National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 9 Conclusion
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

REFERENCES

Allen, J.P., Pianta, R.C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A.Y., and Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034-1037.

Atkin, J.M., and Coffey, J.E. (Eds.). (2003). Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Ball, D.L., and Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.

Ball, D.L., and Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Banilower, E.R., Boyd, S., Pasley, J., and Weiss, I. (2006). Lessons from a Decade of Mathematics and Science Reform: A Capstone Report for the Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement Initiative. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Banilower, E.R., Heck, D., and Weiss, I. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395.

Berland, L.K., and Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.

Bickel, W.E., and Hattrup, R.A. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 35-62.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

Blank, R.K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap? Science Education, 97(6), 830-847.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., and Pittman, M. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417-436.

Bowes, A.S., and Banilower, E.R. (2004). LSC Classroom Observation Study: An Analysis of Data Collected Between 1997 and 2003. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Bybee, R.W. (2013). Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment: Measurement Challenges and Opportunities (Summary Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available: http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/bybee.pdf [November 2014].

Coburn, C.E., Bae, S., and Turner, E.O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364-399.

Coburn, C.E., Russell, J.L., Kaufman, J., and Stein, M.K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137-182.

Coburn, C.E., Mata, W., and Choi L. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 311-342.

Cohen, D.K. (2011). Teaching and Its Predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(4), 9-26.

Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., and McCaffrey, T. (2011). High Hopes—Few Opportunities: The Status of Elementary Science Education in California. Sacramento, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.

Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J.F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

Firestone, W.A., and Fisler, J.L. (2002). Politics, community, and leadership in a school university partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 449-493.

Fogleman, J., Fishman, B., and Krajcik, J.S. (2006). Sustaining innovations through lead teacher learning: A learning sciences perspective on supporting professional development. Teaching Education, 17(2), 181-194.

Fortus, D., and Krajcik, J.S. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B.J. Fraser, C. McRobbie, and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (2nd ed., pp. 783-798). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

Franke, M., Carpenter, T., Levi, L., and Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653-689.

Freedman, R., and Salmon, D. (2001). The dialectic nature of research collaborations: A relational literacy curriculum. In R. Ravid and M.G. Handler (Eds.), The Many Faces of School-University Collaboration (pp. 3-10). Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

Furtak, E.M., Shavelson, R.J., Shemwell, J.T., and Figueroa, M. (2012). To teach or not to teach through inquiry: Is that the question? In S.M. Carver and J. Shrager (Eds.), The Journey from Child to Scientist: Integrating Cognitive Development and the Education Sciences (pp. 227-244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., and Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Goldring, E., and Sims, P. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership through district-community-university partnerships. Educational Policy, 19(1), 223-249.

Goodlad, J.I. (1988). School-university partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale and concepts. In K.A. Sirotnik and J.I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-University Partnerships in Action: Concepts, Cases, and Concerns (pp. 3-31). New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodlad, J.I., and Sirotnik, K.A. (1988). The future of school-university partnerships. In K.A. Sirotnik and J.I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-University Partnerships in Action: Concepts, Cases, and Concerns (pp. 205-225). New York: Teachers College Press.

Handler, M.G., and Ravid, R. (2001). Models of school-university collaboration. In R. Ravid and M.G. Handler (Eds.), The Many Faces of School-University Collaboration: Characteristics of Successful Partnerships (pp. 3-10). Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

Hasslen, R., Bacharach, N., Rotto, J., and Fribley, J. (2001). Learning connections: Working toward a shared vision. In R. Ravid and M.G. Handler (Eds.), The Many Faces of School-University Collaboration: Characteristics of Successful Partnerships (pp. 59-72). Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

Heck, D.J., Rosenberg, S.L., and Crawford, R.A. (2006a). LSC Teacher Questionnaire Study: A Longitudinal Analysis of Data Collected Between 1997 and 2006. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Heck, D.J., Rosenberg, S.L., and Crawford, R.A. (2006b). LSC Teacher Questionnaire Study: Indicators of Systemic Change. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Heckman, P.E. (1988). The southern California partnership: A retrospective analysis. In K.A. Sirotnik and J.I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-University Partnerships in Action: Concepts, Cases, and Concerns (pp. 106-123). New York: Teachers College Press.

Heller, J.I., Daehler, K.R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., and Miratrix, L.W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 333-362.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

Herold, B., and Molnar, M. (2014). Research questions common-core claims by publishers. EdWeek, 33(23), 12-13.

Institute of Museum Services. (2002). True Needs, True Partners: Museum Serving Schools. Available: http://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/TrueNeedsTruePartners98Highlights.pdf [December 2014].

Kanter, D.E., and Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Science Education, 94(5), 855-887.

Kornfield, J., and Leyden, G. (2001). Working together: A successful one-to-one collaboration. In R. Ravid and M.G. Handler (Eds.), The Many Faces of School-University Collaboration: Characteristics of Successful Partnerships (pp. 194-206). Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., and Reiser, B.J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.

Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., and Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157-175.

Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., and Lambert, J. (2008). Impact of a multiyear professional development intervention on science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726-747.

Lee, O., Quinn, H., and Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English-language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233.

Lee, O., Miller, E.C., and Januszyk, R. (2014). Next Generation Science Standards: All standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 223-233.

Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Linn, M.C., Shear, L., Bell, P., and Slotta, J.D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61-84.

Martin, A.M., and Handy, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38.

Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., and Soloway, E. (1998). New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 33-52.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, M.C., and Resnick, L.B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

Mortimer, E.F., and Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education. Committee on Integrated STEM Education. M. Honey, G. Pearson, and H. Schweingruber (Eds.). National Academy of Engineering and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Governors Association. (2010). Realizing the Potential: How Governors Can Lead Effective Implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Prepared by the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded Edition). Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.), with additional material from the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. M.S. Donovan, J.D. Bransford, and J.W. Pellegrino (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Committee on Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. J.M. Atkin, P. Black, J. Coffey (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the Influence of Standards: A Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Committee on Understanding the Influence of Standards in K-12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. I.R. Weiss, M.S. Knapp, K.S. Hollweg, and G. Burrill (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2006a). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2006b). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Berthenthal (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K-12 STEM Education: A Nation Advancing? Committee on the Evaluation Framework for Successful K-12 STEM Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2014a). Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Committee on Developing Assessments for Science Proficiency in K-12. J.W. Pelligrino, M.R. Wilson, J.A. Koenig, and A.S. Beatty (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2014b). Literacy for Science: Exploring the Intersection of the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core for ELA Standards. H. Rhodes and M.A. Feder, Rapporteurs. Steering Committee on Exploring the Overlap Between Literacy in Science and the Practice of Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Osajima, K.H. (1989). Building school-university partnerships: Subjectivity, power, and the process of change. The Urban Review, 21(2), 111-125.

Penuel, W.R., and Riel, M. (2007). The new science of networks and the challenge of school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 611-615.

Penuel, W.R., and Shepard, L.A. (in press). Classroom assessment and teaching. In D. Gitomer and C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (Fifth Edition). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

Penuel, W.R., McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., Benbow, A., Mably, C., and Hayden, M. (2009). Teaching for understanding in Earth science: Comparing impacts on planning and instruction in three professional development designs for middle school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 415-436.

Penuel, W.R., Gallagher, L.P., and Moorthy, S. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996-1025.

Penuel, W.R., Frank, K.A., Sun, M., Kim, C., and Singleton, C. (2013). The organization as a filter of institutional diffusion. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 306-339.

Pruitt, S.L. (2014). The Next Generation Science Standards: The features and challenges. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 145-156.

Putnam, R.T., and Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Quinn, H., Lee, O., and Valdés, G. (2013). Language Demands and Opportunities in Relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English-Language Learners: What Teachers Need to Know. White paper written for Understanding Language. Available: http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/03-Quinn%20Lee%20Valdes%20Language%20and%20Opportunities%20in%20Science%20FINAL.pdf [November 2014].

Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E.M., and Gomez, L.M. (2001). Mutual beneficial partnerships: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curricular Studies, 33(4), 405-430.

Ratcliffe, M., Hanley, P. and Osborne, J. (2007). Study 3 changes in classroom practice: Executive summary. In, J. Burden, P. Campbell, A. Hunt, and R. Millar (Eds.), Twenty First Century Pilot. Evaluation Report (pp. 12-15). York, UK: University of York Science Education Group.

Reiser, B.J. (2013). What Professional Development Strategies Are Needed for Successful Implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? Paper written for the Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment, September 24-25, Educational Testing Service, Washington, DC. Available: http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser.pdf [November 2014].

Roth, K.J., Garnier, H.E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., and Wickler, N.I.Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117-148.

Sherin, M.G., and Han, S.Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163-183.

Smith, M.S., and O’Day, J.A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S.H. Fuhrman and B. Malen (Eds.), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing, 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). London and Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

Sneider, C. (2015). The Go-To Guide for Engineering Curricula: PreK-5, 6-8, 9-12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Southwick, J. (2013). Depth vs. breadth in a new inquiry curriculum. In C. Sneider and B. Wojnowski (Eds.), Opening the Door to Physics through Formative Assessment [peer reviewed monograph]. Portland, OR: Portland State University. Available: http://www.nsela.org/images/stories/publications/Monograph%20Cover-Text_final7-7-13.pdf [November 2014].

Spillane, J.P. (2004). Standards Deviation: How Local Schools Misunderstand Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spillane, J.P. (2006a). Distributed Leadership. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J.P. (2006b). Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 383-397.

Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., and Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.

Sun, M., Frank, K.A., Penuel, W.R., and Kim, C. (2013a). How external institutions penetrate schools through formal and informal leaders? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 610-644.

Sun, M., Penuel, W.R., Frank, K.A., Gallagher, H.A., and Youngs, P. (2013b). Shaping professional development to promote the diffusion of instructional expertise among teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 344-369.

Supovitz, J.A., and Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Traphagen, K., and Traill, S. (2014). How Cross-Sector Collaborations Are Advancing STEM Learning. Working paper. Available: http://www.noycefdn.org/documents/STEM_ECOSYSTEMS_REPORT_140128.pdf [November 2014].

Trygstad, P.J. (2013). 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Elementary School Science. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

van Es, E.A., and Sherin, M.G. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244-276.

Vozzo, L., and Bober, B. (2001). A school-university partnership: A commitment to collaboration and professional renewal. In R. Ravid and M.G. Handler (Eds.), The Many Faces of School-University Collaboration: Characteristics of Successful Partnerships. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

Weiss, I., and Pasley, J. (2006). Scaling Up Instructional Improvement Through Teacher Professional Development: Insights from the Local Systemic Change Initiative. CPRE policy brief. Philadelphia, PA: The Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Wilson, S. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340(6130), 310-313.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.

Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.-Y., Scarloss, B., and Shapley, K.L. (2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement: Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18802.
×
Page 98
Next: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff »
Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $38.00 Buy Ebook | $30.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

A Framework for K-12 Science Education and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) describe a new vision for science learning and teaching that is catalyzing improvements in science classrooms across the United States. Achieving this new vision will require time, resources, and ongoing commitment from state, district, and school leaders, as well as classroom teachers. Successful implementation of the NGSS will ensure that all K-12 students have high-quality opportunities to learn science.

Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards provides guidance to district and school leaders and teachers charged with developing a plan and implementing the NGSS as they change their curriculum, instruction, professional learning, policies, and assessment to align with the new standards. For each of these elements, this report lays out recommendations for action around key issues and cautions about potential pitfalls. Coordinating changes in these aspects of the education system is challenging. As a foundation for that process, Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards identifies some overarching principles that should guide the planning and implementation process.

The new standards present a vision of science and engineering learning designed to bring these subjects alive for all students, emphasizing the satisfaction of pursuing compelling questions and the joy of discovery and invention. Achieving this vision in all science classrooms will be a major undertaking and will require changes to many aspects of science education. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards will be a valuable resource for states, districts, and schools charged with planning and implementing changes, to help them achieve the goal of teaching science for the 21st century.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!