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.
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FOR GRADES 6â12 Investigation and Design at the Center Brett Moulding, Nancy Songer, and Kerry Brenner, Editors Committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design Experiences in Grades 6â12 Board on Science Education Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Academy of Engineering A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESSâ 500 Fifth Street, NWâ 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: 978-0-309-48260-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-48260-7 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25216 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019931123 Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Acad- emies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2019 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. (2019). Science and Engineering for Grades 6â12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi. org/10.17226/25216.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Con- gress, 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 char- ter 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, EngiÂ eering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and n a Â dvice 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 Medi- cine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports publishedÂ by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and MedicineÂ document the evidence-based consensusÂ on the studyâs statement of task by an authoring committee of experts.Â Reports typi- cally include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committeeâs deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it representsÂ theÂ positionÂ ofÂ the National Academies on the statement of task. ProceedingsÂ publishedÂ by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and MedicineÂ chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or otherÂ eventÂ convened by the National Academies. The statements and opin- ions 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 visitÂ www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN EXPERIENCES IN GRADES 6â12 Brett Moulding (Cochair), Partnership for Effective Science Teaching and Learning Nancy Songer (Cochair), School of Education, Drexel University Juan-Carlos Aguilar, Innovated Programs and Research, Georgia Department of Education Anne E. Egger, Departments of Geological Sciences and Science Education, Central Washington University Erin Marie Furtak, School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder Kenneth L. Huff, Mill Middle School, Williamsville Central School District, NY Joseph Krajcik, College of Education, Michigan State University Michael Lach, UChicago STEM Education, University of Chicago Ronald Latanision, Exponent, Inc. Mitchell Nathan, School of Education, University of WisconsinâMadison Eileen Parsons, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Cynthia Passmore, School of Education, University of California, Davis Helen Quinn, Particle Physics and Astrophysics, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University (emerita) Andrea Tracy, Lawton High School, OK Kerry Brenner, Study Director Greg Pearson, Scholar Amy Stephens, Program Officer Tiffany Taylor, Research Associate Anne Simonis, Mirzayan Program Fellow (JanuaryâApril 2018) Jessica Covington, Senior Program Assistant (since January 2018) Coreetha Entzminger, Program Assistant (until November 2017) Heidi Schweingruber, Director, Board on Science Education v
BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION Adam Gamoran (Chair), William T. Grant Foundation Megan Bang, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University; Spencer Foundation Sunita V. Cooke, Office of the President, MiraCosta College Melanie Cooper, Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University Rush D. Holt, American Association for the Advancement of Science Matthew Krehbiel, Achieve, Inc. Lynn Liben, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University Cathryn (Cathy) Manduca, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College John Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Tonya M. Matthews, Michigan Science Center William Penuel, Center for Assessment, Design, Research and Evaluation, University of Colorado Boulder Stephen L. Pruitt, Southern Regional Education Board Kendra Renae Pullen, Caddo Parish Public Schools, LA Marshall âMikeâ Smith, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Roberta Tanner, Thompson School District (retired), Loveland, CO Heidi Schweingruber, Director vi
Preface S tudents 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 dem- onstrated through more traditional, memorization-intensive approaches. Investigations provide the evidence that students need to construct explanaÂ tions for the causes of phenomena. Constructing understanding by ac- tively engaging in investigation and design also creates meaningful and m Â emorable learning experiences for all students. These experiences pique studentsâ 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 Kâ12 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 studentsâ vii
viii PREFACE culture and place tend to increase student interest in learning. Culturally responsive teaching requires teachers to understand the studentsâ 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 studentsâ place and culture. The introduction of A Framework for Kâ12 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 perfor- mances that integrate crosscutting concepts, scientific and engineering prac- tices, 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 learn- ing. 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 investigation/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, Cochairs Committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design Experiences in Grades 6â12
Acknowledgments T his 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 Medi- cine, 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, C Â arnegie Corporationâs 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: Megan Bang, Univer- sity of Washington, Seattle; Lizette Burks, Kansas State Department of EducaÂion; Al Byers, National Science Teachers Association; Ravit Golan t D Â uncan, Â utgers University; Richard Duschl, Pennsylvania State University; R R Â owhea Elmesky, Washington University in St. Louis; Susan Gomez-Zwiep, California State University, Long Beach; John Kamal, Science Leadership A Â cademy @ Center City; Matthew Kloser, University of Notre Dame; Scott M Â cDonald, Pennsylvania State University; Tamara Moore, Purdue Uni- versity; Tiffany Neill, Council of State Science Supervisors and Oklahoma State Department of Education; Christian Schunn, University of Pittsburgh; Kimberly Scott, Arizona State University; Stacey van der Veen, NGSSPD Consultants; Wil van der Veen, Raritan Valley Community College; Donna ix
x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Williams-Barrett, Georgia Science Teachers Association and Fulton County Schools; and Christopher Wright, Drexel University. The committee is also grateful for the efforts of the following authors who prepared background papers for the committeeâs use in drafting the report: â¢ Matthew Kloser, on the nature of the teacherâs role in supporting student investigation; â¢ Joseph Michaelis, on the role of interest and motivation in the learning of science and engineering; â¢ Felicia Moore Mensah and Kristen Larson, on inclusive pedagogies for science investigation and engineering design; â¢ William Penuel and Brian Reiser, on designing science curriculum materials for three-dimensional learning; â¢ Senay Purzer, on epistemic, disciplinary practices in engineering and the integration of engineering and science in secondary classrooms; â¢ Victor Lee and Michelle Wilkerson, on the state of data and tech- nology use to support learning for middle and high school students; and â¢ 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 pos- sible and to make certain that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review com- ments 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, Â oneywell UOP; Amelia Wenk Gotwals, Department of Teacher Educa- H tion, Michigan State University; Carolyn Higgins, Warwick Public Schools, Warwick, Rhode Island; Adam Johnston, Department of Physics, Weber State University; Lauren J. Kaupp, Office of Curriculum, Instructional Â Design, State of Hawaii; Catherine Mackey, Science Program, Dawson Edu- cation Cooperative, Arkansas Department of Education; Scott Â cDonald, M Krause Innovation Studio, Pennsylvania State University; Stephen L. Pruitt,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi Presidentâs Office, Southern Region Education Board; Bruce Wellman, Olathe Northwest High School, Olathe, Kansas; Mark Windschitl, College of Education, University of Washington; Susan Gomez-Zweip, Department of Science Education, California State University, Long Beach. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments 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 re- view 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, Berkeley. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examina- tion of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the N Â ational Academies and that all review comments were carefully consid- ered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authorÂng i committee and the National Academies. Thanks are also due to the project staff. Kerry Brenner of the Board on Science Education (BOSE) directed the study and played a key role in the report drafting and review process. Amy Stephens (program officer, BOSE) and Tiffany Taylor (Christine Mirzayan science and technology policy fellow  and research associate, BOSE) provided critical assistance in project direction, organizing the report, and revising the writing. Greg Pearson (scholar, National Academy of Engineering) contributed thoughtful insight and suggestions for the coverage of engineering within the report. Heidi Schweingruber (director, BOSE) provided infinite wisdom and over- sight 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 ) who assisted with information gathering during the report writing process. Coreetha Entzminger (former program assistant, BOSE) managed the first three meetingâs logistical and administrative needs. Erik Saari (administrative assistant, Division on Engineering and Physical Sci- ences) stepped in to help with the administrative and logistical needs of the fourth committee meeting, and Jessica Covington (senior program assistant, BOSE) managed the rest of the studyâs logistical and administrative needs, along with manuscript preparation. Finally, we thank Paula Whitacre (independent consultant) who pro- vided 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. The committee also wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the National Academies Research Center staff for their assistance with fact checking the report.
Contents Summary 1 â1 Introduction 9 Current Context of Science Education, 11 The Importance of Equity, 12 Science Investigation and Engineering Design, 13 Charge to the Committee, 15 Information Gathering, 17 Content of the Report, 20 References, 21 â 2 Kâ12 Science Education Past and Present: The Changing Role and Focus of Investigations 23 A Brief History of the Goals of Kâ12 Science Education and Role of Investigations, 24 Influence of the Framework on Kâ12 Science Education, 29 Todayâs Middle and High Schools, 34 Students, Investigation and Design, and the Nature of Science and Engineering, 38 Inclusiveness and Equity in the Current Context, 42 Summary, 45 References, 47 xiii
xiv CONTENTS â 3 Learning and Motivation 53 Dynamics of Learning, 54 Learning Theory Themes, 55 Interest and Motivation, 63 Summary, 72 References, 73 â 4 How Students Engage with Investigation and Design 81 Putting Investigation and Design at the Center, 82 Students Engage in Investigation and Design, 87 Summary, 103 References, 105 â 5 How Teachers Support Investigation and Design 109 Make Sense of Phenomena, 111 Gather and Analyze Data, 116 Construct Explanations, 120 Communicate Reasoning to Self and Others, 121 Features Come Together for Investigation and Design, 131 Connect Learning Through Multiple Contexts, 138 Summary, 144 References, 145 â 6 Instructional Resources for Supporting Investigation and Design 153 Make Sense of Phenomena, 156 Gather and Analyze Data and Construct Explanations, 160 Assessment and Communicating Reasoning to Self and Others, 162 Foster an Inclusive Learning Environment, 163 Coherence, 164 Learning Goals as Performance Expectations, 166 Technology, 168 Teacher Involvement in the Development of Instructional Resources, 172 Instructional Resources and Professional Learning, 173 Summary, 174 References, 174 â 7 Preparing and Supporting Teachers to Facilitate Investigation 181 The Current State of Teaching and Teacher Learning, 182 Preparing to Teach Investigation and Design, 192 Changes in the Landscape of Professional Learning, 196 Ensuring Teachers Have Opportunities for Professional Learning, 198
CONTENTS xv Equity and Inclusion, 205 Summary, 205 References, 207 â 8 Space, Time, and Resources 215 Providing Facilities to Support Science Investigation and Engineering Design, 215 Safety Considerations for Engaging in Science Investigation and Engineering Design, 222 Making Science Learning a Priority in Middle and High Schools, 230 Summary, 239 References, 240 â 9 The Education System and Investigation and Design 245 The Interacting Components of the Education System, 246 Continuous Improvement Model, 249 Potential Lessons from Previous Improvement Efforts, 251 Reform Efforts, 252 Pulling the Pieces Together, 261 Summary, 264 References, 264 10 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Research Questions 267 Conclusions, 268 Recommendations, 275 Research Questions, 278 Final Reflections, 282 APPENDIXES A The Role of Assessment in Supporting Science Investigation and Engineering Design 285 B Public Agenda for Meeting #1âMay 2017 297 C Public Agenda for Meeting #2âJuly 2017 299 D Agenda for Workshop at Meeting #3âNovember 2017 301 E Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff 303