How do I write POMS for science
POMPS Instructions
POMS (Points of Most Significance) There is a reading set assigned for each POM. POMS are inspired by an individual reading the set and represent what you think are the most important points made by the authors of a given paper set. Your POMS statements must be carefully written and thoroughly reviewed for clarity and for sense (a matter of whether the statement says what you want it to say and how clearly you have said it).
3 POMS will be written each week regarding each reading set. All 3 POMS will be submitted as an assignment
You will choose one POMS to post to Canvas discussion board and then review and discuss the POMS of a minimum of 2 of your classmates.
Rule 1. NO more than 30 words I will count
Rule 2: State author’s last name and paper number(s)to make your point (These names and numbers will not be counted for the 30 words maximum). [ Ex: (McComas, 2.1)]
Rule 3: Where possible, cite the authors (by using paper numbers rather than APA style) who support or refute a position with which you would like to draw comparisons or conclusions.
Rule 4: POMS should be submitted on a single page. Put your name in the top right corner and the readings set related to the POMS in the top left corner of the page.
Rule 5: When writing a POM you must include multiple authors within the POM. It is all about understanding relationships.
POMPS
Instructions
POMS (Points of Most Significance)
There is a reading set assigned for each POM.
POMS are
inspired by an individual rea
ding the set and represent what you think are the most important
points made
by the authors
of a given paper set. Your POMS statements must be carefully
written and
thoroughly reviewed for clarity and for sense
(a matter of whether the statement
says what
you want it to say and how clearly you have said it).
3 POMS will be written each week regarding each reading set. All 3 POMS will be submitted as
an assignment
You will choose
one
POMS to post to Canvas discussion board and then review and discuss the
POM
S of a minimum of 2 of your classmates.
Rule 1. NO more than 30 words I will count
Rule 2:
State
author’s
last name
and
paper number(s)
to make your point (These names and
numbers will
not
be counted for the 30 words maximum). [ Ex: (McComas, 2.1)]
Rule 3:
Where possible, cite the authors (by using paper numbers rather than APA style) who
support or re
fute a position with which you would like to draw comparisons or conclusions.
Rule 4:
POMS should be submitted on a single page. Put your
name in the top right corner
and the
readings set related to the POMS in the top left corner
of the page.
Rule 5:
When
writing a POM you must include
multiple authors
within the POM. It is all about
understanding relationships.
POMPS Instructions
POMS (Points of Most Significance) There is a reading set assigned for each POM. POMS are
inspired by an individual reading the set and represent what you think are the most important
points made by the authors of a given paper set. Your POMS statements must be carefully
written and thoroughly reviewed for clarity and for sense (a matter of whether the statement
says what you want it to say and how clearly you have said it).
3 POMS will be written each week regarding each reading set. All 3 POMS will be submitted as
an assignment
You will choose one POMS to post to Canvas discussion board and then review and discuss the
POMS of a minimum of 2 of your classmates.
Rule 1. NO more than 30 words I will count
Rule 2: State author’s last name and paper number(s)to make your point (These names and
numbers will not be counted for the 30 words maximum). [ Ex: (McComas, 2.1)]
Rule 3: Where possible, cite the authors (by using paper numbers rather than APA style) who
support or refute a position with which you would like to draw comparisons or conclusions.
Rule 4: POMS should be submitted on a single page. Put your name in the top right corner
and the readings set related to the POMS in the top left corner of the page.
Rule 5: When writing a POM you must include multiple authors within the POM. It is all about
understanding relationships.
THE CHANGING SCIENCE CURRICULUM
D r M arlow E diger
Truman State University
Science, as a curriculum area, has gone
through many changes recently with the on
coming o f the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM), as well as the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS).
Science is a pari o f everyday life which
individuals experience. Even the drying up of
a puddle o f water after a rainfall has a defi
nite scientific explanation. We certainly live
in a world o f science. Science has brought on
tremendous changes in society with improved
medical findings and services thus promoting
a longer and healthier life span for many;
labor saving devices with automation and
hydraulic/electrical devices to perform work;
automatic teller machines for instant access
cash, as well as online banking services;
farming with air conditioned cabs on tractors
and combines, and hydraulic lifts for plowing
and seeding. Heavy manual labor has been
eliminaded or greatly minimized.
A modem science curriculum must be in
the offing for each pupil in the school setting.
This is vital to prepare learners for college as
well as the work place.
Developing the Science Curriculum
Inquiry learning is at the heart of ongo
ing science lessons and units o f study. This
is opposite o f rote learning. With inquiry
learning, pupils achieve facts, concepts, and
generalizations indepth. Questions raised by
pupils need to be encouraged which stimulate
achievement and aid in the inquiry process.
The identified questions might well lead into
problem solve experiences. Problems here
need to possess clarity so that an ensuing
hypothesis might be developed which is ca
pable o f being tested. A variety o f experienc
es provide the testing experience in that the
hypothesis results in being accepted, rejected,
or need o f modification. This takes time to
develop the hypothesis, test it, and assess the
results. The process cannot be hurried since
much data gathering is involved in each o f
these flexible steps (Ediger, 2013).
It becomes necessary to reflect upon the
processes and notice which actions come next
in sequence as well as what needs to be im
proved upon from previous experiences. Re
flective thinking is a highly worthwhile goal
for all in the societal realm. It assists one to
review/rehearse previous actions in terms of
making possible revisions. Also, knowledge
and skills are put to use in these situations.
Reflection, too, aids in arriving at what is
truly salient to learn. Structural ideas are poi
gnant in any academic discipline, science in
cluded. Structure provides a foundation which
provides support for ensuing objectives being
achieved. New ideas acquired then become
related to the structure. Thus, supporting ideas
or a broadening o f structural content is in the
offing. Supporting ideas provide a firmer struc
ture since they strengthen the structure.
Experimentation needs to be central in on
going science lessons and units of study. Pu
pils with teacher guidance need to be involved
in setting up and doing the experiments. One
variable needs to be tested at a given time
which then eliminates others. The experiment
needs to be clearly visible to all who are par
ticipating. Learners must hypothesize as to
648
The Changing Science Curriculum / 649
outcomes but not jum p to hasty conclusions.
Careful and meticulous observation is need
ed. Hindrances to pupil achievement need to
be eliminated so that pupils might focus upon
the objectives. Testing the hypothesis and
reaching accurate conclusions are necessary
to secure valid and reliable results. The exper
iment or a related one may be done to check
conclusions realized. Subject matter from
other reputable, developmental sources may
also enter in to the discussion. This might well
include basal textbook sources.
When reading science subject matter,
meaning is salient; otherwise it delimits
comprehension. Indepth comprehension is
the major objective o f reading. Pupils need to
be able to verify their answers to questions/
problems when reading content. The science
teacher must be a teacher o f reading to assist
pupils in fluent reading. This involves word
recognition which might cause problems to
selected students. Thus, the teacher needs to
guide pupils in utilizing
• structural analysis in word identi
fication in that a word given by the
learner for the unknown makes sense
contextually in relationship to sur
rounding words
• phonics whereby a pupil sounds out
letters in the unknown word to come
up with the correct word.
• picture clues, especially for the young
child in which illustrations appear on
almost every page o f science content.
The illustration may prove the correct
word for the unknown by reading the
related pictures.
• graphs and charts on the page being
read which contain the unknown
word. They can provide much in
formation on individual words to
be deciphered as well as in general
knowledge related directly to indepth
learning o f subject matter.
For young children, textbook content may
be read collectively with the guidance o f the
science teacher. Thus by following along in
the textbook, the pupil notices each word as
the small group reads aloud. Struggling read
ers on higher grade levels, too, have benefited
from using this procedure. It avoids embar
rassment for those who misidentify enough
words to hinder comprehension. The goal is
to aid pupils to become fluent readers, attain
relevant facts, concepts, and generalizations,
as well as develop favorable attitudes toward
science. When working in small groups, pu
pils may assist each other in word identifica
tion problems. They might also read aloud the
contents to listeners in a groups o f three to five
or work in dyads with two learners involved.
When working in small groups or the class
as a whole, the following guidelines re poi
gnant to fo llo w :
• respect the thinking o f contributions
made.
• clarify ideas not understood.
• have all participate, if possible.
• stay on the topic being pursued; do
not stray to the irrelevant.
• no one should dominate the discus
sion (Ediger and Rao, 2012).
Technology in Science
Technology has much to offer in improv
ing teaching and learning situations. Its use
should optimize science achievement. Thus,
technology in its diverse forms needs to assist
pupils to
• attain vital objectives o f instruction
• provide for individual differences
• provide guidance in evaluation o f
achievement with validity and reli
ability in mind.
650 / College Student Journal
References
Ediger, Marlow (2013), “Science-An Indepth Approach,
Connecticut Journal of Science Education, 50 (2),
5-7.
Ediger, Marlow, and D. Bhaskara Rao (2012), Essays
in Teaching Science. New Delhi, India: Discovery
Publishing House.
Copyright of College Student Journal is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
74 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / d E c E m b E r 2 0 1 4 / J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5
T
he need to integrate all
four elements of STEM
takes on urgency with the
advent of the Common
Core State Standards and
the Next Generation Science Stan-
dards (NGSS). Whereas the Common
Core standards promote much greater
attention to technical reading and
writing and emphasize mathematical
modeling, the science standards
explicitly call for more focus on engi-
neering and design and for better
integration of engineering with math-
ematics, science, and technology.
For a nation deeply concerned about
remaining globally competitive—
and raising the scientific, techno-
logical, and quantitative literacy of
its population—these initiatives are
indeed good news. However, realizing
the promise of the Common Core
standards and NGSS won’t be easy.
Despite more than a decade of strong
advocacy by practitioners, employers,
and policymakers, STEM education in
U.S. schools leaves a great deal to be
desired.
In too many schools, science
and math are still taught mostly
in isolation from each other, and
engineering is absent. To be sure, in
a growing number of high schools
and even some middle schools,
a pre- engineering curriculum is
becoming more common. But more
often than not, these engineering
courses are offered as electives without
strong connections to core courses
like physics, algebra, geometry, and
calculus.
Even where STEM offerings are
taking root in a more coherent and
integrated fashion, these courses or
cross-disciplinary projects are rarely
linked to the rest of the core cur-
riculum. Schools aren’t connecting
STEM to English, social studies,
world languages, or the visual and
performing arts. To achieve the cross-
disciplinary vision of the Common
I n t e g r a t i n g
The STEM subjects are too often taught in isolation from one
another—and from the world of work. The Linked Learning
approach is changing that.
Gary Hoachlander
ms et &
Hoachlander.indd 74 10/30/14 7:12 PM
A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 75
Core standards and the deeper
learning sought through NGSS,
schools need a better strategy—one
that nurtures both students’ and
teachers’ understanding of how STEM
knowledge connects to other fields
of knowledge. Such a strategy would
accelerate progress in making high-
quality STEM education an integral
part of U.S. education.
One promising approach that’s
growing rapidly in California and in
cities like Detroit, Michigan; Houston,
Texas; and Rochester, New York, is
Linked Learning: Pathways to College
and Career. This approach transforms
students’ STEM learning by integrating
rigorous academics with career-based
learning and workplace experiences. It
prepares young people for both college
and career, not just one or the other.
And it ignites students’ passions by
giving them meaningful learning expe-
riences organized into career-oriented
pathways in fields like engineering,
health care, digital media, agriculture,
the arts, and law.
What Is Linked Learning?
Students in Linked Learning programs
enroll in a career-themed pathway
and take a four-year (or longer)
program of study focused on content
and skills connected to that career. A
well-designed pathway is more than a
sequence of relevant career and tech-
nical courses. It also includes the full
complement of core academic courses,
work-based learning opportunities,
and support services.
Linked Learning is an old idea
getting a new execution. A century
ago John Dewey advocated learning
through occupations. Theme-based
high schools (like Aviation High
School in New York City), career
academies, and industry-themed small
learning communities have been part
of the U.S. education landscape for
some time. But more often than not,
these opportunities existed in spite
Photos courtesy of hasain rasheed
Students use an endoscopy machine to complete a simulation exercise.
Hoachlander_REV.indd 75 11/5/14 4:26 PM
of the system rather than because of
it. They were products of a few inno
vative teachers or a visionary principal.
Often when their founders left their
school, their innovations disappeared
as well. In addition, the quality of
design and implementation found in
programs using a career pathways
approach has been uneven at best. Fre
quently, “academies” or “pathways”
are little more than names super
imposed on traditional curriculum and
teaching methods.
Linked Learning has two primary
elements that distinguish it from seem
ingly similar approaches. First, Linked
Learning is specific about what consti
tutes highquality pathway design and
implementation. A formal process of
Linked Learning Pathway certification
validates the quality of its programs
and promotes continual improvement.
Although there are different ways to
deliver Linked Learning, every Linked
Learning pathway must offer students
a comprehensive, multiyear program
of study consisting of four compo
nents: (1) academic core courses
in English, social studies, science,
mathematics, world language, and art
that emphasize realworld application
in the industry that is the pathway’s
theme; (2) a cluster of three or more
technical courses that deliver chal
lenging technical knowledge and
skill (and, where appropriate, enable
students to obtain a formal industry
certification); (3) workbased learning
that gives students a chance to interact
and solve realworld problems with
working adults; and (4) personalized
student supports that include college
and career counseling and supple
mental instruction in reading, writing,
and mathematics.
Supporting this basic framework is
a set of Linked Learning quality cri
teria that teachers and school leaders
use to strengthen their pathways and
prepare for formal certification. When
a pathway team believes it’s ready for
certification review, a team of trained
reviewers uses a rubric to evaluate that
pathway.
Validating pathway quality is nec
essary but not sufficient to ensure
that these kinds of opportunities are
available to ever larger numbers of
students and that Linked Learning
programs don’t become islands of
excellence serving small numbers
of kids. The second distinguishing
feature of Linked Learning, therefore,
is a commitment to implement the
approach systematically throughout the
school district and community sur
rounding a school that adopts Linked
Learning. Districts must engage a wide
range of stakeholders to create and
sustain a menu of highquality Linked
Learning pathways that are accessible
to any student who wants this educa
tional opportunity.
It’s worth emphasizing that adopting
a districtwide system of pathways
doesn’t necessarily mean every school
in the district must offer pathways. Nor
does it mean that pathways displace
all other instructional approaches. It
does mean, however, that the district is
committed to making pathways acces
sible to any student who wants this
experience and that Linked Learning
is an integral—and sustainable—
approach within the district.
Schools that aren’t ready to create
formal Linked Learning pathways can
benefit from adopting some of the
approach’s features, particularly rich,
standardsbased multi disciplinary
projects that stress realworld appli
cation and let students engage with
working adults around authentic
problems. Similarly, opportunities
to participate in internships with
employers engaged in STEMintensive
work can help motivate students
and deepen their understanding of
why STEM matters and how it’s used
outside the classroom.
However, schools taking this less
comprehensive approach should use
caution. It’s easy to fall into the trap
of creating projects simply because
they’re more engaging for students
(and teachers!) without paying careful
attention to the standards and other
learning objectives that projects
should be designed to advance. Simi
larly, workbased learning experiences
are most effective when, by design,
they intentionally and immediately
reinforce knowledge and skills that are
part of students’ classroom experience.
Isolated internships, while not without
value, don’t have the integrative power
of highquality Linked Learning.
76 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / d E c E m b E r 2 0 1 4 / J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5
You look at science (or at
least talk of it) as some sort of
demoralizing invention of man,
something apart from real life,
and which must be cautiously
guarded and kept separate from
everyday existence.
But science and everyday life
cannot and should not
be separated.
—Rosalind Franklin
Quoted in The Dark Lady of DNA
by Brenda Maddox
[
B
e
R
a
d
/s
h
u
t
t
e
R
s
t
o
c
k
Hoachlander.indd 76 10/30/14 7:12 PM
A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 77
How Does This Approach
Advance STEM?
Although it doesn’t exclusively
promote STEM learning, Linked
Learning offers pathways in many
STEM-related fields, including archi-
tecture, construction, and engineering;
agriculture and natural resources; bio-
medical and health sciences; advanced
manufacturing; digital media arts;
health professions; and information
technology. Because every Linked
Learning pathway must incorporate
all core academic subjects and connect
them to real-world applications, even
pathways in less STEM-dominated
fields—such as law or hospitality—
provide opportunities to enhance stu-
dents’ STEM learning.
For example, in a high school
offering Linked Learning pathways in
both information technology and law
and justice, courses in the law and
justice pathway might emphasize the
growing complexities surrounding
the protection of intellectual property
in technology fields, such as patents
on software designs or coding
sequences—issues crucial to the
advancement of STEM in the United
States.
Such infusion of STEM throughout
the curriculum happens at the School
of Engineering and Sciences (SES) in
Sacramento Unified School District
in California, which offers a Linked
Learning pathway on engineering
and design for its 7th through 12th
graders. The school’s mantra is “Build,
innovate, and design!” Starting in 7th
grade, students must take engineering
and design-related courses every year,
along with core academic courses and
requisite math and science courses
that use multidisciplinary project-
based learning. For high school stu-
dents, the course sequence includes
early college opportunities in collabo-
ration with Sacramento City College
and Sacramento State University.
The school also scaffolds an
increasingly rich series of work-based
learning opportunities connected to
STEM fields. These experiences start
with mentoring and job shadowing
and evolve into internships and
project-based learning opportunities
that have local employers guiding and
evaluating student work.
The School of Engineering and
Sciences is one of several Linked
Learning pathways available to stu-
dents throughout the Sacramento
district. Students less attracted to engi-
neering might attend Arthur A. Ben-
jamin Health Professions High School
(HPHS), which organizes teaching
and learning around careers in health
care. Courses are as STEM-oriented as
those at the School of Engineering and
Sciences, but they focus more on com-
munity health, disease, biophotonics,
and epidemiology. Once a week, both
students and teachers wear scrubs as
a reminder of their commitment to
organize teaching and learning around
the health professions.
Many other California districts use
Linked Learning to offer students a
rich menu of STEM-related pathways.
For instance, Long Beach Unified has
adopted a resolution that by 2016,
90 percent of its high school students
will be enrolled in certified Linked
Learning pathways that include
architecture, construction, and engi-
neering; media and communica-
tions; GREEN (Generating Respect
for Earth, the Environment, and
Nature); and QUEST (Questioning,
Understanding, and Engaging Success
through Technology). In Antioch
Unified School District, students at
two of the comprehensive high schools
can follow pathways in Engineering
and Designing a Green Environment;
Environmental Studies; Leadership
and Public Service; Media Technology;
Law and Justice; or Biotechnology—
or they can attend the theme-based
Dozier-Libbey Medical High School.
A roller coaster project demonstrated the laws of motion and energy in a physics class.
Hoachlander.indd 77 10/30/14 7:12 PM
78 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / d E c E m b E r 2 0 1 4 / J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5
In Michigan, Detroit now has eight
Linked Learning high schools, offering
pathways in engineering, health pro-
fessions, and information technology,
to name a few. In Texas, Houston
Independent School District is on
track to deliver Linked Learning in all
its high schools.
Linked Learning
and the Standards
Linked Learning and the implemen-
tation of the Common Core State Stan-
dards and Next Generation Science
Standards are not competing initia-
tives. On the contrary, if the Common
Core and the science standards rep-
resent what students need to know
and be able to do, Linked Learning
provides a strategy for teaching this
essential knowledge and skills.
Linked Learning not only
strengthens STEM instruction in
traditional science and mathematics
courses, but also provides a framework
and rationale for developing more
comprehensive programs of study.
These programs not only include
cutting-edge STEM-focused courses
(such as in information technology
or bio medicine and health), but also
encourage incorporation of STEM
content into core academic sub-
jects. Schools will need such course
strengthening and integration of STEM
instruction to help all students master
these demanding standards.
Here’s an example from the Digital
Media Arts Pathway at Hollywood
High in the Los Angeles Unified
School District. Three years ago, all
seniors in this pathway were charged
with creating and producing a short
video trailer that they would use to
pitch a full-length documentary to
Hollywood studio executives. They
worked on the project in teams
throughout their senior year.
One group of students made a trailer
for a documentary on the history of
racial discrimination in Los Angeles
public schools. To inform their work,
they read writings by James Baldwin
for their English class and studied
Brown v. Board of Education and
other court cases in social studies
class—but they also drew on STEM-
related knowledge to improve their
product. In physics, they studied the
properties of light and optics and how
they affect exposure, depth of field,
white balance, and other aspects of
producing images with still and video
cameras. In their videography class,
they learned about design, lighting,
sound, and using digital technologies
for editing. Perhaps most important,
they learned that iterative revision
leads to an increasingly polished
product.
Eventually, the group pitched
its three-minute trailer to the vice
president of MTV. When I asked
them what was the most important
thing this executive told them about
their trailer, they all replied, “Spelling
matters!” Their teacher noted that
she tells the students this all the time,
but it didn’t sink in until they heard it
from an industry professional.
This example highlights another
way approaches like Linked Learning
make it more likely students will
master STEM skills. By connecting
STEM-related course content to expe-
riences found in the work world, the
approach gives teachers an answer
to students’ frequent—and fair—
question, “Why do we need to know
this?”
Part of the Fabric
If schools continue to teach STEM
content in isolation from the rest of
core academic and technical cur-
riculum—and fail to link that content
to the work done in STEM-related
occupations—we’ll continue to mar-
ginalize STEM. Conceptually and prac-
tically, STEM is part of the rich fabric
of curriculum, teaching, and everyday
life. We need an approach to schooling
that communicates that fact—and cel-
ebrates it. EL
Author’s note: Schools and districts
interested in formally adopting the
Linked Learning approach should
contact Brad Stam at ConnectEd (bstam@
connectedcalifornia.org). Many of the
resources needed to plan and implement
a menu of pathways are available free on
Connect Ed’s website (www.connected
california.org) or through Connect Ed
Studios (www.connectedstudios.org),
an online platform supporting Linked
Learning.
Gary Hoachlander (ghoachlander@
connectedcalifornia.org) is president
at Connect Ed: The California Center
for College and Career in Berkeley,
California.
If the standards represent what students
need to know and be able to do, Linked
Learning provides a strategy for teaching
this essential knowledge and skills.
Hoachlander.indd 78 10/30/14 7:12 PM
Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Common Science Standards Are Slow to Catch On in States
Preoccupation with implementing the common core is an oft-cited obstacle
By Liana Heitin
All 26 states that teamed up to
help develop the Next Generation
Science Standards committed to
seriously consider adopting them.
But nine months after the K-12
standards were finaHzed, only eight
of those “lead state partners” have
formally signed on, including Cali-
fornia, Kentucky, and Maryland.
(The District of Columbia also has
adopted them.)
The national pace of adoption
contrasts with that for the Com-
mon Core State Standards, which
were approved in rapid succession
by most states in the months after
they were finalized. Proponents of
the new science standards, however,
emphasize that the speed of adop-
tion across the country is on par
with what the/d expected.
Some states say they’re tied up
with implementation of the com-
mon-core standards for mathemat-
ics and English/language arts, and
are hesitant to effect more instruc-
tional chiinge anytime soon.
In other states, such as Minnesota
and Arizona, legislative restrictions
have slowed the adoption process.
How widespread the standards be-
come remains to be seen. The hope
of organizers from the outset was
that most states would ultimately
embrace the new science standards,
which emphasize science concepts
and processes and ask students to
apply their knowledge through sci-
entific experiments, investigations,
and engineering design.
“I think it will take a couple of
years—I always thought it would
take two to three years—but I’m
very optimistic the majority of
states will adopt,” said David L.
Evans, the executive director of the
National Science Teachers Associa-
tion, which was a partner in devel-
oping the standards.
Just last week the state board of
education in Illinois voted to ap-
prove the standards, though a leg-
islative review is required before
adoption is official.
However, some non-lead states are
sending signals that adoption is im-
likely. For example, in South CaroHna,
the legislature took formal steps last
summer to block adoption outright.
‘Sucking Up’ the Oxygen
One reason that formal action on
the science standards is happening
more slowly than with the common
core is the lack of federal incentives,
said Stephen L. Pruitt, a senior vice
president at Achieve, a Washington-
based research and advocacy group
that oversaw the science standards’
development. The federal Race to
the Top program favored states
that had adopted the common core
or other college- and career-ready
standards. There are no similar fi-
nancial incentives in place for the
science standards.
“We knew going into this that it
would be a much slower adoption
than the common core,” Mr. Pruitt
sedd. “States have their hands full.
We applaud states for taking their
time and doing their due diligence.”
Between writing curricula, provid-
ing professional development, and
preparing for the impending assess-
ments, states—and especially teach-
ers—do have a lot on their plates.
Brian J. Reiser, a professor of
learning sciences at Northwestern
University in Evanston, 111., said,
“I’m hearing from a lot of states,
‘We want to make sure we have the
common core solid under our belts
and that our teachers are more com-
fortable and further along and then
well jump into science.’ ”
Paul CotÜe, a physics professor at
for the state education department,
said in an email that “due to the
review of the current English/lan-
guage arts and mathematics stan-
dards, the review process for the sci-
ence standards has been delayed.”
The state has also undergone a
leadership change: Tony Bennett
resigned as education commissioner
last summer after a school-grading
controversy from his tenure in In-
diana came to Hght. In addition, the
state board of education’s vice chair-
man, John Padget, said at a board
meeting in June that he wants to
strengthen Florida’s standards, but
would not recommend replacing
cannot revise its standards again
until the 2017-18 school year, a state
official said.
Little Public Debate
Interestingly, there’s been less pub-
lic back-and-forth so far about the
content of the science standards than
has been the case with the common
core, even given the hot-button poHti-
cal issues—including the teaching of
climate change and evolution—em-
bedded in the standards.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute,
a Washington-based think tank that
is a staimch advocate of the common
• “Lead state partners” in developing the
Next Generation Science Standards
•’Sfafes that have adopted the standards
SOURCES: Achieve; Education Week
WHERE STATES STAND
The Next Generation Science
Standards were issued in April.
Since then, eight states and
the District of Columbia have
adopted them.
Florida State University in Tallahas-
see, put it more bluntly in an email:
“Common core seems to be sucking
up all of the educational oxygen.”
Even those states that have ad-
opted are moving slowly with imple-
mentation.
Matt D. Krehbiel, a science educa-
tion consultant for the education de-
partment in Kansas, where the stan-
dards were approved in June, said
the transition to the new standards
win take three to four years, and even
then wül be an ongoing process.
“We’re really encouraging districts
to take their time,” he said. Among
other states that have adopted, he
added, “If there’s a general theme, it’s
that folks are really encouraging a
slow approach.”
Though not a lead state, Florida
submitted comments on early drafts
of the standards and was expected
to seriously consider adoption. How-
ever, Cheryl Etters, a spokeswoman
them with the Next Generation Sci-
ence Standards.
In Pennsylvania, another non-lead
state, a spokesman for the state de-
partment of education said there
were no plans to adopt the standards.
Kathy Hrabluk, an associate su-
perintendent in the Arizona Depart-
ment of Education, said schools and
districts are “now very focused in
Arizona on implementation of the
college- and career-ready standards.
… We’re very conscious about making
sure we don’t completely overwhelm
educators.”
For some states, specific legislative
or regulatory processes are holding
up action on the new standards.
In Tennessee, which was a lead
state, the science standards are not
up for revision for another year. North
Carolina’s current science standards
have only been in place for one year,
said Beverly Vance, the section chief
for science and curriculum instruction
at the state education department.
“We win not be adopting [the Next
Generation Science Standards] in the
near future—definitely not for the
2014-15 school year,” she said.
Minnesota is in the unusual posi-
tion of having a formal state statute
that governs the standards adoption
schedule. Based on that, the state
core, has been a leading critic of the
science standards. But as the group’s
executive vice president, Michael J.
Petrilli explains, its opposition is
based mainly on a belief that the
standards overemphasize behaviors
and give short shrift to science con-
tent knowledge.
“There’s not enough focus on con-
tent. … The standards seem to go out
of their way to downplay the knowl-
edge,” he said.
Last June, the group issued a re-
port giving the science stsmdards a
C grade. The report concluded that
the standards in 12 states and the
District of Columbia are “clearly su-
perior.”
But Mr. Reiser of Northwestern re-
futes Fordham’s characterization of
the standards. The new science stan-
dards require “a greater attention to
the content based on what decades
of research says about the best way
to help kids understand ideas,” he
said. “No one that understeinds the
Next Generation Science Standards
would say the point is to emphasize
practice and not content.”
Regarding the lack of resistance
to the science standards, Mr. Petrilli
said, “It’s surprising how Httle noise
there’s been.”
At the same time, Mr. PetrüH said
that with the common core, “the
backlash came much later. I wonder
if with the science standards it’s the
same thing. The folks most Hkely to
be opposed to these things haven’t
spoken up now, but perhaps the)^
speak up a few years from now,” when
more states begin implementation.
But at least a few states have
waylaid adoption because of con-
cerns over the standsirds’ content.
The South CaroHna General Assem-
bly recently passed a proviso that
expressly prohibits adoption of the
Next Generation Science Standards.
Dino Teppara, a spokesman for the
education department, wrote in an
email, “As the current S.C. science
standards received an A- from the
Fordham Foimdation and are held
up as a national model, many mem-
bers of the General Assembly were
concerned about adopting standards
that were not up to the same level.”
Ms. Hrabluk of the Arizona edu-
cation department explained that,
in response to teachers’ feedback,
her state is working to break up the
standards, which are grouped by
grades 6-8 and 9-12, into the spe-
cific objectives that will be taught
at individual grade levels. In terms
of adoption, she said, “the most ac-
celerated timeline would be 2014-
15, but we don’t have a definitive
timeHne yet.”
The science standards will also
require the development of new
assessment tools. The National
Research Council released a report
in December laying out a vision
for the science assessments, which
Ms. Hrabluk said was later than
expected and has pushed back the
timeline for building the tests.
Professional Development
Despite the holdups and naysayers,
proponents of the science standards
are confident theĵ ll see widespread
adoption down the road.
Mr. Evans from the National Sci-
ence Teachers Association said he’s
optimistic, and sees great enthusiasm
for the standards among educators.
“Science teachers everjwhere are
really cormecting with the Next Gen-
eration Science Standards—they’re
looking at the new standards and
looking at the research behind them
and changing the way they teach,”
he said.
Mr. Reiser said he has been provid-
ing professional development on the
science standards for teachers already,
including in states such as Illinois
that have not yet adopted them.
Even Mr. Petrilli anticipates the
adoption numbers will rise sub-
stantially.
“If conservatives don’t get orga-
nized, I think we’re going to see these
standards in half the states, includ-
ing in states that would have been
better off sticking with their stan-
dards,” he said.
Coverage of informal and school-based
science education, human-capital
management, and multiple-pathways-
linked learning is supported by a grant
from the Noyce Foundation, at www.
noycefdn.org. Education Week retains
sole editorial control over the content
of this coverage.
6 ! EDUCATION WEEK 1 January 29, 2014 i www.edweek.org
Copyright of Education Week is the property of Editorial Projects in Education Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
19 APRIL 2013 VOL 340 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 276
EDUCATIONFORUM
I
magine that politicians and the people they
represent understood how human activity
impacts Earth, including climate. And
imagine that they had learned how to evaluate
claims, argue from evidence, and understand
models. These understandings and practices
are prominent in the U.S. National Research
Council (NRC) framework to guide the next
iteration of standards for U.S. elementary and
secondary school students ( 1). We discuss
how aspects such as authorship, coordina-
tion among subject areas, and broader goals
of college and career readiness give reason to
believe that this effort will be more success-
ful than previous attempts to use standards to
improve science education ( 2).
Concurrent development in English Lan-
guage Arts (ELA) (“literacy”) and Mathemat-
ics, under the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) ( 3, 4), has provided the opportunity
to build on the strengths of these literacy and
math documents from a science education
perspective. Closely following the CCSS, the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
are being developed by Achieve, a nonprofi t
organization, working directly with 26 lead
states ( 5). This structure acknowledges that
the standards will be adopted and imple-
mented at the state level.
Past educational standards were devel-
oped by professional organizations on behalf
of scientists and educators and in different
subject areas independently, yielding more
material than any K–12 school system (kin-
dergarten to high school) could teach well ( 6,
7). Now there is a call for “fewer, clearer, and
higher” standards ( 8).
Building on Literacy and
Math
The CCSS focus not only on what it will
take to become a successful student in higher
education but also a successful employee.
Broadening the scope in this way, skills and
abilities that support civic participation are
explicit in the standards. Reading standards
give earlier and more extensive treatment of
informational text than in the past. This is
echoed in the writing standards; “The abil-
ity to write logical arguments based on sub-
stantive claims, sound reasoning, and rele-
vant evidence is a cornerstone” ( 9). Writing
standards include in-depth research with an
emphasis on analysis and presentation. Stan-
dards for speaking and listening include
“Integrate multiple sources of information
presented in diverse formats and media (e.g.,
visually, quantitatively, orally) in order to
make informed decisions and solve prob-
lems, evaluating the credibility and accuracy
of each source and noting any discrepancies
among the data” ( 3).
We see a similar emphasis on reasoning
and problem-solving in the math standards.
Comparisons with high-performing countries
fi nd that spending more time on fewer topics
gets better results. Thus, the math standards
emphasize focus and coherence rather than
covering topics in a curriculum that is a “mile
wide and an inch deep” ( 10). Greater depth in
each topic comes from students’ development
of mathematical expertise defi ned by eight
standards for mathematical practice.
The math standards take an overdue
step toward greater synergy with science by
introducing modeling in secondary grades.
The math standards defi ne modeling as “the
process of choosing and using appropriate
mathematics and statistics to analyze empiri-
cal situations, to understand them better, and
to improve decisions” ( 4). The elaboration of
the basic modeling cycle resonates with the
Opportunities and Challenges
in Next Generation Standards
SCIENCE EDUCATION
E. K. Stage, 1 * H. Asturias, 1 T. Cheuk, 2 P. A. Daro, 3 S. B. Hampton 3
Goals for literacy, math, and science education
may increase citizens’ capacity to argue from
evidence.
Math
ELA
Science
M1. Make sense of problems
and persevere in solving them
M2. Reason abstractly and
quantitatively
M6. Attend to precision
M7. Look for and make use
of structure
M8. Look for and express
regularity in repeated
reasoning
S2. Develop and use models
M4. Model with mathematics
S5. Use mathematics and
computational thinking
S1. Ask questions and
define problems
S3. Plan and carry out
investigations
S4. Analyze and interpret data
S6. Construct explanations and
design solutions
E2. Build a strong base of
knowledge through content-rich
texts
E5. Read, write, and speak
grounded in evidence
M3 and E4. Construct viable
arguments and critique
reasoning of others
S7. Engage in argument from
evidence
E1. Demonstrate independence in reading complex texts
and in writing and speaking about them
E7. Come to understand other perspectives and cultures
through reading, listening, and collaborations
S8. Obtain,
evaluate, and
communicate
information
E3. Obtain,
synthesize, and
report findings
clearly and
effectively in
response to task
and purpose
E6. Use technology
and digital media
strategically and
capably
M5. Use appropriate
tools strategically
Relations and convergences in literacy (3), math (4), and science and engineering (1) practices.
Adapted from ( 12).
*Corresponding author. stage@berkeley.edu
1Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. 2Graduate School of Education,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 3National
Center on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC
20006, USA.
Published by AAAS
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 340 19 APRIL 2013 277
EDUCATIONFORUM
writing standards and with the science prac-
tices, e.g., “(5) validating the conclusions
by comparing them with the situation, and
then either improving the model or, if it is
acceptable, (6) reporting on the conclusions
and the reasoning behind them. Choices,
assumptions, and approximations are pres-
ent throughout this cycle” ( 4).
Literacy and math standards include prac-
tices that are challenging to teach in science
without support from teachers of other sub-
jects. Standards for Speaking and Listening
include, “Evaluate a speaker’s point of view,
reasoning, and use of evidence and rheto-
ric” ( 3). Standards for Mathematical Practice
include, “Construct viable arguments and
critique the reasoning of others” ( 4).
Operationalizing Inquiry
In this promising context, science standards
have been drafted, working from the NRC
framework, that operationalized “inquiry”
with eight practices of science and engineer-
ing: (i) asking questions and defi ning prob-
lems; (ii) developing and using models; (iii)
planning and carrying out investigations; (iv)
analyzing and interpreting data; (v) using
mathematics and computational thinking;
(vi) constructing explanations and designing
solutions; (vii) engaging in argument from
evidence; and (viii) obtaining, evaluating,
and communicating information ( 2).
The framework attempted to narrow the
number of core disciplinary ideas, although
reviewers of draft science standards have
said that the volume of content undermines
the sense making required by the practices
( 11). The framework retained the idea of
crosscutting concepts (e.g., structure and
function, stability and change of systems),
and argued that practices, core disciplinary
ideas, and crosscutting concepts should not
be taught or assessed separately from each
other. Each draft science performance expec-
tation incorporates one or more disciplinary
idea, practice, and/or crosscutting concept.
These performance expectations also cross-
reference the literacy and math standards;
the convergence is shown in the chart ( 12).
Science educators have decried the com-
mon practice of reading textbooks instead
of doing investigations; the former is still
alive and well ( 13). Literacy educators are
concerned about increased emphasis on
informational text in the CCSS ( 14). It is
time to embrace the coherence and learning
that can be achieved by making meaning-
ful connections between and among direct
experience with science and engineering
practices and reading, writing, speaking,
and listening ( 15).
What’s Next?
Forty-fi ve states have adopted the CCSS.
If a substantial number of states adopt the
NGSS, it increases the likelihood that devel-
opers and publishers of instructional and
assessment materials will focus on creat-
ing a common set of tools, at least at ele-
mentary and middle grades. If colleges and
universities accept high school courses that
are based on the standards and the College
Board continues to revise the Advanced
Placement syllabi, high schools are more
likely to follow them.
In addition to suff icient time and
resources for educators and parents to learn
how to support these more ambitious expec-
tations, there are several challenges that sci-
entists, educators, and policy-makers should
consider. Advocates for high-quality science
education for all students need to participate
in conversations at the local and state level
where educational policy is enacted. Scien-
tists from higher education, research organi-
zations, and corporations infl uence science
education and can align their contributions
with educational goals in the standards.
Historically, the United States has pro-
vided limited opportunity to learn science
to most of its students and advanced training
to a privileged few, focusing on the pipeline
for future scientists and innovators without
concomitant attention to a science literacy
for citizenship. The system needs to be trans-
formed to affi rm high standards of accom-
plishment for all students and to provide
resources for all students to reach them ( 8).
Although the literacy and math standards
were widely adopted, and 26 states have served
as partners in developing NGSS, momentum
may be slowing; some states may reject the
NGSS because of the inclusion of evolution
and climate change ( 16). The National Center
for Science Education, a defender of teach-
ing evolution for more than three decades,
broadened its mission to include the defense
of teaching climate science.
Science education benef its from the
learning sciences; scientists interested in
the most effective teaching of science need
to learn from education research. Formal
schooling has been criticized as ineffective
at motivating and inspiring students ( 17)
and inadequate at recognizing the relation
between interest and accomplishment ( 18).
The NGSS can provide a platform for for-
mal education to become more motivating.
Many people are inspired by science in infor-
mal settings; parallel attention to the NGSS
can contribute to “a wide-ranging and thriv-
ing ecosystem of opportunities that respond
to the needs of children as well as commu-
nities” ( 19). Education and public outreach
activities associated with research grants,
whether in or out of school, should pro-
vide both preparation and inspiration. Local
school districts, after-school providers, and
informal science institutions need to create
a coherent strategy for the regional science
learning ecosystem.
This new round of standards develop-
ment is an opportunity to improve science
education that comes around once for each
generation. We need to inform ourselves,
f igure out whether and how we want to
get involved, and be intentional about our
participation.
References
1. Board on Science Education, National Research Council
(NRC), A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Prac-
tices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
2. National Academy of Engineering and Committee on
Standards for K–12 Engineering Education, NRC, K-12
Standards for Engineering? (National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2010).
3. Center for Best Practices, National Governors Associa-
tion (NGA), and Council of Chief State School Offi cers,
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
(NGA, Washington, DC, 2010); www.corestandards.org/
ELA-Literacy.
4. Center for Best Practices, NGA, and Council of Chief State
School Offi cers, Common Core State Standards for Mathe-
matics (NGA, Washington, DC, 2010); www.corestandards.
org/Math.
5. Next Generation Science Standards, www.nextgenscience.
org/next-generation-science-standards.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Project 2061, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Oxford
Univ. Press, New York, 1993).
7. National Committee for Science Education Standards and
Assessment, NRC, National Science Education Standards
(National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
8. Commission on Mathematics and Science Education,
The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics
and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global
Economy (Carnegie Corporation of New York, New York,
2009).
9. Common Core, www.corestandards.org/about-the-stan-
dards/key-points-in-english-language-arts.
10. W. H. Schmidt, C. C. McKnight, S. A. Raizen, A Splintered
Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathemat-
ics Education (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA,
1997).
11. J. Coffey, B. Alberts, Science 339, 489 (2013).
12. T. Cheuk, Comparison of the three content standards:
CCSS-ELA, CCSS-Mathematics, and NGSS (2012); http://
ell.stanford.edu/content/science.
13. E. R. Banilower et al., Report of the 2012 National
Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Horizon
Research, Chapel Hill, NC, 2013)
14. C. Gewertz, Educ. Week 32(12), S2 (2012).
15. P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, C. Greenleaf, Science 328, 459
(2010).
16. E. W. Robelen, Educ. Week 32(19), 13 (2013).
17. C. Weiman, Issues Sci. Technol. 2012 (Fall) (2012).
18. R. H. Tai, C. Qi Liu, A. V. Maltese, X. Fan, Science 312,
1143 (2006).
19. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technol-
ogy, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s
Future (Offi ce of the President, Washington, DC, 2010).
10.1126/science.1234011
Published by AAAS
Planning Instruction to Meet the Intent of the
Next Generation Science Standards
Joseph Krajcik • Susan Codere • Chanyah Dahsah •
Renee Bayer • Kongju Mun
Published online: 15 March 2014
� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract The National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Educa-
tion and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States in Next Gen-
eration Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press,
Washington, 2013) move teaching away from covering many isolated facts to a
focus on a smaller number of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) and crosscutting
concepts that can be used to explain phenomena and solve problems by engaging in
science and engineering practices. The NGSS present standards as knowledge-in-
use by expressing them as performance expectations (PEs) that integrate all three
dimensions from the Framework for K-12 Science Education. This integration of
core ideas, practices, and crosscutting concepts is referred to as three-dimensional
learning (NRC in Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The
National Academies Press, Washington, 2014). PEs state what students can be
assessed on at the end of grade level for K-5 and at the end of grade band for 6–8
and 9–12. PEs do not specify how instruction should be developed nor do they serve
as objectives for individual lessons. To support students in developing proficiency in
the PEs, the elements of the DCIs will need to be blended with various practices and
crosscutting concepts. In this paper, we examine how to design instruction to
support students in meeting a cluster or ‘‘bundle’’ of PEs and how to blend the three
dimensions to develop lesson level PEs that can be used for guiding instruction. We
Dr. Dahsah is a visiting professor at Michigan State University. Her home institution is Srinakharinwirot
University in Bangkok, Thailand.
J. Krajcik (&) � C. Dahsah � R. Bayer � K. Mun
CREATE for STEM Institute, College of Natural Science and College of Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI,
USA
e-mail: krajcik@msu.edu
S. Codere
Office of Education Improvement and Innovation, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, MI,
USA
123
J Sci Teacher Educ (2014) 25:157–175
DOI 10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2
provide a ten-step process and an example of that process that teachers and cur-
riculum designers can use to design lessons that meet the intent of the Next Gen-
eration of Science Standards.
Keywords Framework for K-12 Science Education � Next Generation
Science Standards � Performance expectations � Disciplinary core ideas �
Science and engineering practices � Crosscutting concepts
Dimensions Working Together
The National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC,
2012) put forth a new vision of science education where students engage in science
and engineering practices to develop and use disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) and
crosscutting concepts to explain phenomena and solve problems. These three
dimensions work together to help students build an integrated understanding of a
rich network of connected ideas. The more connections developed, the greater the
ability of students to solve problems, make decisions, explain phenomena, and make
sense of new information.
The Framework for K-12 Science Education serves as the foundation for the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Together, the Framework
and NGSS have fundamentally changed the focus of science education. In
particular, they call for moving away from learning content and inquiry in isolation
to building knowledge in use—building and applying science knowledge.
The Framework and NGSS move teaching away from coverage of many isolated
facts to a focus on a smaller number of DCIs and crosscutting concepts that can be
used to explain phenomena and solve problems by engaging in science and
engineering practices. This integration of core ideas, practices, and crosscutting
concepts is referred to as three-dimensional learning (NRC, 2014). DCIs are central
to each science field as they provide explanatory power for a host of phenomena. As
such, DCIs guide scientists and learners in observing, thinking, explaining
phenomena, solving problems, and asking and finding answers to new questions.
In chemistry, the core idea matter and its interactions explains the diversity of
materials that exist. In biology, evolution serves to explain the diversity and
relationship among all living organisms. Crosscutting concepts serve as intellectual
tools for connecting important ideas across all science disciplines. For example, all
scientists seek to find patterns in data and cause and effect relationships. Science
and engineering practices are the multiple ways in which scientists and engineers
describe the natural and designed worlds. The science and engineering practices
build on what we know about inquiry to focus on students asking questions or
refining problems, investigating and analyzing data, constructing models, and
arguing based on evidence to build and refine explanations to understand the world.
All three dimensions—DCIs, science and engineering practices and crosscutting
concepts—serve as tools to build understanding. When the dimensions are blended
and work together, like strands of a rope, learning is stronger.
158 J. Krajcik et al.
123
Teachers and administrators must recognize that the NGSS call for a shift away
from teaching facts, to students constructing explanations of phenomena (Reiser,
2013). By using science and engineering practices in conjunction with DCIs and
crosscutting concepts, students build a rich network of connected ideas that serves
as a conceptual tool for explaining phenomena, solving problems and making
decisions. This network of ideas also serves as the framework for learners to acquire
new ideas.
Building Standards from the Dimensions
For a long time, the science education community has talked about the importance
of using inquiry in instruction to support students in learning content. But research
shows that it actually works in both directions (NRC, 2007, 2012). If we want
students to learn the content, they have to engage in the practice. But if we want
students to learn the science and engineering practice, then they have to engage in
content. Leave one out, and students will not develop proficiency in the other. If we
want students to use content, problem-solve, think critically and make statements
based on evidence, then we must have all three dimensions working together,
linking practice with content. This is the new vision for science teaching and
learning painted by the Framework for K-12 Science Education, solidly supported
by education research.
To support this vision, the Framework committee recommended (Recommen-
dation 5) that standards should be structured as performance expectations (PEs) that
blend the three dimensions together in a manner that requires students to
demonstrate knowledge in use (NRC, 2012). This structure is the foundation that
forms the architecture of the NGSS. The NGSS writing committee used this
architecture and blended together DCIs, science and engineering practices, and
crosscutting concepts to form PEs. An example of a performance expectation (MS-
PS1-5) from the middle school topic Chemical Reactions is the following:
Develop and use a model to describe how the total
number of atoms does not
change in a chemical reaction and thus mass is conserved.
Notice that the performance expectation includes a science and engineering
practice, develop and use a model, and an element of a disciplinary core idea, the
total number of atoms does not change in a chemical
reaction and thus mass is
conserved. The crosscutting concept in this case is implicit but identified as energy
and matter. Further articulation of the practice, element of the disciplinary core
idea, and crosscutting concept can be found in foundations boxes associated with
the performance expectation. However, to develop even further understanding of the
three dimensions associated with a performance expectation, the Framework and
appendices in the NGSS should be consulted and studied
Next Generation Science Standards 159
123
Performance expectations are not learning goals for instruction nor are they
instructional strategies. As such, PEs do not dictate instruction. However, PEs do
provide guidance for what students should learn in the classroom. PEs specify
assessment for students in grade levels K-5 and in grade bands 6–8 (MS) and 9–12
(HS). In the example above, students would be assessed on developing and using a
model to show conservation of mass in chemical reactions.
Wilson and Berenthal (2006) present a model that shows how standards drive
student learning within an educational system. Figure 1 shows how standards guide
selection and the development of curriculum materials, choice of instructional
strategies, assessment development and teacher professional development. The
more specification in a standard, the more guidance it provides. If standards are
underspecified, then their guidance becomes unclear.
In addition to specifying student assessment, the PEs also provide guidance for
teachers and curriculum developers on planning for instruction. In this paper we
examine how NGSS PEs integrate all three dimensions from the Framework for K-
12 Science Education and why PEs are important for K-12 science learning. We
then explore how to design instruction to support students in meeting a cluster or
‘‘bundle’’ of PEs and how to blend the various dimensions to develop lesson level
PEs that can be used in teaching (NGSS Lead States, 2013). We end by discussing
and providing an example of a ten-step process that teachers can use to design
lessons that match the intent of the Next Generation of Science Standards.
The Value of Performance Expectations
The NGSS are expressed as ‘‘Performance Expectations’’ (PEs). PEs are statements
that describe student proficiency in science—end of grade or grade band student
outcomes for demonstrating their ability to apply the knowledge described in the
DCIs. The PEs integrate all three dimensions, requiring demonstration of
knowledge in use. As such, the NGSS PEs differ from standards as expressed in
previous documents. Often standards were expressed as ‘‘students will know…’’ or
‘‘students will understand that…’’ But ‘‘know’’ and ‘‘understand’’ are vague terms.
160 J. Krajcik et al.
123
What does it mean to know or to understand? The PEs form standards by blending
science and engineering practices, DCIs and crosscutting concepts; they clearly
specify how students should make use of science content knowledge. The PEs call,
not for memorizing isolated terms, but for focus on students applying ideas to
explain phenomena, solve problems, and make decisions.
Let’s examine how the three dimensions—DCIs, science and engineering
practices, and crosscutting concepts—are blended together in the NGSS to develop
PEs. Returning to our example above, MS PS1-5
1
—a middle school performance
expectation in the Chemical Reactions topic states ‘‘
Develop and use a model to
describe how the total number of atoms does not change in a chemical reaction and
thus mass is conserved.’’ Notice how only a portion or element of the DCI PS1
Matter and Its Interactions relates to the PE. This element is part of
PS1.B: Chemical Reactions – Substances react chemically in characteristic
ways. In a chemical process, the atoms that make up the original substances
are regrouped into different molecules, and these new substances have
different properties from those of the reactants. The total number of each type
of atom is conserved, and thus the mass does not change.
A full discussion of this DCI is included in the Framework for K-12 Science
Education. This element of the DCI is blended with the practice element ‘‘Develop a
model to describe unobservable mechanisms’’ and with the Energy and Matter
crosscutting concept element ‘‘Matter is conserved because atoms are conserved in
physical and chemical processes.’’
Student Learning
Professional development
Curriculum
Instruction Assessment
Resources
Standards specified as
Performance Expectations
Scientific
Practices
Core Ideas
Crosscutting
Concepts
Fig. 1 Standards’ impact on the educational system (Figure modified from Wilson & Berenthal (2006)
1
MS-PS1-5, refers to middle school, physical science Disciplinary Core Idea 1 (Matter and Its
Interactions) and the fifth Performance Expectation associated with this DCI (MS-PS1-5 is one of 3 PEs
in the Topic Chemical Reactions).
Next Generation Science Standards 161
123
Table 1 shows a graphic representation of how PE MS-PS1-5 was built from the
three dimensions.
Designing Instruction to Build Understanding of Performance Expectation(s)
A standard expressed as a performance expectation specifies what students are
expected to know and do for assessment purposes at the end of instruction. PEs
provide guidance for designing instruction and curriculum materials. Teachers and
curriculum designers need to plan instruction to provide learning opportunities for
all students to meet the PEs. Developing the proficiency described in a PE, students
will need to experience the DCIs through a number of science and engineering
practices and crosscutting concepts. Similarly for students to gain proficiency in the
use of science and engineering practices, they need to use the practices with a
variety of DCIs and crosscutting concepts. In this way students will build useable,
integrated understanding of the DCIs and crosscutting concepts and proficiency in
using the practices. To ensure these experiences, we define ‘‘lesson level PEs’’ to
guide instruction toward meeting the PEs as specified in NGSS. Teachers design
lessons that call for students to meet the lesson level PEs using combinations of
practices and DCIs beyond those specified in individual PEs.
Although one lesson will begin to help students build understanding, one lesson will
not build the depth and integration of usable understanding required to achieve the
performance expectation. In other words, we need to scaffold the development of
understanding expressed in the PEs. The ideas expressed in a bundle of PEs (several
related PEs) need to be carefully developed in multiple lessons over time. At Michigan
State University, along with colleagues from the Michigan Department of Education,
and members of Michigan’s NGSS Lead State Internal Review Team (see section
‘‘Appendix’’ for a list of individuals contributing to the ideas described below), we
Table 1 Blending the dimensions to form performance expectations (MS-PS1-5)
Practice crossed with element of DCI and crosscutting concept gives performance
expectations
Practice DCI Crosscutting concept PE
Developing
and using
models
PS1.B: chemical
reactions—substances
react chemically in
characteristic ways. In a
chemical process, the
atoms that make up the
original substances are
regrouped into different
molecules, and these new
substances have different
properties from those of
the reactants. The total
number of each type of
atom is conserved, and
thus the mass does not
change
Energy and matter: matter is
conserved because atoms
are conserved in physical
and chemical processes
Develop and use a model to
describe how the total
number of atoms does not
change in a chemical
reaction and thus mass is
conserved
162 J. Krajcik et al.
123
have developed a ten-step process to guide teachers in developing a sequence of
lessons to build student proficiency in a bundle of PEs. While the steps are listed in a
linear fashion, in practice the lesson development process is much more iterative.
Step 1: Select PEs that work together—a bundle—to promote proficiency in
using the ideas expressed. Often the bundle will include PEs from a
single NGSS topic (see topic arrangement) or DCI (see DCI
arrangement), but a bundle could draw in PEs from other topics or DCIs.
Step 2: Inspect the PEs, clarification statements, and assessment boundaries to
identify implications for instruction.
Step 3: Examine DCI(s), science and engineering practices, and crosscutting
concepts coded to the PEs to identify implications for instruction.
Step 4: Look closely at the DCI(s) and PE(s). What understandings need to be
developed? What content ideas will students need to know? What must
students be able to do? Take into consideration prior PEs that serve as the
foundation for cluster of PEs the lessons will address.
Step 5: Identify science and engineering practices that support instruction of the
core ideas. Develop a coherent sequence of learning tasks that blend
together various science and engineering practices with the core ideas
and crosscutting concepts.
Step 6: Develop lesson level PEs. Lesson level expectations guide lesson
development to promote student learning; they build to the level of
understanding intended in the
bundle of PEs.
Step 7: Determine the acceptable evidence for assessing lesson level
performances, both formative and summative.
Step 8: Select related Common Core Mathematics Standards (CCSS-M) and
Common Core Literacy Standards (CCSS-L).
Step 9: Carefully construct a storyline to help learners build sophisticated ideas
from prior ideas, using evidence that builds to the understanding
described in the PEs. Describe how the ideas will unfold. What do
students need to be introduced to first? How would the ideas and
practices develop over time?
Step 10: Ask: How do the task(s)/lesson(s) help students move towards an
understanding of the PE(s)?’’
An Illustrated Example of the Process
We will look at an example for teachers and curriculum developers to illustrate this
process. The example we have chosen comes from middle school and focuses on
students developing understanding of chemical reactions.
Step 1: Select PEs that Work Together: A Bundle—to Promote Proficiency
in Using the Ideas Expressed
First, carefully examine the PEs to see which ones fit together to allow students to explain
some phenomena and develop a set or ‘‘bundle’’ of PEs. Think of a bundle as a cluster or
Next Generation Science Standards 163
123
related set of PEs that work together to support students in explaining phenomena. Use the
NGSS website to search for related PEs. With our focus on developing understanding of
chemical reactions in the middle school band, three related PEs that could create a coherent
set include: MS-PS1-1 (Middle School, Physical Science, DCI 1, first performance
expectation, in NGSS Topic Structure and Properties of Matter), MS-PS1-2 (Middle
School, Physical Science, DCI 1, second performance expectation, in NGSS Topic
Chemical Reactions), MS-PS1- 5, (Middle School, Physical Science, DCI 1, fifth
performance expectation, in NGSS Topic Chemical Reactions). Table 2 presents these
three PEs as listed in their NGSS Topic Arrangement pages.
.
Step 2: Inspect the Performance Expectations
Carefully read and study each selected PE to understand the intent of each. Examine
the clarification statements and assessment boundaries written in the red letters
following each PE. The clarification statement and assessment boundary will help
guide the scope of our instruction. For example, MS-PS1-1 (see Table 2) states that
students will be expected to develop models to describe the atomic composition of
simple molecules and extended structures. The clarification statement provides further
information to explain what this means for middle school students. The clarification
statement for MS-PS-1 provides examples of various molecules that would be
appropriate for students to develop at this level as well as the types of models students
might build. The assessment boundary tells what is not assessable at this level for all
students. At the middle school level students are not expected to know about valance
electrons, bonding energy, or structure of complex molecules and ionic subunits.
Step 3: Examine the DCIs, Science and Engineering Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts
The third step involves carefully examining DCIs, science and engineering
practices, and crosscutting concepts associated with the selected PEs. Understand-
ing the DCIs, science and engineering practices and crosscutting concepts is
essential for developing instruction that proceeds coherently across time and allows
students to develop explanatory accounts of phenomena. The foundation boxes help
164 J. Krajcik et al.
123
to identify the element (or part) of the DCIs, practices, and crosscutting concepts
associated with each PE. For example, the DCI elements associated with MS-PS1-2,
include an element of PS1.A, The Structure and Properties of Matter, and PS1.B,
Chemical Reactions. Table 3 identifies these elements.
In addition to examining the elements from the Foundation Boxes, examine the
description of the DCI in the Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC,
2012).
In particular, look carefully at the grade band endpoints for PS1.A and PS1.B. Use
NGSS Appendix E – Progressions within NGSS, to examine closely a summary of
what students should know about the DCI by the end of the grade band. A portion of
the grade band endpoint for middle school for PS1.A reads:
All substances are made from some 100 different types of atoms, which
combine with one another in various ways. Atoms form molecules that range
in size from two to thousands of atoms. Pure substances are made from a
single type of atom or molecule; each pure substance has characteristic
physical and chemical properties (for
any bulk quantity under given
conditions) that can be used to identify it (NRC, 2012 p. 108).
For PS1.B the grade band endpoint for middle school states:
Substances react chemically in characteristic ways. In a chemical process, the
atoms that make up the original substances are regrouped into different
Table 2 A bundle of performance expectations
MS-PS1-1. Develop models to describe the atomic composition of simple molecules and extended
structures. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on developing models of molecules that vary in
complexity. Examples of simple molecules could include ammonia and methanol. Examples of
extended structures could include sodium chloride or diamonds. Examples of molecular-level
models could include drawings, 3D ball and stick structures or computer representations showing
different molecules with different types of atoms]. [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not
include valence electrons and bonding energy, discussing the ionic nature of subunits of complex
structures, or a complete depiction of all individual atoms in a complex molecule or extended
structure]
MS-PS1-2. Analyze and interpret data on the properties of substances before and after the substances
interact to determine if a chemical reaction has occurred. [Clarification Statement: Examples of
reactions could include burning sugar or steel wool, fat reacting with sodium hydroxide, and mixing
zinc with HCl]. [Assessment Boundary: Assessment is limited to analysis of the following
properties: density, melting point, boiling point, solubility, flammability, and odor]
MS-PS1-5. Develop and use a model to describe how the total number of atoms does not change in a
chemical reaction and thus mass is conserved. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on law of
conservation of matter, and on physical models or drawings, including digital forms that represent
atoms]. [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include the use of atomic masses, balancing
symbolic equations, or intermolecular forces]
Table 3 Elements of the DCI for MS-PS1-2
PS1.A: structure and properties of matter Each pure substance has characteristic physical and
chemical properties (for any bulk quantity under given conditions) that can be used to identify
it
PS1.B: chemical reactions Substances react chemically in characteristic ways. In a chemical process,
the atoms that make up the original substances are regrouped into different molecules, and these new
substances have different properties from those of the reactants
Next Generation Science Standards 165
123
molecules, and these new substances have different properties from those of
the reactants. The total number of each type of atom is conserved, and thus the
mass does not change. Some chemical reactions release energy, others store
energy (NRC, 2012 p. 111).
In a similar fashion the science or engineering practices and crosscutting concepts
need to be examined. The foundation boxes associated with the PEs also help to
clearly articulate what is expected of students. For instance, the practice associated
with MS-PS1-2, Analyzing and Interpreting Data, is more clearly described in the
foundation box. The foundation box states:
Analyzing data in 6–8 builds on K–5 and progresses to extending quantitative
analysis to investigations, distinguishing between correlation and causation,
and basic statistical techniques of data and error analysis. [The element related
to MS-PS1-2 reads] Analyze and interpret data to determine similarities and
differences in findings (NGSS Lead States, 2013, MS. Chemical Reactions).
The element of the practices specifies that students need to look for similarities and
differences in the findings.
The crosscutting concept is typically implicit in the performance expectation.
The crosscutting concept element for a given PE can be identified from the
foundation box. The crosscutting concept element for MS-PS1-2 is:
Patterns: Macroscopic patterns are related to the nature of microscopic and
atomic-level structure (MS-PS1-2)
166 J. Krajcik et al.
123
Step 4: Look Closely at the DCIs
The fourth step requires an even closer examination of the DCI(s) and PE(s) to
determine what student understandings need to be developed. This step requires an
‘‘unpacking’’ of the ideas in each of the PEs. This step takes into consideration prior
PEs that serve as the foundation for the current PEs. Think of unpacking as a
process of determining which ideas are critical for the learner. Unpacking involves
breaking apart and expanding the various concepts to elaborate the various content
statements (Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, 2008). MS-PS1-2 requires that students
understand properties of substances and that matter is made up of atoms. The ideas
of properties and atoms are both developed from 5th grade PEs on the Structure and
Properties of Matter: 5-PS1-1. Develop a model to describe that matter is made of
particles too small to be seen, and 5-PS1-3. Make observations and measurements
to identify materials based on their properties. Part of the instructional process
would be to assess whether students understand what is expected in these PEs and to
help those who have not yet developed an understanding of this content to do so.
The unpacking process also requires a careful examination of Appendix E,
Progressions within NGSS, to identify other prior ideas students might need.
Appendix E identifies that students should develop the following understanding by
the end of 5th grade for PS1.A Properties and Structure of Matter:
Matter exists as particles that are always conserved even if they are too small
to see. Measurements of a variety of observable properties can be used to
identify particular substances (NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 7).
For students entering middle school, we would expect the science teacher to build
from this level of understanding of the ideas. Using various forms of assessment, the
teacher needs to assess students’ level of understanding and, if not attained, support
students in developing these foundational ideas before engaging students in more
advanced ideas. For understanding chemical reactions in middle school, determine
if students understand particles and properties, which are ideas referred to in various
PEs in the fifth grade. It is critical to ask, ‘‘What prior knowledge and experiences
about the DCIs and scientific practices did students develop in previous grade
levels?’’ (See progressions of DCIs, practices, and crosscutting concepts in NGSS
Appendices E, F, and G.)
Step 5: Select Additional Science and Engineering Practices
In this step, determine which of the practices work best with the elements of DCI
and crosscutting concepts. To support students in building proficiency in the bundle
of PEs, and in the components in the PEs, the elements of the DCI need to be
blended with various science and engineering practices. This will ensure that
students develop deep understandings of the elements as well as build proficiency in
all the practices. However, not all the practices will necessarily work with all of the
DCIs. In selecting the various practices, refer to Appendix F, Science and
Engineering Practices in NGSS.
Next Generation Science Standards 167
123
For our chemical reactions example, in addition to Developing and Using Models
and Analyzing and Interpreting Data, practices coded to the bundled PEs, three
additional practices might work well to scaffold instruction to the selected PEs:
1. Planning and Carrying Out Investigations: ‘‘Plan an investigation individually
and collaboratively, and in the design: identify independent and dependent
variables and controls, what tools are needed to do the gathering, how
measurements will be recorded, and how much data are needed to support a
claim’’ (NGSS Lead States, 2013, Appendix F, p. 7).
2. Construct Explanations and Design Solutions: ‘‘Construct a scientific explana-
tion based on valid and reliable evidence obtained from sources (including the
students’ own experiments) and the assumption that theories and laws that
describe the natural world operate today as they did in the past and will
continue to do so in the future’’ (NGSS Lead States, 2013, Appendix F, p. 11).
3. Engage in Argument from Evidence: ‘‘Construct, use, and/or present an oral
and written argument supported by empirical evidence and scientific reasoning
to support or refute an explanation or a model for a phenomenon or a solution to
a problem’’ (NGSS Lead States, 2013, Appendix F, p. 13).
In selecting the practices, it is also critical to understand the various aspects
involved. For instance, constructing an argument involves stating a claim and
providing evidence and reasoning to support that position (McNeill & Krajcik,
2012).
Step 6: Develop Lesson Level Performance Expectations
Lesson level PEs guide lesson development to promote student learning. Lesson
level performances (written as knowledge in use statements) are similar to PEs in
the standards in that they blend core ideas, practices, and crosscutting concepts, but
at a smaller grain size. They will support teachers in designing lessons and
assessments. For instance, in unpacking MS-PS1-2—Analyze and interpret data on
the properties of substances before and after the substances interact to determine if
a chemical reaction has occurred – and in the associated element of the DCI:
PS1.A – Structure and Properties of Matter: Each pure substance has
characteristic physical and chemical properties (for any bulk quantity under
given conditions) that can be used to identify it – it is critical that students
understand that characteristic properties identify a substance before they can
develop proficiency in MS-PS1-1.
As such, we would want to develop a sequence of lessons focusing on this idea
blended with various practices and crosscutting concepts. We could create a lesson
level performance expectation by blending together the practice of engaging in
argument from evidence with the PS1.A element we are addressing. The
crosscutting concept would again be assumed. We could, for instance, focus on
Patterns: Macroscopic patterns are related to the nature of microscopic and atomic-
level structure. (MS-PS1-2). The lesson would help build towards this practice.
168 J. Krajcik et al.
123
Table 4 shows the lesson level performance expectation resulting from blending the
various elements together.
This lesson level performance expectation will guide lesson and assessment
development. The expectation calls for students to engage in constructing an
argument using evidence that pure substances have characteristic properties. This
might involve students measuring properties of substances such as boiling point and
density. The blending of practices, the DCI element and the crosscutting concept is
important at the lesson level and will support students in developing knowledge in
use that can be used to explain phenomena and solve problems. In meeting NGSS
PEs, several related lesson level expectations must be developed.
Step 7: Determine the Acceptable Evidence for Assessing Lesson Level
Performances
Step 7 involves determining acceptable evidence that students have met lesson level
performances (Shin, Steven, & Krajcik, 2011). This is a critical step as it allows
teachers to monitor students’ developing understanding. For instance, for the lesson
level performance expectation: Construct an argument that
pure substances have
characteristic properties, we would expect students to write a claim regarding
which samples are the same substances and provide at least two forms of
evidence
supporting this claim (the density and melting point are the same) and reasoning
(that if two samples were the same substance, they would have the same properties).
Once we specified the evidence, we could design assessments that would elicit
evidence of meeting the lesson level learning performances, for example as
illustrated in Table 5.
Joe wasn’t sure if the any of the materials described in the data table below were
the same substance. He was confused because two samples had the same mass, but
different melting points. Some of the other samples had the same density but
different mass. Using the data below, write an argument supporting an explanation
of whether any of the samples are the same substance.
In responding to this assessment item, students would need to make the claim that
samples 2 and 4 are the same materials because they have the same density and
melting points. Density and melting point are properties that don’t change with the
amount of sample. That the masses of the two samples are different does not matter.
Samples 2 and 3 are not the same materials even though samples have the same
mass. Mass is not a characteristic that can be used in an argument to identify
materials that are the same.
Step 8: Select Related Common Core Mathematics Standards (CCSS-M)
and Common Core Literacy Standards (CCSS-L)
The NGSS identifies CCSS-M and CCSS-L that align with various PEs. Related
CCSS-M and CCSS-L are found in the connections boxes just below the foundation/
Next Generation Science Standards 169
123
dimensions boxes. The Common Core Literacy Standards that align with MS-PS1-2
include:
• RST.6-8.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and
technical texts, attending to the precise details of explanations or descriptions.
• RST.6-8.7 Integrate quantitative or technical information expressed in words in
a text with a version of that information expressed visually (e.g., in a flowchart,
diagram, model, graph, or table).
The Common Core Mathematics Standards that align with MS-PS1-2 include:
• MP.2 Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
• 6.RP.A.3 Use ratio and rate reasoning to solve real-world and mathematical
problems.
• 6.SP.B.4 Display numerical data in plots on a number line, including dot plots,
histograms, and box plots.
• 6.SP.B.5 Summarize numerical data sets in relation to their context.
Develop lesson level expectations and performance tasks, and select resources
that scaffold learning to meet the PEs, while applying and reinforcing literacy and
mathematics standards.
Step 9: Carefully Construct a Storyline
The storyline should show how the DCIs, science and engineering practices, and
crosscutting concepts develop overtime. It should also show how learners build
sophisticated ideas from prior ideas, using evidence that builds to the understanding
described in the PEs as students engage in the practices to explain phenomena. Here
we present one possible storyline that shows how student understanding could
develop over time to reach the level of proficiency expected in the bundle of PEs
discussed above (MS-PS1-1, MS-PS1-2 and MS-PS1-5).
Instruction should begin with students exploring the questions: How can we
identify a substance? How can we distinguish one substance from another?
Answering these questions engages students in developing an explanation. Students
need to apply ideas that substances have characteristic properties that distinguish
Table 4 Creating lesson level performance expectations
Practice crossed with element of DCI and crosscutting concept gives lesson level performance
expectations
Practice DCI Crosscutting
concept
Lesson level expectation
Argument
from
evidence
Each pure substance has characteristic
physical and chemical properties (for
any bulk quantity under given
conditions) that can be used to identify
it
Patterns Construct an argument that
pure substances have
characteristic properties
170 J. Krajcik et al.
123
them from other substances, and that properties characteristic of a substance are
independent of the sample size (i.e., density, boiling point, melting point).
Understanding and explaining answers to these questions is critical for students to
answer the later question ‘‘What happens to materials when they undergo a chemical
reaction?’’ Here students will need to build an explanation that the properties of new
substances (the products) differ from the properties of the initial substances
(reactants). To do so, students conduct investigations to collect data on the
properties of substances before and after they interact, and analyze data to determine
the properties of materials before and after the interaction has occurred.
Investigations might start with the macroscopic level that students can measure
and observe and then move to a molecular level that students cannot see but can use
to develop and use models to explain the phenomena they observe. In exploring
these ideas, the crosscutting concept of patterns is called out as an organizing
concept necessary to identify trends in the data. Students use the science practices of
analyzing and interpreting data and building explanations to demonstrate under-
standing of the DCIs in the PEs [specifically, MS-PS1-2].
By exploring the properties of materials and learning how properties change
when materials interact at the macroscopic level, students begin asking questions
such as: Why do substances have characteristic properties? And, why do new
substances (products) have different properties than reactants in chemical reactions?
To answer the first question, students build models that show that substances are
composed of molecules and that molecules of the same substance have the same
chemical composition (i.e., made up of the same type and number of atoms) and
structure [MS-PS1-1]. They learn that it is the same chemical composition and
structure that gives a substance its characteristic properties. This leads to questions
related to what happens at the molecular level when materials react chemically.
Here students build models to provide a causal account showing that the atoms that
make up the molecules in the reacting materials rearrange to form new molecules
with different compositions. This causal account needs to show that while the
composition of molecules of the starting materials is different from the composition
of molecules of the products, the type of atoms that make up the initial molecules
and the number of atoms does not change. This leads students to an explanation of
why the mass in a chemical reaction is always conserved – the number and types of
atoms are the same in the reactants as they are in the products [MS-PS1-5]. The
crosscutting concepts of energy and matter; cause and effect; scale, proportion and
quantity; and patterns are essential in answering these questions and building
understanding. As they progress through the lessons developed to address this
Table 5 Example of assessment of the lesson level performance
Sample Density (g/ml) Color Mass (g) Melting point (�C)
1 1.0 Clear 8.2 0.0
2 0.89 Clear 4.2 38
3 0.93 Clear 4.2 14
4 0.89 Clear 12.6 38
Next Generation Science Standards 171
123
bundle of PEs, students build proficiency in developing and using models to show
causal accounts and in analyzing and interpreting data.
Step 10: Ask: How Do the Tasks/Lessons Help Students Move Towards
an Understanding of the PE(s)?’’
At the end of the lesson development, it is critical to go back and re-examine the
tasks and lessons we have designed to confirm that they help to move students
towards an understanding of the PEs we have bundled together. This question will
best be answered based on observations and monitoring students in the classroom;
however, it is critical to check our unpacking, development of lesson level
expectations, and resulting tasks and lessons.
Reflections on the Ten-Step Process
Here we reflect on some of the decisions we used in developing the process to
design lessons aligned with NGSS. We acknowledge that others will develop
additional strategies for developing lessons to meet PEs and that our ten-step
process represents one possible avenue for constructing lessons aligned with the
intent of NGSS. Our primary recommendation is to build a series of lessons that
focus on a bundle or cluster of closely related PEs. We do not recommend
developing lessons that focus only on one performance expectation. Focusing on a
bundle helps students see connections among the elements of DCIs and the various
scientific and engineering practices that would not be seen by focusing on one
performance expectation at a time. Focusing on one performance expectation could
contribute to learners developing compartmentalized understanding that the
Framework for K-12 Science Education was trying to avoid. Building useable,
integrated understanding of the DCIs and crosscutting concepts by engaging in
scientific and engineering practices requires a much richer set of experiences than
can be accomplished in one lesson. Building understanding of the core
idea(s) described in the performance expectation will require working with other
scientific and engineering practices and crosscutting concepts than those contained
in the performance expectation. Similarly, developing useable understanding of
practices will require that students engage in other core ideas. This point is echoed
in the National Research Council report, Developing Assessments for the Next
Generation Science Standards (2014), which states that instruction will need to use
multiple practices to support students in developing a particular core idea and will
need to apply each practice in the context of multiple core ideas.
One place to start with the bundling/clustering of PEs is with the topic
organization of the NGSS PEs. This approach is consistent with the work of the
NGSS writers. The NGSS writers began by eliminating redundant statements across
the DCIs, finding natural connections among the DCIs, and developing PEs across
the grades that correspond to this smaller, tighter set of ideas. The resulting
performances fit well into a topic clustering that aligns with the DCI arrangement in
172 J. Krajcik et al.
123
the Framework. In addition to topic or DCI clustering/bundling, selecting PEs from
various topics would provide a more interdisciplinary arrangement.
We have not yet conducted a systematic testing of this ten-step process to
evaluate its effective use by teachers or to determine if the process results in lessons
that increase student learning of the PEs. Teacher leaders, however, from throughout
Michigan used this process to develop a variety of skeletal lessons as part of a day-
long workshop to introduce the NGSS. See http://create4stem.msu.edu/ngss/intro
for some example lessons. We acknowledge that the teachers who used the process
represent a select group familiar with the NGSS. As such, showing that the process
is usable by a much wider range of teachers and examining whether the resulting
lessons help students meet the PEs based upon various external measures would be
of value. We are only at the first stage of a research-based design approach for
developing a process for constructing a valid and workable method for designing
materials that align with NGSS. We need to examine how teachers make use of the
process to develop lessons and investigate whether teachers and students can use the
materials and learn from them. Some additional work with teachers indicates that
the process is much more iterative than linear. With careful analysis of our obser-
vations, we will modify the process and test it again. It is through the use of this
iterative design process that we will develop at least one valid and workable process
for developing lessons that support students in building understanding of a cluster/
bundle of PEs.
Finally, we recognize the importance of teacher education, both inservice and
preservice, to support teachers in learning the vision proposed by the Framework for
K-12 Science Education and the NGSS PEs, and how to plan for instruction that
builds to the level of the PEs. The Framework and NGSS present a new vision based
on research (NRC, 2006, 2012) for conceptualizing standards, one that is needed to
help our students develop understanding that can be use to solve problems, propose
explanations of phenomena, and learn more. We encourage the use of the materials
in inservice professional development as well as in preservice experiences. We are
designing a series of workshops and corresponding materials that facilitators can use
to introduce teachers to NGSS and to the ten-step process. These materials are
available at http://create4stem.msu.edu/ngss. We invite others to use the materials
and help in the modification and development of a process that supports teachers in
constructing materials that support students in building understanding of the NGSS.
Conclusions
The NGSS require that teachers move away from simply presenting information to
supporting students building explanations of phenomena and proposing solutions to
problems. This requires that students develop explanatory models, shows chains of
reasoning that provide explanations, and use evidence to justify their ideas. In doing
so, students demonstrate knowledge in use by using DCIs with science and
engineering practices and crosscutting concepts. The PEs in the NGSS present only
the performances on which students can be assessed at the end of a grade level for K
– 5 and end of grade band for middle school and high school. To support students in
Next Generation Science Standards 173
123
http://create4stem.msu.edu/ngss/intro
http://create4stem.msu.edu/ngss
developing proficiency in the PEs, the elements of the DCI will need to be blended
with various practices and crosscutting concepts. In this paper, we proposed one
strategy for supporting teachers and curriculum developers through a ten-step
process for developing a series of lessons that focus on a related set or bundle of
PEs, and integrated lesson level PEs and assessments. Determining the quality of
this process will depend on studying the process carefully through systematic
implementation and data collection.
Building core ideas, scientific and engineering practices, and crosscutting
concepts across time will support the development of scientific dispositions so that
students know when and how to seek and build knowledge. A scientific disposition
will arm students with the intellectual tools to ask questions such as ‘‘Hmm, what do
I need to know?’’ ‘‘I wonder if…’’ ‘‘How can I explain…’’ and ‘‘Do I have enough
evidence to support my ideas?’’ To help ensure that the intent of the NGSS and the
Framework are enacted in the classroom, we need curriculum materials and
professional development to support teachers, and we need research that extends
over time to determine their effectiveness. We have much work in front of us, but
like the vista we see when we climb a tall mountain, our efforts will be worth it.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and
the source are credited.
Appendix
List of contributors to the development of the Ten-Step Lesson Development
Resource.
All contributors are members of the Michigan NGSS Lead State Internal Review
Committee, serve as science leaders in Michigan, and are active members of the
Michigan Science Teachers Association (MSTA).
Jen Arnswald is the Science Education Consultant at the Kent Intermediate
School District (ISD), Grand Rapids, MI.
David Bydlowski is a Science Consultant at Wayne RESA in Wayne, MI and Co-
Director of the ICCARS (Investigating Climate Change and Remote Sensing)
Project, funded by NASA.
Robby Cramer is the Executive Director for MSTA and Science Education
Specialist at the Van Andel Education Institute, Grand Rapids, MI.
Mike Gallagher is a science education consultant from Oakland Schools,
Waterford Township, MI.
Cheryl Hach teaches advanced life sciences and organic chemistry/biochemistry
at the Kalamazoo Area Mathematics and Science Center, Kalamazoo, MI.
Nancy Karre is the Outreach Science Consultant at the Battle Creek Area
Mathematics and Science Center, Battle Creek, MI.
Laura Ritter is the K-12 Science Coordinator for the Troy School District, Troy, MI.
Janet Scheetz is a fifth grade teacher of all subjects in the Lansing Public School
District, Lansing, MI.
174 J. Krajcik et al.
123
References
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. (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.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in
science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson
Allyn & Bacon.
National Research Council. (2006). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee on Test Design for
K-12 Science Achievement. In M. R. Wilson, & M. W. Bertenthal (Eds.), Board on Testing and
Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC:
The
National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards.
Committee on Developing Assessments of Science Proficiency in K-12. In W. J. W. Pellegrino, M.
R. Wilson, J. A. Koenig, & Alexandra 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 (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in
grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington: The
National Academies Press.
Reiser, B. J. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of
the next generation science standards? Paper prepared for K12 center at ETS invitational symposium
on science assessment. Washington, DC. http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser .
Shin, N., Stevens, S. Y., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Using construct-centered design as a systematic approach
for tracking student learning over time. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Wilson, M. R., & Berenthal, M. W. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards 175
123
http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser
- Planning Instruction to Meet the Intent of the &!blank;Next Generation Science Standards
Abstract
Dimensions Working Together
Building Standards from the Dimensions
The Value of Performance Expectations
Designing Instruction to Build Understanding of Performance Expectation(s)
An Illustrated Example of the Process
Step 1: Select PEs that Work Together: A Bundle—to Promote Proficiency in Using the Ideas Expressed
Step 2: Inspect the Performance Expectations
Step 3: Examine the DCIs, Science and Engineering Practices, Crosscutting Concepts
Step 4: Look Closely at the DCIs
Step 5: Select Additional Science and Engineering Practices
Step 6: Develop Lesson Level Performance Expectations
Step 7: Determine the Acceptable Evidence for Assessing Lesson Level Performances
Step 8: Select Related Common Core Mathematics Standards (CCSS-M) and Common Core Literacy Standards (CCSS-L)
Step 9: Carefully Construct a Storyline
Step 10: Ask: How Do the Tasks/Lessons Help Students Move Towards an Understanding of the PE(s)?’’
Reflections on the Ten-Step Process
Conclusions
Open Access
Appendix
References