea ESS2.E Biogeology. The com- Framework, but do not have a course of their own in this orga- ponent idea of ESS3.B Natural Hazards is placed in biology because nization. A fundamental understanding of the NGSS and all of it offers an opportunity to examine the impact of earth systems on the model course maps is that all PEs are for all students. Because organisms. Conversely, ESS3.C Human Impacts is attached to biology few states currently require four high school science courses, this so that students can examine the impact of the human organism model examined how the earth and space sciences PEs could be on other organisms and Earth systems. ESS1.C History of the Earth is distributed among the three courses already described. included because of the interdependent nature of the co-evolution Most of the NGSS engineering PEs are integrated into the other of the Earth system and living organisms. domains; however, in the final draft of the NGSS there are four The DCI component idea ESS3.A Natural Resources is included in PEs in each grade band that focus exclusively on engineering chemistry because of the important role of many natural resources design. These stand-alone engineering PEs are included in all in chemical reactions that are crucial to modern human society. three courses because they should help organize and drive instruc- ESS3.A Global Climate Change is connected to chemistry because tion of the integrated engineering PEs in all three courses. many Earth-based and atmospheric chemical processes drive sys- The first step in mapping PEs to courses was to examine the compo- tems that affect climate. Addressing ESS2.D Weather and Climate nent idea level of the DCIs and decide with which course the com- is then a logical progression once students better understand its ponent ideas best aligned, along with the associated PEs (as noted driving mechanisms. ESS2.C Water in Earth’s Surface Processes in the foundation boxes of the NGSS). These decisions were made is included because many of the geologic effects of water are a through a careful reading of the text describing the grade-band result of its molecular structure and chemical properties. endpoints for each component idea in the Framework. This was Forces, interactions, waves and electromagnetic radiation, and easiest for the life sciences component ideas as they all ended up in energy are historically all components of a physics course. The DCI biology. It was a more difficult step for the physical sciences com- component ideas ESS1.A The Universe and Stars and ESS1.B The ponent ideas as they had to be split between chemistry and physics Earth and the Solar System find their home in physics because of courses. the understanding of motion and forces needed to explain their 128 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
TABLE K-6 Modified Science Domains Model—High School Biology Chemistry Physics HS-LS1-1. HS-PS1-1. HS-PS2-1. LS1.A HS-LS1-2. HS-PS1-2. PS2.A HS-PS2-2. Physics Repeats PS1.A HS-LS1-3. HS-PS1-3. HS-PS2-3. HS-PS1-1. PS2.B LS1.B HS-LS1-4. HS-PS1-4. HS-PS2-4. HS-PS1-3. HS-LS1-5. HS-PS1-5. PS2.B HS-PS2-5. HS-PS3-1. LS1.C HS-LS1-6. PS1.B HS-PS1-6. HS-PS2-6. PS3.A HS-PS3-3. HS-LS1-7. HS-PS1-7. PS3.A HS-PS3-2. HS-PS2-5. HS-LS2-1. PS1.C HS-PS1-8. PS3.C HS-PS3-5. HS-PS3-1. LS2.A PS3.B HS-LS2-2. HS-PS3-1. HS-PS4-1. HS-PS3-4. PS3.B HS-LS2-3. HS-PS3-4. HS-PS4-2. PS4.A HS-ESS2-3. PS4.A LS2.B HS-LS2-4. PS3.D HS-PS3-3. HS-PS4-3. HS-PS4-3. HS-LS2-5. ESS2.C HS-ESS2-5. HS-PS4-5. PS4.B HS-PS4-5. HS-LS2-6. HS-ESS2-4. PS4.B HS-PS4-4. HS-ESS1-2. LS2.C ESS2.D HS-LS2-7. HS-ESS2-6. HS-ESS1-1. ESS1.B HS-ESS2-4. LS2.D HS-LS2-8. ESS3.A HS-ESS3-2. ESS1.A HS-ESS1-2. ESS2.A HS-ESS2-4. LS3.A HS-LS3-1. HS-ESS3-5. HS-ESS1-3. HS-ESS1-5. ESS3.D HS-LS3-2. HS-ESS3-6. ESS1.B HS-ESS1-4. ESS2.B HS-ESS2-1. LS3.B HS-LS3-3. HS-ESS2-1. HS-ESS2-3. LS4.A HS-LS4-1. Chemistry Repeats ESS2.A HS-ESS2-2. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. HS-LS4-2. HS-PS1-2. HS-ESS2-3. HS-ETS1-3. LS4.B PS1.B ETS1.B HS-LS4-3. HS-PS1-4. HS-ETS1-4. HS-LS4-4. HS-ESS1-5. ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. PS1.C LS4.C HS-LS4-5. HS-ESS1-6. HS-LS4-6. HS-PS3-4. HS-ESS1-5. HS-PS4-5. Key to Highlighting ESS1.C PS3.D HS-ESS1-6. HS-LS2-5. PE appears in two DCIs within ESS2.E HS-ESS2-7. HS-ESS1-1. the same course ESS3.B HS-ESS3-1. HS-ESS2-7. PE is identified in the NGSS as ESS2.D HS-ESS3-3. HS-ESS3-6. a secondary connection to ESS3.C HS-ESS3-4. ESS3.A HS-ESS3-1. this component idea ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. PE is connected to two HS-ETS1-3. HS-ETS1-3. component ideas between ETS1.B ETS1.B HS-ETS1-4. HS-ETS1-4. two courses ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. Biology Repeats LS2.C HS-LS2-2. HS-LS4-2. LS4.C HS-LS4-3. LS4.D HS-LS4-6. NOTE: In this table the component ideas are arranged into courses based on the organization described as the Modified Science Domains Model—biology, chemistry, and physics. The table uses the information in the NGSS foundation boxes to connect the high school NGSS PEs to the component ideas from the Framework. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 129

OCR for page 447
interactions. Similarly, understanding energy flow and the interac- 2.  The split of earth and space sciences PEs also needs close exami- tions of forces helps explain the mechanisms described in ESS2.A nation to make sure that the PEs have been effectively arranged Earth Materials and Systems and also in ESS2.B Plate Tectonics. and that they fit the expectations of state or local courses. The sequence of courses may have a significant impact on which Next Steps for Course Map 3 earth and space sciences PEs are placed in which course. Course Map 3 lies in between Course Maps 1 and 2 in terms of 3. able K-6, which outlines how the PEs are organized in this T needed refinement. The courses in this map were primarily driven model course map, makes it clear that this map has an imbal- by the domains of science defined in the Framework, but they are ance of PEs in each course. This deserves examination as PEs designed within the constraint of having biology, chemistry, and are bundled into instructional units to determine if any PEs physics courses, with the earth and space sciences PEs split among (or even entire component ideas) should shift courses. The courses. As was mentioned in the next steps sections for the previ- earth and space sciences PEs would be ready candidates for ous two model course maps, it is important to balance this struc- this move, but it might also be that a component idea, such as tured arrangement of PEs with creating courses and instructional LS1.C Organization for Matter and Energy Flow in Organisms, units that flow well and engage students in learning. This PE might be moved from biology (which has the most PEs) to arrangement can be used as a starting point for building instruc- chemistry (which has the least). This move would also make tional units. While bundling student outcomes into meaningful sense because the content of LS1.C ties in nicely with some of units to build flow for courses, PEs may be pulled from different the chemistry concepts. It should be noted here that simply courses in the map to make this work. counting the number of PEs in a course does not necessarily There are several other considerations when revising this model: give a good sense of the time it will take to prepare students to be able to perform what is expected—this is better deter- 1.  Much like Model Course Map 2, the sequence of courses is not mined by the length of time needed for the instructional units predetermined, so deciding on an order would be one of the that are developed. first decisions to make. It is important to not sequence courses based only on current courses, but to look in detail at the PEs 4.  While rearranging PEs and building instructional units remem- mapped to each course (including what is required for math ber that the PEs are grade-banded student outcomes and map and ELA to accomplish the PEs) and to then sequence courses student course expectations appropriately. It may be that, so as to best benefit student learning. Figure K-3 and Tables although a PE is placed in a course, students may not be ready K-1 and K-2 from Model Course Map 1 provide insight about to perform all aspects of the PE by the end of the course. For the interconnected nature of the component ideas and how example, it could be that a PE is placed in the first course they support each other in a progression of content. A close because the DCI dimension is determined to be foundational examination of these resources and the next steps suggested to a PE in the second course, but the depth of the SEPs for the first model course map will support this decision- described in the PE may not be reached until the third year. making process. Additionally, the math and ELA connections The curriculum will need to be designed in a way that accounts boxes and their supporting appendixes (Math—Appendix L; for this reality. In other words, although the expectation is that ELA—Appendix M) should be consulted to ensure that courses all SEPs will be in all courses, it would make sense for students are not requiring math or ELA content or practices before the in grade 6 to engage in these differently than those in grade 8. grade level indicated in the CCSS. Deliberately building complexity of practices over the middle school sequence is needed. 130 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
5.  Another solution to mesh the NGSS with an existing course the earth and space sciences PEs are to be divided across courses. sequence that includes biology, chemistry, and physics courses Unable to propose a different arrangement that they find accept- would be to add a fourth course—earth and space sciences— able, they make a decision to pull out the earth and space sciences to the sequence. If all four courses are required, this variation component ideas into a separate fourth course. To ensure that this would still meet the vision of the Framework that all PEs are arrangement is robust, the K–12 science team assembles a strategic expected for all students. Remember that these “courses” do not stakeholder team of local teachers, professors, science-related busi- have a defined length of time—four courses does not necessarily ness and industry representatives, a local school board member mean 4 years. who has an interest in science education, and the educator for the local science children’s museum to organize the NGSS into four NEXT STEPS EXAMPLE: REVISING THE MODIFIED courses. The science team members know that in order to still meet SCIENCE DOMAINS MODEL—FOUR COURSES the vision of the NGSS of all standards for all students, they will have to change the graduation criteria for their high school, which The following vignette describes an experience that a high school currently require only biology and two other science electives. might have in deciding to use the science domains model, but There is a strong relationship between the K–12 science team and with revisions to make it a four-course model. the local school board, and especially with the inclusion of a liaison to the board on the team, the team members are hopeful that this is possible—they at least perceive this to be within their realm of A school district decides that the Modified Science Domains potential influence. This local-control state has state graduation Model will be the easiest to implement because it aligns with the requirements, but local modifications are allowed if they exceed teacher licensure system in the state/district and there is no flex- the state requirements. ibility in modifying qualified admissions criteria within the state university system. In this state, teacher licensure is restricted to Through discussions of this strategic stakeholder team, the science particular content areas (there is no general science endorsement team decides to keep essentially the same content distribution area) and it is particularly difficult to add areas of endorsement. of the life sciences and physical sciences PEs as they are in the The admissions criteria for state universities specify successful Modified Course Domains Model, but pull the earth and space sci- completion of a course called “biology.” The organization that ences PEs into the team’s own course. In addition to separating the regulates these admissions criteria has historically been resistant PEs into four courses, the team’s revised model course map also fol- to make any changes to these criteria. The district is swayed by lows the example suggested in the third recommended next step the vision of the Framework and the NGSS and has decided to (above) and moves LS1.C from biology to chemistry. The science move forward quickly with implementation for the betterment team agrees that even though this is a life sciences component of its students, but it sees these barriers as insurmountable in idea, the content has a fair amount of crossover with chemistry the short term and or beyond its control. The K–12 science team and this better balances the courses. has decided that the Modified Science Domains Model will be its After determining the arrangement of PEs for its course map (see starting point and that it will re-evaluate this decision in 5 years Table K-7), the science team decides to outline a 4-year tentative based on its effectiveness, any new research that evaluates the implementation plan to highlight all necessary changes to cur- course maps at a larger scale, and any changes made to the licen- riculum, instruction, professional learning opportunities, and local sure and admissions criteria—which the team perceives as barriers graduation requirements. The K–12 science team, with the endorse- to using the other model course maps as starting points. ment of the science team, presents the course sequence and imple- As the K–12 science team evaluates the Modified Science Domains mentation plan to the local school board as a part of its request to Model team members are unable to come to terms with how increase high school graduation requirements to include all four science courses. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 131

OCR for page 447
COURSE MAPS AND IMPLEMENTATION Factors for Consideration 1. Are the performance expectations organized in a way to maxi- Choosing a Course Map mize student learning? Course Map 1, Conceptual Understanding, was the only model These course maps are not end products; they are models of pro- that was consciously designed with this in mind. DCI compo- cesses for mapping PEs onto courses and starting points for contin- nent ideas and their related PEs are deliberately sequenced ued work. They are by no means the only arrangements possible, to allow students to build knowledge in a logical progression. but are intended to be concrete examples to start conversations This model supports students’ engagement in SEPs and applies about the direction of science education at the building, district, CCs to deepen students’ understanding of the core ideas in the and state levels. This section highlights factors to consider in physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences over making a decision to use one, more than one (at different grade multiple years (NRC, 2012, p. 8). According to the Framework, bands), or none of the model course maps presented. “By the end of the 12th grade, students should have gained Any course map will have benefits and challenges linked to the sufficient knowledge of the practices, crosscutting concepts, underlying assumptions and processes that were involved in and core ideas of science and engineering to engage in public making them and to the local situation where they are to be discussions on science-related issues, to be critical consumers implemented. Of course, “benefits” and “challenges” depend of scientific information related to their everyday lives, and to on one’s perspective. Something identified as a “challenge” may continue to learn about science throughout their lives” (NRC, actually be a primary reason for selecting a model if the chal- 2012, p. 9). lenge is one that is determined to be in the students’ best inter- This does not mean that, through effective curriculum plan- est. For example, if a state education agency is already planning ning and lesson plan development, the other models course a redesign of teacher licensure criteria, then selecting a model maps could not be developed in a way that would also maxi- course map that does not fit well with the existing teacher licen- mize student learning, but their infrastructure was not sure system would not necessarily be a barrier to selecting that designed with this as a focus. With an organizational structure course map—it might even be a reason for selection because built directly from the domains of the Framework (Course it aligns with the direction of the licensure redesign process. Map 2) or traditional scientific divisions (Course Map 3), it will Likewise, what some may consider a “benefit,” others may see take a concerted effort to ensure that there are opportunities as a reason not to select a course map. Some may start with a to build conceptual knowledge over time, especially for con- particular course map because it contains courses that are very cepts that are cross-disciplinary. similar to what is currently offered, but others may see this as 2. Are the performance expectations organized in a way that more of a drawback as it may result in teachers being less con- increases efficiency in instruction? vinced they need to make any changes—making it difficult to Among the many recommendations for improving the coher- ensure a complete and coherent implementation of the vision of ence and effectiveness of the K–12 curriculum, Designs for the Framework. The realities and needs in states and local edu- Science Literacy (AAAS, 2001) is a cross-disciplinary organiza- cation agencies (LEAs) are quite different; therefore, outlined tion that eliminates the unnecessary repetition of topics—the below are factors to consider in deciding how to map the grade- same ideas in the same contexts, often with the same activities banded PEs onto courses for the NGSS. and the same questions. A common student complaint is that the same topics are presented in successive grades, often in the same way. Similarly, a common teacher complaint is that students did not receive instruction in important topics in prior 132 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
TABLE K-7 REVISED Modified Science Domains Model—Four Courses High School Earth and Space Biology Chemistry Physics Sciences HS-LS1-1. HS-PS1-1. HS-PS2-1. HS-ESS1-1. LS1.A HS-LS1-2. HS-PS1-2. PS2.A HS-PS2-2. ESS1.A HS-ESS1-2. PS1.A HS-LS1-3. HS-PS1-3. HS-PS2-3. HS-ESS1-3. LS1.B HS-LS1-4. HS-PS1-4. HS-PS2-4. ESS1.B HS-ESS1-4. HS-LS1-5. HS-PS1-5. PS2.B HS-PS2-5. HS-ESS1-5. ESS1.C LS1.C* HS-LS1-6. PS1.B HS-PS1-6. HS-PS2-6. HS-ESS1-6. HS-LS1-7. HS-PS1-7. PS1.C HS-PS1-8. HS-ESS2-1. HS-LS2-1. HS-PS3-1. PS3.A HS-PS3-2. HS-ESS2-2. LS2.A PS3.B ESS2.A HS-LS2-2. HS-PS3-4. PS3.C HS-PS3-5. HS-ESS2-3. HS-LS2-3. PS3.D HS-PS3-3. HS-PS4-1. HS-ESS2-4. LS2.B HS-LS2-4. HS-PS4-2. ESS2.C HS-ESS2-5. PS4.A HS-LS2-5. LS1.C moved from Biology HS-PS4-3. HS-ESS2-6. ESS2.D HS-LS2-6. HS-LS1-5. HS-PS4-5. HS-ESS2-7. LS2.C HS-LS2-7. LS1.C* HS-LS1-6. PS4.B HS-PS4-4. HS-ESS3-1. ESS3.A LS2.D HS-LS2-8. HS-LS1-7. HS-ESS3-2. LS3.A HS-LS3-1. Physics Repeats HS-ESS3-3. ESS3.C HS-LS3-2. Chemistry Repeats HS-PS1-1. HS-ESS3-4. LS3.B PS2.B HS-LS3-3. HS-PS1-2. HS-PS1-3. HS-ESS3-5. PS1.B ESS3.D LS4.A HS-LS4-1. HS-PS1-4. HS-PS3-1. HS-ESS3-6. HS-LS4-2. HS-PS4-5. HS-PS3-3. PS3.A LS4.B Earth and Space HS-LS4-3. HS-LS2-5. HS-PS2-5. PS3.D Sciences Repeats HS-LS4-4. HS-ESS1-1. HS-PS3-1. ESS1.B HS-ESS2-4 PS3.B LS4.C HS-LS4-5. HS-PS3-4. HS-PS3-4. HS-ESS1-5. HS-LS4-6. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. PS4.A HS-ESS2-3. ESS2.B HS-ESS2-1. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. HS-ETS1-3. HS-PS4-3. HS-ESS2-3. ETS1.B HS-ETS1-3. HS-ETS1-4. PS4.B HS-PS4-5. HS-ESS2-4. ETS1.B ESS2.D HS-ETS1-4. ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. HS-ESS1-2. HS-ESS3-6. ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. ESS2.E HS-ESS2-7. HS-ETS1-3. ESS3.B HS-ESS3-1. ETS1.B Biology Repeats Key to Highlighting HS-ETS1-4. ETS1.A HS-ETS1-1. LS2.C HS-LS2-2. PE appears in two DCIs ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. HS-ETS1-3. ETS1.B HS-LS4-2. within the same course HS-ETS1-4. LS4.C HS-LS4-3. PE is identified in the NGSS ETS1.C HS-ETS1-2. LS4.D HS-LS4-6. as a secondary connection to this component idea PE is connected to two component ideas between two courses NOTE: In this table the component ideas are arranged into courses based on the organization described as the Modified Science Domains Model—biology, chemistry, and physics—with a fourth course added for the earth and space sciences. The table uses the information in the NGSS foundation boxes to connect the high school NGSS PEs to the component ideas from the Framework. *LS1.C moved from Biology to Chemistry. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 133

OCR for page 447
grades and so these topics then have to be taught in the present credits for graduation, but the NGSS PEs are written for all stu- grade, thus perpetuating an instructional gap for the following dents and none of the model course maps include fewer than grades (AAAS, 2001). three courses. “Credit” and “courses” do not describe what In Course Map 1 the thoughtful sequence of DCI component students know or are able to do; the system of PEs in the NGSS, ideas and PEs limits unnecessary repetition while still providing all of which are for all students, detail what is to be achieved. students with the requisite knowledge for success in subse- 5. What are the implications for teaching positions? quent science courses. Course Maps 2 and 3 were not designed Any of the course map models (depending on the realities with this in mind, and although the order that courses are of current teacher preparation and licensure policies, current sequenced within either model could alleviate some of this, course offerings, graduation requirements, course sequences, there are PEs within every course that expect students to know etc., and any changes that are proposed) may have a signifi- concepts that are being addressed in other courses. If this is cant impact on the number of teachers prepared to teach addressed thoughtfully in curriculum design, it could provide courses. This could also be affected by the proposed sequenc- opportunities for cross-disciplinary connections, but in terms ing of courses in Course Maps 2 and 3. For example, switching of instruction efficiency, it does mean that there will be times from a biology–chemistry–physics sequence in a state where that teachers will have to allot class time to bring students up biology is the only “required” science in a sequence of three to speed on the background concepts necessary to progress to required for graduation to using Course Map 2 and sequencing the concepts intended to be addressed in any given course. physical sciences–life sciences–earth sciences courses will put 3.  re the performance expectations organized in a way that A different demands on the system to provide teachers quali- represents the interconnectedness of science? fied to teach these courses. This would also potentially impact The organization of scientific research has become more com- teacher certification/licensure policies, teacher preparation, plex and has evolved from the Committee of Ten’s constructs and professional learning opportunities. of 1893, which organized K–12 science education around 6.  ow do these course maps affect the focus of pre-service H astronomy, meteorology, botany, zoology, physiology, anatomy, teacher preparation and professional learning opportunities? hygiene, chemistry, and physics. The cross-disciplinary organiza- Transitioning from current state science standards to the NGSS tion of Course Map 1 makes natural connections across the sci- provides significant opportunities to support advancing sci- ence domains of the Framework more evident to teachers and ence instruction regardless of the course map that is utilized. students and provides for a more flexible, coherent, and real- Teachers of science will need intensive, ongoing, and job- istic pathway to developing deep understandings of science. embedded professional development in order for their stu- Course Maps 2 and 3 were not designed with this in mind, dents to meet the challenges of the PEs defined in the NGSS. although careful curriculum and lesson plan development Teachers will need to wrestle with questions such as: could create these connections. • What do we want students to learn? 4.  ow does the course map align with current state guidelines/ H • How will we know what students are learning? legislation/policies for course titles, course sequences, teacher • How will we respond when they do not learn? licensure, credits for graduation, and college admissions expectations? The cross-disciplinary approach of Course Map 1 is somewhat States vary in terms of how these policies are created and the different than common current practice in teacher preparation processes that are involved in changing them, but these are all and professional development. Pre-service teachers are less likely important factors for consideration in selecting or developing a to have experienced an explicitly cross-disciplinary course in course map. For example, some states require only two science their own courses, which will mean that those responsible for 134 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 447
preparing them to be teachers will have to explicitly incorpo- frequently designed with one course map or another in mind, rate this into teaching and learning experiences. Many teach- but this too may be less of a concern due to the development ers already in the field are very passionate about the particular of more flexible resources, such as open education resources domain they are teaching. They may have accumulated a signifi- and editable digital textbook formats. cant amount of knowledge of practices and core ideas within a content area and may have less experience outside their preferred domain. If Course Map 1 is used, professional learn- CONCLUSIONS ing opportunities will need to be carefully crafted to value this It may seem a forgone conclusion that the course map specifically expertise and support teachers in making any transition. designed to coherently build student conceptual understanding Course Map 2 does not require a specific focus for teacher over time, maximize efficient use of class time, and prepare preparation or professional learning other than the focuses students for the cross-disciplinary reality of science research will called for in transitioning to the NGSS. be the one that everyone selects, but there may be good reasons Course Map 3 would also require a specific focus on teacher for choosing a different model (including “none of the above”). In preparation and professional learning opportunities. fact, engineering an effective learning program is a complex and Incorporation of the earth and space sciences PEs across biol- challenging task that depends on instructor knowledge of the con- ogy, chemistry, and physics courses may not align with current tent and pedagogy, materials that support good instruction, deter- practice. Teacher preparation and professional learning oppor- mination and implementation of learning progressions, assess- tunities will need to be explicitly designed to support teachers ments for formative and summative purposes, and even school in this transition. climate—issues much beyond the goals of this appendix. Hopefully the factors described above will result in meaningful conversa- 7. Does the course map affect any plans for communicating tions in states and districts about their science education systems. about science education with stakeholders? Adopting the NGSS will require systemic changes to implement In adopting the NGSS (an assumed step if now choosing a them with fidelity to the vision of the Framework. It is a great course map of these standards), communication with key stake- opportunity for deliberate decision making about whether or not holders—students, parents, teachers, administrators, school a school system is designed in a way that gives students the best boards, business and industry, etc.—will be important to sup- opportunities possible to realize this vision. Deciding on a course port effective implementation. The course map model that map is just one of the important decisions in this process, but it is used may require additional specific communication with requires careful consideration because of the potential impacts messaging targeted for stakeholder groups, particularly if the across the system. course map requires significant system changes. This situation of many states and districts utilizing the same stan- 8. How is the chosen course map impacted by resource availability? dards, but with different course maps also has significant poten- Existing resources, such as textbooks, workbooks, and even tial to inform our understanding of how students learn science. As online resources, often sort information based on content in mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the reason all educa- a way that is more similar to Course Maps 2 and 3. For states tors implementing the NGSS even have to juggle the idea of mul- or districts that focus curriculum on a particular textbook, this tiple course maps is that there is insufficient research to recom- may affect the decision of how to map courses, but for others mend a particular sequence. With 50 different sets of state stan- that pull from a variety of resources and already use textbooks dards, it has been difficult to determine if one sequence is more as a support for curriculum rather than as the curriculum, this effective than another, but with many states considering adoption may be irrelevant. As new resources are written and existing of these standards, there is fertile ground for historic research to resources are rewritten for the NGSS, they might be more move our understanding forward. Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards 135

OCR for page 447
Developing a New Course Map here will need to be refined—perhaps simply re-sorting PEs in Course Map Model 1 into four courses or using Course Map Model It might be that none of the course maps presented here meet 3 with a separate earth and space sciences course rather than the needs of a particular state or LEA. If this is the case, it would splitting the earth and space sciences PEs across biology, chemistry, definitely make sense to design a new, individual course map and physics—or it may mean starting from scratch. model rather than simply refine what has been provided. The Additional work will need to be done locally to consider the multi-dimensionality of the NGSS would certainly allow for a mathematics expected by the PEs in both middle school and high course map based on something other than just DCIs—either by school grade bands. As local mathematics courses may differ, espe- one of the other dimensions or a combination of the three. These cially at the high school level, it will be important to have cross- and other reasons for developing alternative course map models disciplinary conversations to make sure that students are receiving are certainly valid, but hopefully there is enough in the descrip- complementary instruction across content areas. The connections tions above to make this process a bit smoother. Examining the boxes in the NGSS should inform this conversation. underlying assumptions of these course maps, reviewing the pro- cesses that were used to create the course maps, and weighing all this with the factors for consideration described above provides REFERENCES a framework to jump-start the development of new course maps AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (2001). that meet the needs of the students in an LEA or state. Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. NRC (National Research Council). (2012). A framework for K–12 science Refining a Course Map education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Selecting one of the course maps provided here does not mean the work is done; it is the first step in a journey. The course map will need further refinement to meet local needs. Then the real work begins to develop curricula and lessons based on the course map, and necessary professional learning opportunities will need to be accessed or developed to support implementation with fidelity. Additionally, as with all scientific endeavors, it will be nec- essary to plan how it will be determined whether efforts are suc- cessful. What types of data will be used to determine whether or not the new arrangement has worked? What processes will be put in place to refine a course map to increase its effectiveness? Even once these questions have been answered, as curriculum units and lesson plans are designed and refined in the classroom, it is likely that further refinement of the course map will be necessary. Recommendations for refining each course map are provided at the end of each model description above, but more significant revisions may be in order if the underlying assumptions described in the beginning of this chaper are not acceptable. For example, if a state requires four courses in science and there is no intention to change this, then a three-course sequence for high school may not what is needed. This may mean that the models presented 136 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS