Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.95



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( R2


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 R1
NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS For States, By States Volume 1: The Standards—Arranged by Disciplinary Core Ideas and by Topics NGSS Lead States THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 www.nap.edu International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-27227-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-27227-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2013939525 Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States is published as a two-volume set: Volume 1: The Standards­­—Arranged by Disciplinary Core Ideas and by Topics Volume 2: Appendixes Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. © Copyright 2013 by Achieve, Inc. All rights reserved. All sections entitled “Disciplinary Core Ideas” in Volume 1 are reproduced verbatim from A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. is a registered trademark of Achieve, Inc., on behalf of the lead states and partners. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Cover Photo Credits Clockwise, from top right: Elementary school age boy with magnifying glass, ©iStock/fstop123; Tungurahua volcano eruption, ©iStock/Elena Kalistratova; High school students, ©iStock/Christopher Futcher; Sunrise, ©iStock/alxpin; Students in biology lab, ©iStock/fstop123; Buttercup stem, ©iStock/Oliver Sun Kim

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS VOLUME 1: THE STANDARDS—ARRANGED BY DISCIPLINARY CORE IDEAS AND BY TOPICS Preface iv National Research Council Review of the Next Generation Science Standards v Acknowledgments vi Introduction xiii How to Read the Next Generation Science Standards xxii Glossary xxvii Next Generation Science Standards Arranged by Disciplinary Core Ideas 1 Connections to Standards Arranged by Disciplinary Core Ideas 131 Next Generation Science Standards Arranged by Topics 163 Connections to Standards Arranged by Topics 293 The contents of the second volume of this two-volume publication are listed below. VOLUME 2: APPENDIXES Preface National Research Council Review of the Next Generation Science Standards Glossary Appendixes A Conceptual Shifts in the Next Generation Science Standards B Responses to the Public Drafts C College and Career Readiness D “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students E Disciplinary Core Idea Progressions in the Next Generation Science Standards F Science and Engineering Practices in the Next Generation Science Standards G Crosscutting Concepts in the Next Generation Science Standards H Understanding the Scientific Enterprise: The Nature of Science in the Next Generation Science Standards I Engineering Design in the Next Generation Science Standards J Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment K Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards L Connections to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics M Connections to the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects iii

OCR for page R1
PREFACE The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), authored by a consortium of 26 states facilitated by Achieve, Inc., are the culmination of a 3-year, multi-step process jointly undertaken by the National Research Council (NRC), the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve, Inc., with support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The NRC, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), began the process by releasing A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas in July 2011. The Framework, authored by a committee of 18 individuals who are nationally and internationally known in their respective fields, describes a new vision for science education rooted in scientific evidence and outlines the knowledge and skills that all students need to learn from kindergarten through the end of high school. It is the foundational document for the NGSS. Following release of the Framework, the consortium of 26 lead partner states, working with a team of 41 writers with expertise in science and science education and facilitated by Achieve, Inc., began the development of rigorous and internationally benchmarked science standards that are faithful to the Framework. As part of the development process, the standards underwent multiple reviews, including two public drafts, allowing anyone interested in science education an opportunity to inform the content and organization of the standards. Thus the NGSS were developed through collaboration between states and other stakeholders in science, science education, higher education, business, and industry. As partners in this endeavor, the NAS, NAE, NRC, and the National Academies Press (NAP) are deeply committed to the NGSS initiative. While this document is not the product of an NRC expert committee, the final version of the standards was reviewed by the NRC and was found to be consistent with the Framework. These standards, built on the Framework, are essential for enhancing learning for all students and should enjoy the widest possible dissemination, given the vital national importance of high-quality education. That is why we decided to publish the NGSS through the NAP, a unit otherwise solely dedicated to publishing the work of this institution. The NGSS represent a crucial step forward in realizing the Framework’s vision for science education in classrooms throughout our nation. The standards alone, however, will not create high-quality learning opportunities for all students. Numerous changes are now required at all levels of the K–12 education system so that the standards can lead to improved science teaching and learning, including modifications to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional preparation and development for teachers. The scientific and science education communities must continue to work together to create these transformations in order to make the promise of the NGSS a reality for all students. Washington, DC, June 2013 RALPH J. CICERONE CHARLES M. VEST HARVEY V. FINEBERG President President President National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine Chair Vice Chair National Research Council National Research Council iv

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS In accordance with the procedures approved by the Executive Office of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE) at the National Research Council (NRC), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were reviewed in early 2013 by individuals chosen for their technical expertise and familiarity with the Research Council’s 2011 report A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (Framework). The purpose of the review was to evaluate whether the NGSS, as developed during a two year process by 26 lead states under the guidance of Achieve, Inc., remained consistent with the Framework, which was intended to provide the scientific consensus upon which to base new K–12 science standards. The developers of the NGSS used the Framework as the basis for their work in terms of developing both the structure and content of the standards. The NRC asked reviewers to direct their comments to three points: • Are the NGSS consistent with the vision for K–12 science education presented in the Framework? • To what extent do the NGSS follow the specific recommendations for standards developers put forward by the Framework committee (see Chapter 12 of the Framework)? • For consistency with the Framework, are other changes needed? The review process determined that the NGSS, released to the public in April of 2013 and published in this volume, are consistent with the content and structure of the Framework. The following individuals participated in the review of the NGSS: Philip Bell, Professor of the Learning Sciences, The Geda and Phil Condit Professor of Science and Math Education, University of Washington; Rodolfo Dirzo, Bing Professor in Ecology, Department of Biology, Stanford University; Kenji Hakuta, Professor of Education, School of Education, Stanford University; Kim A. Kastens, Lamont Research Professor and Adjunct Full Professor, Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University; Jonathan Osborne, Shriram Family Professor of Science Education, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University; Brian J. Reiser, Professor, Learning Sciences, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University; Carl E. Wieman, Professor, Department of Physics, University of British Columbia; and Lauress (Laurie) L. Wise, Principal Scientist, Education Policy Impact Center, HumRRO, Monterey, CA. The review of the NGSS was overseen by Patricia Morison, Associate Executive Director for Reports and Communications for DBASSE, and Suzanne Wilson, member of the NRC Board on Science Education and Professor, Michigan State University. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the NGSS was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures. v

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Next Generation Science Standards are the product of a variety of Writing Team groups and stakeholders. Partners Writing Leadership Team The National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, Rodger Bybee, Executive Director Biological Sciences Curriculum Study American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve (BSCS) (Retired), Golden, CO were the lead partners in the two-part process to develop the Next Melanie Cooper, Lappan Phillips Professor of Science Education and Generations Science Standards. Professor of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Richard A. Duschl, Waterbury Chair Professor of Secondary Education, States The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA The development of the Next Generation Science Standards was a Danine Ezell, San Diego Unified School District and San Diego County state-led effort. All states were invited to apply to be one of the lead Office of Education (Retired), San Diego, CA state partners, who provided leadership to the writers throughout the development process. The Lead State Partners put together broad- Joe Krajcik, Director, CREATE for STEM Institute and Professor, Science based committees to provide input and feedback on successive drafts Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI of the standards. The following states were Lead State Partners: Okhee Lee, Professor, Science Education and Diversity and Equity, New York University, New York, NY Arizona Maine Ohio Ramon Lopez, Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arkansas Maryland Oregon Arlington, TX California Massachusetts Rhode Island Brett Moulding, Director, Utah Partnership for Effective Science Delaware Michigan South Dakota Teaching and Learning; State Science Supervisor (Retired), Ogden, UT Georgia Minnesota Tennessee Cary Sneider, Associate Research Professor, Portland State University, Illinois Montana Vermont Portland, OR Iowa New Jersey Washington Michael Wysession, Associate Professor of Earth and Planetary Kansas New York West Virginia Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO Kentucky North Carolina Writing Team Sandra Alberti, Director of Field Impact, Student Achievement Funders Partners, New York, NY Major funding for the development of the Next Generation Science Carol Baker, Science and Music Curriculum Director, Community High Standards was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, School, District 218, Illinois, Orland Park, IL the GE Foundation, and the Noyce Foundation. Additional support Mary Colson, Earth Science Teacher, Moorhead Public Schools, was provided by Boeing, the Cisco Foundation, and DuPont. Moorhead, MN Zoe Evans, Assistant Principal, Carroll County Schools, Carrollton, GA vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OCR for page R1
Kevin Fisher, Secondary Science Coordinator, Lewisville Independent Julie Olson, Science Teacher, Mitchell School District, Mitchell, SD School District, Flower Mound, TX Julie Pepperman, Lead Teacher, Knox County Schools, Maryville, TN Jacob Foster, Director, Science & Technology/Engineering, Kathy Prophet, Middle School Science Teacher and Science Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Department Chair, Springdale Public Schools, Rogers, AR Education, Malden, MA Sherry Schaaf, Middle School Science Teacher (Retired); Science Bob Friend, Chief Engineer, Advanced Space & Intelligence Systems, Education Consultant, Forks, WA Boeing Phantom Works, Seal Beach, CA Jacqueline Smalls, STEM Coordinator, Langley STEM Education Craig Gabler, Regional Science Coordinator/LASER Alliance Director, Campus, District of Columbia Public Schools, Bowie, MD Capital Region ESD113, Olympia, WA Paul Speranza, High School Science Teacher (Retired), North Bellmore, NY Jennifer Gutierrez, Science Curriculum Specialist, Chandler Unified School District, Chandler, AZ Vanessa Westbrook, Science Education Consultant, Westbrook Consulting Services, Hallsville, MO Jaymee Herrington, K–5 Science Test Development Specialist, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC Lynn Lathi Hommeyer, Elementary Science Resource Teacher, District Critical Stakeholders of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC The Critical Stakeholders are distinguished individuals and Kenneth Huff, Middle School Science Teacher, Williamsville Central organizations that represent education, science, business, and School District, Williamsville, New York, Williamsville, NY industry and who have interest in the Next Generation Science Standards. The members are drawn from all 50 states and have Andy Jackson, High School Science Teacher and District Science expertise in: Coordinator, Harrisonburg City Public Schools, Harrisonburg, VA • Elementary, middle, and high school science from both urban Rita Januszyk, Elementary Teacher, Gower District 62, Willowbrook, IL and rural communities Netosh Jones, Elementary Teacher, District of Columbia Public Schools, • Special education and English language acquisition Washington, DC • Postsecondary education Peter McLaren, Science and Technology Specialist, Rhode Island • State standards and assessments Department of Education, Providence, RI • Cognitive science, life science, physical science, earth and space Michael McQuade, Senior Research Associate, DuPont, Greenville, DE science, and engineering/technology • Mathematics and literacy Paula Messina, Professor of Geology/Science Education, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA • Business and industry • Workforce development Mariel Milano, P-SELL and STEM Coordinator, Orange County Public • Education policy Schools, Orlando, FL The Critical Stakeholders critiqued successive, confidential drafts of Emily Miller, English as a Second Language and Bilingual Resource the standards and provided feedback to the writers and states, giving Teacher, Madison Metropolitan School District, Madison, WI special attention to their areas of expertise. Melissa Miller, Middle School Science Teacher, Farmington School District, Farmington, Arkansas Chris Embry Mohr, High School Science and Agriculture Teacher, Olympia Community Unit School District No. 16, Stanford, IL Betsy O’Day, Elementary Science Specialist, Hallsville R-IV School District, Hallsville, MO Bernadine Okoro, High School Science Teacher, Roosevelt Senior High School, District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii

OCR for page R1
Represented Organizations California Polytechnic State University California Science Project Adelphi University California State University Fullerton Afterschool Alliance California State University San Bernardino Alaska Science Education Consultants California State University San Marcos American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) Calvin College American Chemical Society (ACS) Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) American Geological Institute (AGI) Central Kitsap (WA) School District American Geophysical Union (AGU) Central Michigan University American Institute of Physics (AIP) Champaign (IL) Unit 4 School District, Curriculum Center American Psychological Association (APA) Chicago State University American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) The City College of New York American Society of Agronomy (ASA) The City University of New York (CUNY) The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) Clark County School District American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Clemson University Arizona State University Cleveland (OH) Metropolitan Schools Arlee (MT) School District Columbia University, Center for Environmental Research and Conservation Armstrong Atlantic State University, College of Education Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) Columbia University Teachers College Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) Association of Presidential Awardees in Science Teaching (APAST) The Concord Consortium Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU) Cornell University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP) Cornell University, Paleontological Research Institution BayBio Institute Crop Science Society of America (CSSA) Big Hollow (IL) School District #38, Big Hollow Middle School Cumberland (RI) School Department, Joseph L. McCourt Middle School Big Horn (WY) County School District #3, Greybull High School Delran Township School District Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) DGR Strategies Boise State University District of Columbia Public Schools, Cardozo High School Boston College Drexel University, School of Education Boston University Duke University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Brigham Young University, Department of Teacher Education DuPont Broad Institute viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OCR for page R1
Eastern Oregon University, College of Education Kuna (ID) School District, Kuna High School Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC) Ladue (IL) School District, Ladue Middle School E.L. Haynes Public Charter School, Washington, DC Lawrence Hall of Science Federation of Associations in Brain and Behavioral Sciences (FABBS) Lesley University Findlay City (OH) Schools Lexington (IL) Community Unit School District #7 Florida Atlantic University Louisiana State University Frenship (TX) Independent School District, Frenship Middle School Lowndes County (GA) Schools, Lowndes High School Fresno (CA) Unified School District, Yokomi Science and Technology Marshall University, June Harless Center for Rural Educational School Research and Development George Mason University McDaniel College George Washington University Mercer County (WV) Schools, Bluefield High School Georgia Southern University Mesa (AZ) Public Schools Governor’s STEM Advisory Council (IA) Metropolitan Nashville (TN) Public Schools, John Early Museum Grand Valley State University Magnet Middle School Green Education Foundation Michigan State University, Department of Teacher Education Greene County (TN) Schools Michigan Technological University, Center for Water and Society Greenhills School (MI) Michigan Technological University, Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences Guilford County (NC) Schools, Gibson Elementary Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) Hallsville R-IV (MO) School District Middle Atlantic Planetarium Society Harvard University Middle Tennessee State University Hawaii Technology Academy Mississippi Bend (IA) Area Education Agency Heber Springs (AR) School District, Heber Springs High School Mississippi State University, Department of Leadership and Helios Education Foundation Foundations Hofstra University Missouri Botanical Garden Houston Independent School District Monroe #2 Orleans BOCES Elementary Science Program Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy Moraine Valley Community College Indiana University Morehead State University International Technology and Engineering Education Association Mount Holyoke College, Department of Physics (ITEEA) Museum of Arts and Sciences, Macon, GA Iowa Area Education Agency 267 Museum of Science, Boston Iowa Mathematics and Science Education Partnership National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) James Madison University National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) Kappa Delta Pi National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) Knowledge Without Borders ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix

OCR for page R1
National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Pacific Science Center National Association of State Science and Math Coalitions (NASSMC) Pacific University National Center for Science Education Palm Beach State University National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Palmyra Cove Nature Park and Environmental Discovery Center National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) PASCO National Education Association (NEA) The Pennsylvania State University National Geographic Society Polytechnic Institute of New York University National Marine Educators Association (NMEA) Portland State University National Middle Level Science Teachers Association (NMLSTA) Pottsville (AR) School District National School Boards Association Project Lead the Way National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA) Purdue University National Science Foundation Putnam/Northern Westchester BOCES – SCIENCE 21 National Science Resources Center (NSRC) Rogers (AR) Public Schools, Rogers High School National Society of Hispanic Physicists (NSHP) Rutgers University, Department of Earth and Environmental Science The Nature Conservancy Rutgers University, Graduate School of Education Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education Sally Ride Science New Canaan (CT) Public Schools San Diego State University New Haven (CT) Public Schools Santa Fe Institute New Rochelle (NY) School District, Columbus Elementary School Saratoga Springs Senior High School (NY) New Teacher Center (NTC) School District of the Chathams (GA), Chatham High School North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Science Magazine North Carolina State University Science Teachers Association of New York State North Clackamas (OR) Schools, Clackamas High School Sea Grant Educators Network North Dakota State University, Department of Nursing Seattle Pacific University, Department of Physics Northern Arizona University Shippensburg University Northwest R1 (MO) School District, Northwest High School Society for Neuroscience Northwestern University Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Oakland University Somersworth (NH) School District, Idlehurst Elementary School Oglala Lakota College Southern Illinois University Edwardsville The Ohio Academy of Science Spartina Consulting Group, LLC Ohio Association for Teachers of Family and Consumer Science Spokane (WA) Public Schools The Ohio State University SRI International, Center for Technology in Learning Ohio University St. Edward’s University x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OCR for page R1
St. John Fisher College University of Colorado Boulder, Cooperative Institute for Research in St. Paul (MN) Public Schools Environmental Sciences State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Computer Science University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Physics The State University of New York Brockport, Department of Computational Science University of Colorado Boulder, Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology The State University of New York Fredonia, College of Education University of Colorado Boulder, School of Education The State University of New York Geneseo, Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Colorado Denver, Department of Mathematics & Statistical Sciences Storey County (NV) School District Sulphur Springs (CA) School District University of Delaware, Department of Geological Sciences Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) University of Georgia, School of Education Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM (TIES) University of Idaho, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Temple University University of Kansas, School of Engineering TERC University of Kentucky Texas A&M University University of Kentucky, Marin School of Public Policy and Texas Tech University Administration Triangle Coalition for Science and Technological Education University of Massachusetts Boston Tucson (AZ) Unified School District, Pueblo Magnet High School University of Michigan, School of Education University of Alabama at Birmingham University of Minnesota University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute of Arctic Biology University of Missouri, Physics Department University of Arizona, College of Education University of Montana, College of Arts and Sciences University of Arizona, Department of Mathematics University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Arizona, Physics Department University of New England University of Arkansas at Monticello, School of Math and Sciences University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Geological University of California Irvine Sciences University of California Riverside University of North Dakota, Department of Teaching and Learning University of California San Diego University of North Dakota, School of Engineering and Mines University of California Santa Barbara University of Northern Colorado, College of Natural and Health Sciences University of California Santa Cruz University of Northern Colorado, School of Biological Sciences University of Central Oklahoma University of Oklahoma University of Chicago, The Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education University of Oregon, Department of Physics University of Cincinnati University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education University of Puerto Rico, Department of Physics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi

OCR for page R1
ORGANIZATION OF THE Curriculum and instruction should be focused on “bundles” of PEs NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS to provide a contextual learning experience for students. Students should not be presented with instruction leading to one PE in iso- The standards are organized by grade levels for kindergarten lation; rather, bundles of performances provide a greater coher- through grade 5. The middle and high school standards are grade ence and efficiency of instructional time. These bundles also allow banded. To initiate discussion of how the NGSS could impact mid- students to see the connected nature of science and the practices. dle and high school after implementation, a set of model course Finally, classroom assessment of the NGSS should reflect qual- pathways for middle school and high school was developed and ity instruction. That is, students should be held responsible for can be found in Appendix K. demonstrating knowledge of content in various contexts and A real innovation in the NGSS is the overall coherence. As such, SEPs. As students progress toward the PE, classroom assessments the PEs (the assessable component of the NGSS architecture) can should focus on accumulated knowledge and various practices. It be arranged within a grade level in any way that best represents is important here to remember that the assessment of the NGSS the needs of states and districts without sacrificing coherence in should be on understanding the full DCIs—not just the pieces. learning the DCIs. THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN USE OF THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS The affective domain—the domain of learning that involves inter- IN CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT ests, experience, and enthusiasm—is a critical component of science The NGSS have been constructed to focus on the performance education. As pointed out in the Framework, there is a substantial required to show proficiency at the conclusion of instruction. This body of research that supports the close connection between the focus on achievement rather than curriculum allows educators, development of concepts and skills in science and engineering and curriculum developers, and other education stakeholders the flex- such factors as interest, engagement, motivation, persistence, and ibility to determine the best way to help their students meet the self-identity. Comments about the importance of affective educa- standards based on local needs. Teachers should rely on quality tion appear throughout the Framework. For example: instructional products and their own professional judgment as the Research suggests that personal interest, experience, and best way to implement the NGSS in classrooms. The NGSS provide enthusiasm—critical to children’s learning of science at school an opportunity to include medicine, engineering, forensics, and or in other settings—may also be linked to later educational other applicable sciences in courses that deliver the standards in and career choices. (p. 28) ways that interest students and may give them a desire to pursue Discussions involving the history of scientific and engineering STEM careers. ideas, of individual practitioners’ contributions, and of the Pairing practices with DCIs is necessary to define a discrete set of applications of these endeavors are important components of blended standards, but should not be viewed as the only combina- a science and engineering curriculum. For many students, these tions that appear in instructional materials. In fact, quality instruc- aspects are the pathways that capture their interest in these tional materials and instruction must allow students to learn and fields and build their identities as engaged and capable learn- apply the science practices, separately and in combination, in mul- ers of science and engineering. (p. 249) tiple disciplinary contexts. The practical aspect to science instruction Learning science depends not only on the accumulation of is that the practices are inextricably linked. While the NGSS couple facts and concepts but also on the development of an identity single practices with content, this is intended to be clear about the as a competent learner of science with motivation and interest practice used within that context, not to limit the instruction. to learn more. (p. 286) xviii INTRODUCTION

OCR for page R1
Science learning in school leads to citizens with the confidence, tified seven “conceptual shifts” that science educators and stake- ability, and inclination to continue learning about issues, sci- holders need to make to effectively use the NGSS. The shifts are entific and otherwise, that affect their lives and communities. 1. K–12 science education should reflect real-world interconnec- (pp. 286–287) tions in science. The NGSS strongly agree with these goals. However, there is a 2. The NGSS are student outcomes and are explicitly NOT difference in the purpose of the Framework and the NGSS. The curriculum. Framework projects a vision for K–12 science education and 3. Science concepts build coherently across K–12. includes recommendations not only for what students are expect- 4. The NGSS focus on deeper understanding and application of ed to learn, but also for curriculum, instruction, professional content. development of teachers, and assessment. 5. Science and engineering are integrated in K–12 science The purpose of the NGSS is more limited. It is not intended to education. replace the vision of the Framework, but rather to support that 6. The NGSS are designed to prepare students for college, careers, vision by providing a clear statement of the competencies in sci- and citizenship. ence and engineering that all students should be able to dem- 7. Science standards coordinate with the English Language Arts/ onstrate at subsequent stages in their K–12 learning experience. Literacy and Mathematics Common Core State Standards. Certainly students will be more likely to succeed in achieving Appendix B—Response to the Public Drafts those competencies if they have the curricular and instructional The results of public feedback and the responses by the lead support that encourages their interests in science and engineer- states and writing team can be reviewed for all areas of the NGSS. ing. Further, students who are motivated to continue their studies and to persist in more advanced and challenging courses are more Appendix C—College and Career Readiness likely to become STEM-engaged citizens and in some cases to pur- A key component to successful standards development is to sue careers in STEM fields. However, the vision of the Framework ensure that the vision and content of the standards properly pre- is not more likely to be achieved by specifying PEs that signify pare students for college and career. During the development of such qualities as interest, motivation, persistence, and career the NGSS, a process was initiated to ensure college and career goals. This decision is consistent with the Framework, which does readiness based on available evidence. The process will continue not include affective goals in specifying endpoints of learning in as states work together to confirm a common definition. the three dimensions that it recommends be combined in crafting Appendix D—“All Standards, All Students” the standards. The NGSS are being developed at a historic time when major changes in education are occurring at the national level. Student SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS TO THE demographics are changing rapidly, while science achievement NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS gaps persist. Because the NGSS make high cognitive demands of all students, teachers must shift instruction to enable all students A short summary of the appendixes of the NGSS is provided below: to meet the requirements for college and career readiness. Appendix A—Conceptual Shifts This appendix highlights implementation strategies that are The NGSS provide an important opportunity to improve not only grounded in theoretical or conceptual frameworks. It consists of science education but also student achievement. Based on the three parts. First, it discusses both learning opportunities and chal- Framework, the NGSS are intended to reflect a new vision for lenges, which NGSS present to student groups that have tradition- American science education. The lead states and writing teams iden- ally been underserved in science classrooms. Second, it describes research-based strategies for effective implementation of the INTRODUCTION xix

OCR for page R1
NGSS in science classrooms, schools, homes, and communities. bands. They are not intended as additional content. Listed below Finally, it provides the context for student diversity by addressing are the CCs from the Framework: changing demographics, persistent achievement gaps, and educa- 1. Patterns tion policies affecting non-dominant student groups. 2. Cause and Effect Appendix E—Disciplinary Core Idea Progressions 3. Scale, Proportion, and Quantity 4. Systems and System Models The NGSS have been developed in learning progressions based 5. Energy and Matter in Systems on the progressions identified by the grade-band endpoints in 6. Structure and Function the Framework. Short narrative descriptions of the progressions 7. Stability and Change of Systems are presented for each DCI in each of the traditional sciences. These progressions were used in the college- and career-readiness As with the SEPs, the Framework does not specify grade-band review to determine the depth of understanding expected for endpoints for the CCs, but instead provides a summary of what each idea before leaving high school. students should know by the end of grade 12 and a hypothetical progression for each. To assist with writing the NGSS, grade-band Appendix F—Science and Engineering Practices endpoints were constructed for the CCs that are based on these The Framework identifies eight SEPs that mirror the practices of hypothetical progressions and grade 12 endpoints. These repre- professional scientists and engineers. Use of the practices in the PEs sentations of the CCs appear in the NGSS and supporting founda- is not only intended to strengthen students’ skills in these practices tion boxes. A complete listing of the specific CCs used in the NGSS but also to develop students’ understanding of the nature of science is shown in the document. and engineering. Listed below are the SEPs from the Framework: Appendix H—Understanding the Scientific Enterprise: 1. Asking questions and defining problems The Nature of Science 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations Based on the public and state feedback, as well as feedback from 4. Analyzing and interpreting data key partners such as NSTA, steps were taken to make the “Nature 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking of Science” more prominent in the PEs. It is important to note 6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions that while the nature of science was reflected in the Framework 7. Engaging in argument from evidence through the SEPs, understanding the nature of science is more 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information than just a practice. As such, the direction of the lead states was to indicate the nature of science appropriately in both SEPs and The Framework does not specify grade-band endpoints for the CCs. A matrix of nature of science across K–12 is included in this SEPs, but instead provides a summary of what students should appendix. know by the end of grade 12 and a hypothetical progression for each. The NGSS use constructed grade-band endpoints for the Appendix I—Engineering Design SEPs that are based on these hypothetical progressions and grade The NGSS represent a commitment to integrate engineering 12 endpoints. These representations of the SEPs appear in the design into the structure of science education by raising engineer- NGSS and supporting foundation boxes. A complete listing of the ing design to the same level as scientific inquiry when teaching specific SEPs used in the NGSS is provided in the document. science disciplines at all levels, from kindergarten to grade 12. Appendix G—Crosscutting Concepts Providing students a foundation in engineering design allows them to better engage in and aspire to solve major societal and The Framework also identifies seven CCs intended to give students environmental challenges they will face in the decades ahead. an organizational structure to understand the world and help stu- dents make sense of and connect DCIs across disciplines and grade xx INTRODUCTION

OCR for page R1
Appendix J—Science, Technology, Society, and the Appendix M—Connections to the Common Core State Environment Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects The goal that all students should learn about the relationships Literacy skills are critical to building knowledge in science. To among science, technology, and society came to prominence in ensure that the CCSS literacy standards work in tandem with the the United Kingdom and the United States starting in the early specific content demands outlined in the NGSS, the NGSS devel- 1980s. The core ideas that relate science and technology to society opment team worked with the CCSS writing team to identify key and the natural environment in Chapter 8 of Framework (NRC, literacy connections to the specific content demands outlined 2012) are consistent with efforts in science education for the past in the NGSS. As the CCSS affirm, reading in science requires an three decades. appreciation of the norms and conventions of the discipline of Appendix K—Model Course Mapping in Middle and High science, including understanding the nature of evidence used; an School attention to precision and detail; and the capacity to make and assess intricate arguments, synthesize complex information, and The NGSS are organized by grade level for kindergarten through follow detailed procedures and accounts of events and concepts. grade 5 and as grade-banded expectations at the middle school Students also need to be able to gain knowledge from elaborate (6–8) and high school (9–12) levels. As states and districts consider diagrams and data that convey information and illustrate scien- implementation of the NGSS, it will be important to thoughtfully tific concepts. Likewise, writing and presenting information orally consider how to organize these grade-banded standards into are key means for students to assert and defend claims in science, courses that best prepare students for post-secondary success. demonstrate what they know about a concept, and convey what To help facilitate this decision-making process, several potential they have experienced, imagined, thought, and learned. Every directions for this process are outlined in this appendix. effort has been made to ensure consistency between the CCSS and Appendix L—Connections to the Common Core State the NGSS. As with the mathematics standards, the NGSS should Standards for Mathematics always be interpreted and implemented in such a way that they do not outpace or misalign with the grade-by-grade standards Science is a quantitative discipline, which means it is important for in the CCSS for literacy (this includes the development of NGSS- educators to ensure that students’ learning in science coheres well aligned instructional materials and assessments). with their learning in mathematics. To achieve this alignment, the NGSS development team has worked with Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) writing team members to REFERENCE help ensure that the NGSS do not outpace or otherwise misalign to the grade-by-grade standards in the CCSSM. Every effort has NRC (National Research Council). (2012). A framework for K–12 been made to ensure consistency. It is essential that the NGSS science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. always be interpreted and implemented in such a way that they Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap. do not outpace or misalign with the grade-by-grade standards edu/catalog.php?record_id=131 in the CCSSM. This includes the development of NGSS-aligned instructional materials and assessments. This appendix gives some specific suggestions about the relationship between mathematics and science in grades K–8. INTRODUCTION xxi

OCR for page R1
HOW TO READ THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are distinct from prior science stan- dards in three essential ways. 1. Performance. Prior standards docu- ments listed what students should “know” or “understand.” These ideas needed to be translated into performances that could be assessed to determine whether or not stu- dents met the standards. Different interpre- tations sometimes resulted in assessments that were not aligned with curriculum and instruction. The Next Generation Science Standards have avoided this difficulty by developing performance expectations that state what students should be able to do in order to demonstrate that they have met the standards, thus providing the same clear and specific targets for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. 2. Foundations. Each performance expec- tation incorporates all three dimensions from the National Research Council report A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (Framework)—a science or engineer- ing practice, a disciplinary core idea, and a crosscutting concept. System Architecture 3. Coherence. Each set of performance expectations lists con- nections to other ideas within the disciplines of science and As shown in the illustration above, each set of performance engineering and with Common Core State Standards in English expectations has a title. Below the title is a box containing per- Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics. formance expectations. Below that are three foundation boxes, which list (from left to right) the specific science and engineering These three unique characteristics are embodied in the format of practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts that the standards, beginning with the “system architecture.” were combined to produce the performance expectations above. xxii HOW TO READ THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page R1
ciplines, and that they gain experience in the practices of sci- ence and engineering and in crosscutting concepts. In order for this to be feasible, the writing team has limited the core ideas included in the performance expectations to just those listed in the Framework. The Next Generation Science Standards writers initially attempted to include all of the disciplinary core ideas from the Framework verbatim in the performance expectations, but found that the resulting statements were bulky and reduced read- ers’ comprehension of the standards. Instead, the performance expectations were written to communicate a “big idea” that combined content from the three foundation boxes. In the final A note at the bottom of the page directs the user to a specific phase of development, the writers, with input from the lead page containing the connections to other related disciplinary core state teams, further limited the number of performance expec- ideas at the same grade level, to related disciplinary core ideas for tations to ensure that this set of performance expectations is younger and older students, and to related Common Core State achievable at some reasonable level of proficiency by the vast Standards in English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics. majority of students. These sections are described in further detail below. Some states have standards that include concepts that are not found in the Next Generation Science Standards. However, in most Performance Expectations cases not all students in those states are expected to take courses in all three areas of science and engineering. The Next Generation Performance expectations are the assessable statements of what Science Standards are for all students, and all students are expected students should know and be able to do. Some states consider to achieve proficiency with respect to all of the performance expec- these performance expectations alone to be “the standards,” tations in the Next Generation Science Standards. while other states also include the content of the three founda- tion boxes and connections to be included in “the standard.” The A second essential point is that the Next Generation Science writing team is neutral on that issue. The essential point is that Standards performance expectations should not limit the cur- all students should be held accountable for demonstrating their riculum. Students interested in pursuing science further (through achievement of all performance expectations, which are written Advanced Placement or other advanced courses) should have the to allow for multiple means of assessment. opportunity to do so. The Next Generation Science Standards performance expectations provide a foundation for rigorous The last sentence in the above paragraph—that all students advanced courses in science or engineering that some students should be held accountable for demonstrating their achieve- may choose to take. ment of all performance expectations—deserves special atten- tion because it is a fundamental departure from prior standards A third point is that the performance expectations are not a set documents, especially at the high school level, where it has of instructional or assessment tasks. They are statements of what become customary for students to take courses in some but not students should be able to do after instruction. Decisions on how all science disciplines. The Next Generation Science Standards best to help students meet these performance expectations are take the position that a scientifically literate person understands left to states, districts, and teachers. and is able to apply core ideas in each of the major science dis- HOW TO READ THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS xxiii

OCR for page R1
In the example above, notice how the performance expectation Also, notice that the code for this performance expectation combines the skills and ideas that students need to learn, while it (3‑LS4‑1) is indicated in each of the three foundation boxes to illus- suggests ways of assessing whether or not third graders have the trate the specific science and engineering practices, disciplinary core capabilities and understanding specified in the three foundation ideas, and crosscutting concepts on which it is built. Because most boxes. of the standards have several performance expectations, the codes As shown in the example, most of the performance expectations are make it easy to see how the information in the foundation boxes is followed by one or two additional statements in smaller type. These used to construct each performance expectation. include clarification statements, which supply examples or additional The codes for the performance expectations were derived from clarification to the performance expectations; and assessment bound- the Framework. As with the titles, the first digit indicates a grade ary statements, which specify the limits to large-scale assessment. within K–5, or specifies MS (middle school) or HS (high school). Notice that one of the disciplinary core ideas was “moved from K–2.” The next alpha-numeric code specifies the discipline, core idea, That means the writing team decided that a disciplinary core idea and sub-idea. All of these codes are shown in the table below, that the Framework specified for the end of second grade could be derived from the Framework. Finally, the number at the end of more easily assessed if combined with the other ideas specified for each code indicates the order in which that statement appeared third grade. This was done only in a limited number of cases. as a disciplinary core idea in the Framework. Physical Sciences Life Sciences Earth and Space Sciences PS1 Matter and Its Interactions LS1 From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes ESS1 Earth’s Place in the Universe PS1A Structure and Properties of matter LS1A Structure and Function ESS1A The Universe and Its Stars PS1B Chemical Reactions LS1B Growth and Development of Organisms ESS1B Earth and the Solar System PS1C Nuclear Processes LS1C Organization for Matter and Energy Flow in Organisms ESS1C The History of Planet Earth PS2 Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions LS1D Information Processing ESS2 Earth’s Systems PS2A Forces and Motion LS2 Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics ESS2A Earth Materials and Systems PS2B Types of Interactions LS2A Interdependent Relationships in Ecosystems ESS2B Plate Tectonics and Large-Scale System Interactions PS2C Stability and Instability in Physical Systems LS2B Cycles of Matter and Energy Transfer in Ecosystems ESS2C The Roles of Water in Earth’s Surface Processes PS3 Energy LS2C Ecosystem Dynamics, Functioning, and Resilience ESS2D Weather and Climate PS3A Definitions of Energy LS2D Social Interactions and Group Behavior ESS2E Biogeology PS3B Conservation of Energy and Energy Transfer LS3 Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits ESS3 Earth and Human Activity PS3C Relationship Between Energy and Forces LS3A Inheritance of Traits ESS3A Natural Resources PS3D Energy and Chemical Processes in Everyday Life LS3B Variation of Traits ESS3B Natural Hazards PS4 Waves and Their Applications in Technologies for LS4 Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity ESS3C Human Impacts on Earth Systems Information Transfer LS4A Evidence of Common Ancestry ESS3D Global Climate Change PS4A Wave Properties LS4B Natural Selection PS4B Electromagnetic Radiation LS4C Adaptation PS4C Information Technologies and Instrumentation LS4D Biodiversity and Humans xxiv HOW TO READ THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page R1
Foundation Boxes Aspects of the Nature of Science relevant to the standard are also listed in this box, as are the interdependence of science and While the performance expectations can stand alone, a more engineering, and the influence of engineering, technology, and coherent and complete view of what students should be able to science on society and the natural world. Although these are not do comes when the performance expectations are viewed in tan- crosscutting concepts in the same sense as the others, they are dem with the contents of the foundation boxes that lie just below best taught and assessed in the context of specific science ideas, the performance expectations. These three boxes include the sci- so they are also listed in this box. ence and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and cross- cutting concepts, derived from the Framework, that were used to construct this set of performance expectations. Connections Pages* Disciplinary Core Ideas. The orange box in the middle includes A directional footer on the bottom of each standards page points statements that are taken from the Framework about the most the reader to a corresponding “connections page” designed to sup- essential ideas in the major science disciplines that all students port a coherent vision of the standards by showing how the perfor- should understand during 13 years of school. Including these mance expectations in each standard connect to other performance detailed statements was very helpful to the Next Generation expectations in science, as well as to Common Core State Standards. Science Standards writing team as they analyzed and “unpacked” The connections are grouped into three sections that include: the disciplinary core ideas and sub-ideas to reach a level that Connections to other disciplinary core ideas in this grade level. describes what each student should understand about each sub- This section lists disciplinary core ideas that connect a given per- idea at the end of grades 2, 5, 8, and 12. Although they appear in formance expectation to material covered at the same grade level paragraph form in the Framework, here they are bulleted to be but outside the presented sets of performance expectations. For certain that each statement is distinct. example, both physical sciences and life sciences performance Science and Engineering Practices. The blue box on the left expectations contain core ideas related to photosynthesis and includes just the science and engineering practices used to construct could be taught in relation to one another. Ideas within the same the performance expectations in the box above. These statements main disciplinary core idea as the performance expectation (e.g., are derived from and grouped by the eight categories detailed PS1.C for HS-PS1-1) are not included on the connection page, nor in the Framework to further explain the science and engineering are ideas within the same topic arrangement as a performance practices important to emphasize in each grade band. Most sets of expectation (e.g., HS.ESS2.B for HS-ESS1-6). performance expectations emphasize only a few of the practice cat- Articulation of disciplinary core ideas across grade levels. This sec- egories; however, all practices are emphasized within a grade band. tion lists disciplinary core ideas that either (1) provide a foundation Teachers should be encouraged to utilize several practices in any instruction, and need not be limited by the performance expecta- tion, which is intended only to guide assessment. *The printed version of the Next Generation Science Standards organizes connections differently than the online version, a decision made by the Crosscutting Concepts. The green box on the right includes book publisher after consulting with numerous science teachers and other statements derived from the Framework’s list of crosscutting con- education experts about which format would be preferable. The online cepts, which apply to one or more of the performance expecta- ”connection boxes” list the items to which performance expectations con- tions in the box above. Most sets of performance expectations nect—either disciplinary core ideas or Common Core State Standards—and provide the performance expectation codes in parentheses following those limit the number of crosscutting concepts so as to focus on those listed items. The printed ”connections pages” take the opposite approach: that are readily apparent when considering the disciplinary core They list the performance expectation codes in order and provide the items ideas. However, all are emphasized within a grade band. Again, to which they connect—either disciplinary core ideas or Common Core State the list is not exhaustive nor is it intended to limit instruction. Standards—after each listed performance expectation. HOW TO READ THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS xxv

OCR for page R1
for student understanding of the core ideas in a given performance ideas are divided into a total of 39 sub-ideas, and each sub-idea is expectation (usually at prior grade levels) or (2) build on the foun- elaborated in a list of what students should understand about that dation provided by the core ideas in a performance expectation sub-idea at the end of grades 2, 5, 8, and 12. These grade-specific (usually at subsequent grade levels). statements are called disciplinary core ideas. The “Standards Connections to the Common Core State Standards. This section lists Arranged by Disciplinary Core Ideas” section of this volume (pages pre-requisite or connected Common Core State Standards in English 1 to 162) precisely follows the organization of the Framework. Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics that align to given perfor- At the beginning of the process of developing the Next mance expectations. For example, performance expectations that Generation Science Standards, the writers examined all of the require student use of exponential notation will align to the corre- disciplinary core ideas in the Framework to eliminate redundant sponding Common Core State Standards for Mathematics standards. statements, find natural connections among disciplinary core ideas, An effort has been made to ensure that the mathematical skills that and develop performance expectations that were appropriate for students need for science were taught in a previous year where pos- different grade levels. The result was a topical arrangement of sible. Italicized performance expectation names indicate that the disciplinary core ideas that usually, but not always, corresponded listed Common Core State Standard is not pre-requisite knowledge, to the arrangement of core ideas identified in the Framework. This but could be connected to that performance expectation. structure underlies the “Standards Arranged by Topics” section of this volume (pages 163 to 324) and is offered to those who prefer to work with the Next Generation Science Standards in this form. ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATIONS OF THE STANDARDS The coding structure of individual performance expectations in the topical arrangement of standards is based on the same one that The organization of the Next Generation Science Standards is applies to disciplinary core ideas in the Framework. Due to the based on the core ideas in the major fields of natural science from fact that the Next Generation Science Standards progress toward the Framework, plus one set of performance expectations for end-of-high-school core ideas, individual performance expectations engineering. The Framework lists 11 core ideas, 4 in life sciences, may be rearranged in any order within a grade band. 4 in physical sciences, and 3 in earth and space sciences. The core xxvi HOW TO READ THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page R1
GLOSSARY A Algebra (CCSS Connection) GDRO Growth, Development, and Reproduction of Organisms (Topic Name) AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science AYP annual yearly progress HI Human Impacts (Topic Name) HS high school BF Building Functions (CCSS Connection) IC Making Inferences and Justifying Conclusions (CCSS Connection) CC Counting and Cardinality (CCSS Connection) ID Interpret Data (CCSS Connection) CC crosscutting concept IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act CCR college and career ready IEP individualized education program CCSS Common Core State Standards IF Interpreting Functions (CCSS Connection) CCSSM Common Core State Standards for Mathematics IRE Interdependent Relationships in Ecosystems (Topic Name) CED Creating Equations (CCSS Connection) IVT Inheritance and Variation of Traits (Topic Name) CR Chemical Reactions (Topic Name) K kindergarten DCI disciplinary core idea LEP limited English proficiency E Energy (Topic Name) LS life sciences ED Engineering Design (Topic Name) EE Expressions and Equations (CCSS Connection) MD Measurement and Data (CCSS Connection) ELA English Language Arts MEOE Matter and Energy in Organisms and Ecosystems (Topic Name) ELL English language learner MP Mathematical Practice (Topic Name) ES Earth’s Systems (Topic Name) MS middle school ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESS earth and space sciences N Number and Quantity (CCSS Connection) ETS engineering, technology, and applications of science NAE National Academy of Engineering NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress F Functions (CCSS Connection) NAGC National Association for Gifted Children FB foundation box NBT Number and Operations in Base Ten (CCSS Connection) FI Forces and Interactions (Topic Name) NCES National Center for Educational Statistics NCLB No Child Left Behind Act G Geometry (CCSS Connection) NF Number and Operations—Fractions (CCSS Connection) GBE grade-band endpoint GLOSSARY xxvii

OCR for page R1
NGSS Next Generation Science Standards TELA Technology and Engineering Literacy Assessment NOS Nature of Science TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study NRC National Research Council NS The Number System (CCSS Connection) W Waves (Topic Name) NSA Natural Selection and Adaptations (Topic Name) W Writing (CCSS Connection) NSE Natural Selection and Evolution (Topic Name) WC Weather and Climate (Topic Name) NSF National Science Foundation WER Waves and Electromagnetic Radiation (Topic Name) NSTA National Science Teachers Association WHST Writing in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (CCSS Connection) OA Operations and Algebraic Thinking (CCSS Connection) PE performance expectation PISA Program for International Student Assessment PS physical sciences Q Quantities (CCSS Connection) R&D research and development RI Reading Informational Text (CCSS Connection) RL Reading Literature (CCSS Connection) RP Ratios and Proportional Relationships (CCSS Connection) RST Reading in Science and Technical Subjects (CCSS Connection) SEP science and engineering practice SF Structure and Function (Topic Name) SFIP Structure, Function, and Information Processing (Topic Name) SL Speaking and Listening (CCSS Connection) SP Statistics and Probability (CCSS Connection) SPM Structures and Properties of Matter (Topic Name) SS Space Systems (Topic Name) SSE Seeing Structure in Expressions (CCSS Connection) STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STS science, technology, and society xxviii GLOSSARY