National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25216.
×
Page R14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center Brett Moulding, Nancy Songer, and Kerry Brenner, Editors Committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design Experiences in Grades 6-12 Board on Science Education Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Academy of Engineering A Consensus Study Report of

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and Carnegie Corporation of New York (#G-16-53835), and Amgen Foundation (#204944891). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25216 Library of Congress Control Number OR Cataloging-in-Publication: Additional copies of this publication are available for sale 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 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25216. PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN EXPERIENCES IN GRADES 6-12 Brett Moulding (Co-Chair), Partnership for Effective Science Teaching and Learning Nancy Songer (Co-Chair), Drexel University Juan-Carlos Aguilar, Georgia Department of Education Anne E. Egger, Central Washington University Erin Marie Furtak, University of Colorado Boulder Kenneth L. Huff, Mill Middle School Joseph Krajcik, Michigan State University Michael Lach, UChicago STEM Education, University of Chicago Ronald Latanision, Exponent Mitchell Nathan, University of Wisconsin–Madison Eileen Parsons, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Cynthia Passmore, University of California, Davis Helen Quinn, Stanford University Andrea Tracy, Lawton High School Kerry Brenner, Study Director Greg Pearson, Scholar Amy Stephens, Program Officer Tiffany Taylor, Research Associate Anne Simonis, Mirzayan Program Fellow (January-April 2018) Jessica Covington, Senior Program Assistant (since January 2018) Coreetha Entzminger, Program Assistant (until November 2017) Heidi Schweingruber, Director, Board on Science Education PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS v

BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION Adam Gamoran (Chair), William T. Grant Foundation Megan Bang, Northwestern University and Spencer Foundation Sunita V. Cooke, MiraCosta College Melanie Cooper, Michigan State University Rush D. Holt, American Association for the Advancement of Science Matthew Krehbiel, Achieve, Inc. Lynn Liben, The Pennsylvania State University Cathryn (Cathy) Manduca, Carleton College John Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Tonya M. Matthews, Michigan Science Center William Penuel, University of Colorado Boulder Stephen L. Pruitt, Southern Regional Education Board Kendra Renae Pullen, Caddo Parish Public Schools Marshall “Mike” Smith, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Roberta Tanner, Thompson School District (retired) Heidi Schweingruber, Director PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS vi

Preface Students learn by doing. Science investigation and engineering design provide an opportunity for students to do. When students engage in science investigation and engineering design, they are able to engage deeply with phenomena as they ask questions, collect and analyze data, generate and utilize evidence, and develop models to support explanations and solutions. Research studies demonstrate that deeper engagement leads to stronger conceptual understandings of science content than what is demonstrated through more traditional, memorization-intensive approaches. Investigations provide the evidence student need to construct explanations for the causes of phenomena. Constructing understanding by actively engaging in investigation and design also creates meaningful and memorable learning experiences for all students. These experiences pique students’ curiosity and lead to greater interest and identity in science. Science is a way of knowing based on the collection and analysis of empirical data in relation to a scientific question. The growing inclusion of engineering design in K-12 classrooms presents an opportunity for students to learn yet another way of interacting with the natural and designed world around them. When investigation and design are at the center of learning, students can gather evidence and take ownership of the evidence they have gathered. This process contributes to student agency as they make sense of phenomena and designs and extend their understanding of the natural and designed world. Learning is more meaningful when investigation and design are relevant to student lives. Investigation and design that are connected to students’ culture and place tend to increase student interest in learning. Culturally responsive teaching requires teachers to understand the students’ culture and place, use inclusive pedagogies to meet the needs of all their students, and adapt instruction by using phenomena and challenges that are linked to students’ place and culture. The introduction of the Framework for K-12 Science Education, the Next Generation Science Standards, and state standards consistent with the Framework provide a structure for rethinking how students engage in science and engineering and how they can use investigation/design to gather and analyze data to support explanations of the causes of phenomena and to design solutions. They focus on three-dimensional learning (via performances that integrate crosscutting concepts, scientific and engineering practices, and core disciplinary ideas) and provide a new ambitious vision for the classroom, in which students engage in meaningful learning. The new approaches provide an opportunity for teaching and learning to improve via the use of new instructional strategies and resources that foster, guide, and evaluate teaching and learning. They create an impetus for professional learning in which educators experience, practice, and reflect upon the new approaches as they prepare to engage students in science investigation and engineering design. To reiterate, the goal of education reform is to improve student learning. Student learning occurs as teachers work day by day to help students learn to engage in doing science and engineering. Science investigation and engineering design provide a structure and a vision for meaningful student learning. This report describes ways teaching and learning can shift toward investigations/design that builds from current research in how students learn toward the realization of the new vision in the classroom. Brett Moulding and Nancy Songer, Co-Chairs Committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design for Grades 6-12 PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS vii

Acknowledgments This Consensus Study report reflects the invaluable contributions of many individuals, including those who served on the committee, the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and many other experts. This report was made possible by sponsorships from the Amgen Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. We first thank both Scott Heimlich, vice president at Amgen Foundation, and Jim Short, Carnegie Corporation’s program director of leadership and teaching to advance learning, for requesting the study and providing insight to the committee.. Over the course of the study, the committee held public fact-finding meetings, including a public workshop, and members of the committee greatly benefited from presentations by, and discussions with, the many individuals who participated in these meetings: Tiffany Neill, Council of State Science Supervisors and Oklahoma State Department of Education; Al Byers, National Science Teachers Association; Donna Williams-Barrett, Georgia Science Teachers Association and Fulton County Schools; Christopher Wright, Drexel University; Rowhea Elmesky, Washington University in St. Louis; Kimberly Scott, Arizona State University; Richard Duschl, The Pennsylvania State University; Ravit Golan Duncan, Rutgers University; Matthew Kloser, University of Notre Dame; Stacey van der Veen, NGSSPD Consultants; Megan Bang, University of Washington, Seattle; Lizette Burks, Kansas State Department of Education; Susan Gomez-Zwiep, California State University, Long Beach; Wil van der Veen, Raritan Valley Community College; Scott McDonald, The Pennsylvania State University; Christian Schunn, University of Pittsburgh; Tamara Moore, Purdue University; and John Kamal, Science Leadership Academy @ Center City. The committee is also grateful for the efforts of the following authors who prepared background papers for the committee’s use in drafting the report:  Matthew Kloser, on the nature of the teacher’s role in supporting student investigations;  Joseph Michaelis, on the role of interest and motivation in the learning of science and engineering;  Felicia Moore Mensah and Kristen Larson, on inclusive pedagogies for science investigations and engineering design;  William Penuel and Brian Reiser, on designing science curriculum materials for three- dimensional learning;  Senay Purzer, on epistemic, disciplinary practices in engineering and the integration of engineering and science in secondary classrooms;  Victor Lee and Michelle Wilkerson, on the state of data and technology use to support learning for middle and high school students; and  Dan Aladjem and Alisha Butler (Policy Studies Associates), who prepared a literature review to inform the study. This Consensus Study report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to make certain that the report meets institutional standards for PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS ix

objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Mary M. Atwater, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, University of Georgia; Brenda L. Bass, University of Utah School of Medicine; Monica E. Cardella, Engineering Education, Purdue University; Dianne Chong, Assembly, Factory & Support Technology (Retired), Boeing Research and Technology; Edith M. Flanigen, Retired, Union Carbide Corporation, Honeywell UOP; Amelia Wenk Gotwals, Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University; Carolyn Higgins. Science Teacher, Warwick Public Schools, Warwick, RI; Adam Johnston, Department of Physics, Weber State University; Lauren J. Kaupp, Office of Curriculum, Instructional Design, State of Hawaii; Catherine Mackey, Science Program, Dawson Education Cooperative, Arkansas Department of Education; Scott McDonald, Krause Innovation Studio, Pennsylvania State University; Stephen L. Pruitt, President’s Office, Southern Region Education Board; Bruce Wellman, Engineering and Chemistry Teacher, Olathe Northwest High School, Olathe, KS; Mark Windschitl, College of Education, University of Washington; Susan Gomez- Zweip, Department of Science Education, California State University, State Long Beach. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Melanie Cooper, Colleges of Education and Natural Science, Michigan State University and Paul R. Gray, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, Emeritus, University of California. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. Thanks are also due to the project staff. Kerry Brenner of the Board on Science Education directed the study and played a key role in the report drafting and review process. Amy Stephens (program officer for the Board on Science Education) and Tiffany Taylor (Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow [2017] and research associate for the Board on Science Education) provided critical assistance in project direction, organizing the report, and revising the writing. Greg Pearson (scholar for the National Academy of Engineering) contributed thoughtful insight and suggestions for the coverage of engineering within the report. Heidi Schweingruber (director of the Board on Science Education) provided infinite wisdom and oversight throughout the entire study. We are also extremely grateful to Natalie Nielson (consultant), who contributed to the writing of the report. We also thank Anne Simonis (Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow [2018]) who assisted with information gathering during the report writing process. Coreetha Entzminger (former program assistant for the Board on Science Education) managed the first three meeting’s logistical and administrative needs. Erik Saari (administrative assistant for the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences) stepped in to help with the administrative and logistical needs of the fourth committee meeting, and Jessica Covington (senior program assistant for the Board on Science Education) managed the rest of the study’s logistical and administrative needs, along with manuscript preparation. PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS x

Finally, we thank Paula Whitacre (independent consultant) who provided invaluable editorial direction and Kirsten Sampson Snyder (Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education), who expertly guided us through the National Academies review process and report production. The committee also wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the National Academies Research Center staff for their assistance with fact checking the report. PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS xi

Contents Summary 1 Introduction Current Context of Science Education The Importance of Equity Science Investigation and Engineering Design Charge to the Committee Information Gathering Content of the Report 2 K-12 Science Education Past and Present A Brief History of the Goals of K-12 Science Education and Role of Investigations Influence of the Framework on K-12 Science Education Today’s Middle and High Schools Students, Investigation and Design, and the Nature of Science and Engineering Inclusiveness and Equity in the Current Context Summary References 3 Learning and Motivation Dynamics of Learning Learning Theory Themes Interest and Motivation Summary References 4 How Students Engage with Investigation and Design Putting Investigation and Design at the Center Students Engage in Investigation and Design Summary References 5 How Teachers Support Investigation and Design Make Sense of Phenomena Gather and Analyze Data Construct Explanations Communicate Reasoning to Self and Others Features Come Together for Investigation and Design Connect Learning Through Multiple Contexts Summary References 6 Instructional Resources for Supporting Investigation and Design Make Sense of Phenomena Gather and Analyze Data and Construct Explanations Assessment and Communicating Reasoning to Self and Others Foster an Inclusive Learning Environment Coherence PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS xiii

Learning Goals as Performance Expectations Technology Teacher Involvement in the Development of Instructional Resources Instructional Resources and Professional Learning Summary References 7 Preparing and Supporting Teachers to Facilitate Investigation The Current State of Teaching and Teacher Learning Preparing to Teach Investigation and Design Changes in the Landscape of Professional Learning Ensuring Teachers Have Opportunities for Professional Learning Equity and Inclusion Summary References 8 Space, Time, and Resources Providing Facilities to Support Science Investigation and Engineering Design Safety Considerations for Engaging in Science Investigation and Engineering Design Making Science Learning a Priority in Middle and High Schools Summary References 9 The Education System and Investigation and Design The Interacting Components of the Education System, Continuous Improvement Model Potential Lessons from Previous Improvement Efforts Reform Efforts Pulling the Pieces Together Summary References 10 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Research Questions Conclusions Recommendations Research Questions Final Reflections APPENDIXES A: The Role of Assessment in Supporting Science Investigation and Engineering Design B: Public Agenda for Meeting #1 – May 2017 C: Public Agenda for Meeting #2 – July 2017 D: Agenda for Workshop at Meeting #3 –November 2017 E: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS xiv

Next: Summary »
Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $58.95 Buy Paperback | $49.95
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

It is essential for today’s students to learn about science and engineering in order to make sense of the world around them and participate as informed members of a democratic society. The skills and ways of thinking that are developed and honed through engaging in scientific and engineering endeavors can be used to engage with evidence in making personal decisions, to participate responsibly in civic life, and to improve and maintain the health of the environment, as well as to prepare for careers that use science and technology.

The majority of Americans learn most of what they know about science and engineering as middle and high school students. During these years of rapid change for students’ knowledge, attitudes, and interests, they can be engaged in learning science and engineering through schoolwork that piques their curiosity about the phenomena around them in ways that are relevant to their local surroundings and to their culture. Many decades of education research provide strong evidence for effective practices in teaching and learning of science and engineering. One of the effective practices that helps students learn is to engage in science investigation and engineering design. Broad implementation of science investigation and engineering design and other evidence-based practices in middle and high schools can help address present-day and future national challenges, including broadening access to science and engineering for communities who have traditionally been underrepresented and improving students’ educational and life experiences.

Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center revisits America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science in order to consider its discussion of laboratory experiences and teacher and school readiness in an updated context. It considers how to engage today’s middle and high school students in doing science and engineering through an analysis of evidence and examples. This report provides guidance for teachers, administrators, creators of instructional resources, and leaders in teacher professional learning on how to support students as they make sense of phenomena, gather and analyze data/information, construct explanations and design solutions, and communicate reasoning to self and others during science investigation and engineering design. It also provides guidance to help educators get started with designing, implementing, and assessing investigation and design.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!