Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards (2015)
Chapter: Front Matter
GUIDE TO IMPLEMENTING THE
NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS
Committee on Guidance on Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards
Board on Science Education
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DRL-1321864 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation, Contract/Grant No. 1012461 from the Burroughs Wellcome Foundation, and a grant from The College Board. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-30512-9
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-30512-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015932191
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2015). Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Committee on Guidance on Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This page intentionally left blank.
COMMITTEE ON GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS
HELEN QUINN (Chair), Emerita, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University
MATTHEW KREHBIEL, Kansas State Department of Education
MICHAEL LACH, Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education and Urban Education Institute, University of Chicago
BRIAN J. REISER, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University
MARSHALL S. SMITH, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Stanford, CA
CARY SNEIDER, Center for Science Education, Portland State University, OR
ROBERTA TANNER, Retired Physics Teacher, Thompson School District, Loveland, CO
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Study Director
REBECCA KRONE, Program Associate (until April 2014)
JOANNA ROBERTS, Program Assistant (since April 2014)
BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
ADAM GAMORAN (Chair), President, W.T. Grant Foundation, New York, NY
GEORGE BOGGS, Emeritus, Palomar College and American Association of Community Colleges
MELANIE M. COOPER, Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University
RODOLFO DIRZO, Department of Biology, Stanford University
JACQUELYNNE S. ECCLES, School of Education, University of California, Irvine
JOSEPH S. FRANCISCO, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
MARGARET HONEY, New York Hall of Science, Corona, NY
MATTHEW KREHBIEL, Kansas State Department of Education
MICHAEL LACH, Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education and Urban Education Institute, University of Chicago
LYNN LIBEN, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University
BRIAN REISER, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University
MIKE SMITH, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, CA
ROBERTA TANNER, Retired Physics Teacher, Thompson School District, Loveland, CO
SUZANNE WILSON, School of Education, University of Connecticut
YU XIE, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan
MARTIN STORKSDIECK, Director (until May 2014)
HEIDI A. SCHWEINGRUBER, Director (since June 2014)
MICHAEL A. FEDER, Senior Program Officer
MATTHEW LAMMERS, Program Coordinator
REBECCA KRONE, Program Associate (until April 2014)
JOANNA ROBERTS, Program Assistant
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Juan-Carlos Aguilar, Division of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, Georgia Department of Education, Atlanta, Georgia; Philip Bell, Learning Sciences, University of Washington; Rodger W. Bybee, former executive director, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Golden, Colorado; Charlene K. Dindo, Baldwin County Education Association, Mobile, Alabama; Ellen Ebert, Teaching and Learning Science, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington; George Griffith, superintendent, WaKeeney Unified School District, WaKeeney, Kansas; Jane Hannaway, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC; Kenneth Huff, science teacher, Williamsville Central School District, Mill Middle School, Williamsville, New York; William Penuel, Educational Psychology & Learning Sciences, School of Education, University of Colorado; John Popp, Curriculum and Instruction, Great Bend Unified School District, Great Bend,
Kansas; Carl E. Wieman, Department of Physics and Graduate School of Education, Stanford University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Christopher T. Cross, Chairman, Cross & Joftus, LLC, Danville, California, and May R. Berenbaum, Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
CONTENTS
The Vision of the Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards
2 Overarching Principles for Implementation
Attend to Coherence Across Levels, Across Grades, and Across Different Components of the System
Attend to What Is Unique About Science
Build and Leverage Collaborations, Networks, and Partnerships
Take Enough Time to Implement Well
Ensure That Communication Is Ongoing and Relevant
Developing and Using Core Ideas and Crosscutting Concepts
Creating a Productive Classroom Culture
Connecting Learning Across the Curriculum
Assessment as an Element of Instruction
Providing Insufficient Support for Students
Focusing Exclusively on the “Right Answers”
Assigning Unproductive Student Tasks
Expecting Instruction to Change Overnight
Expecting Teachers to Do It Alone
Being Reluctant to Let Go of Familiar Units or Favorite Activities
Learning Opportunities for Teachers
Connected to Teachers’ Instructional Practice
A Coherent and Ongoing System of Support
Learning Opportunities for Administrators
Underestimating the Shift Needed in One’s Own Practice
Underestimating the Need for Ongoing Support
Failing to Provide Opportunities for Administrators to Learn About the NGSS
Offering “One Size Fits All” Learning Opportunities
Waiting Before Beginning to Change Instruction
Failing to Provide Resources to Support Students’ Investigations and Design Projects
Assessment to Support Classroom Instruction
Assessments Designed to Monitor Science Learning on a Broader Scale
Indicators to Track Students’ Opportunity to Learn
Implementing a New Assessment System
Failing to Differentiate the Purposes of Assessment
Failing to Respond to Assessment Results
Using Old Assessments While Mandating New Instructional Methods
7 Collaboration, Networks, and Partnerships
Building and Maintaining Partnerships
Lacking a Common Understanding of the Vision
Having Competing Goals Among Partners
Failing to Clarify Relationships and Monitor Partnerships
Failing to Establish Mutually Respectful Relationships and Roles
Teacher Preparation and Certification
Assuming Existing Policies Are Adequate to Support the NGSS
Failing to Communicate with Parents and the Community
