Author |
Post |
|
|
Dear All,
We would like to invite you to use this TOPIC to share your comments, ask questions, and dialogue with others about the NGSS Second (and final) Public Draft. NSTA encourages science educators to review the draft and provide feedback to Achieve during the comment period, which ends January 29.
To review and comment on the draft, go to: http://www.nextgenscience.org
Thank you,
Flavio.
|
|
|
|
In tonight's very useful web seminar, Ted Willard alluded to pdf versions of the NGSS - even as he exhorted us to stick with the online interactive version.
I appreciate the interactivity, and agree that it often makes some ideas pop out at you, and easy to clarify others - but there are many times I do NOT have internet access - even in 2013 - and those are often the times I have a block of time to spend with this. So I think it's important that we have both. Ted said he'd give us a link - but I don't recall seeing it .... or is it just downloading all the parts on the nextgenscience.org site? (been there done that - just want to be sure).
Maybe when everyone feels enough analytics have been collected from online access, an interactive e-book of the NGSS can be created (for all e-reader platforms! :)
~ kathy g
|
|
|
|
Kathy,
This is where I got my copies Tuesday afternoon:
http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
the paragraphs below the two blue boxes have links in them for the PDF versions of the DCI and Topic arangements (below the links for the surveys).
Doug Damery
Madison HS
Adrian, MI
|
|
|
|
Kathleen,
You might also find useful our collection of resources and documents on the second draft. It has links to the pdf versions and other resources: http://www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate/jan2013draft.aspx.
Cindy workosky
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link Doug! We will be having a full staff PD day in a few weeks, at which I plan on spending some time with the MS and HS staff going over the NGSS. These will come in handy.
|
|
|
|
It would be very helpful to have a document that contains the NGSS Core Ideas only, arranged by grade level. This would be the easiest, quickest way to compare a state's existing science standards to the NGSS content, to determine whether NGSS standards / Core Ideas will be taught at different grade levels than they currently are. Does anyone have access to such a planning document?
(Of course the DCI version of the NGSS is arranged by grade level, but you'd have to copy and paste the little DCI foundation box from each page to create the sort of document I'm looking for. Also very useful would be a version of the DCI / grade level NGSS turned on its head with Core Ideas at the top and a Performance Expectation or two listed beneath each Core Idea).
Also, while the Performance Expectations are broken down in sub-sections identified by letters, the Core Ideas (standards) have sub-sections arranged in un-numbered bullet points. Any ideas on how we could refer to these Core Idea sub-sections in our comments?
|
|
|
|
I just met with a group of middle school science teachers in my district to discuss which topics to teach at which grade level starting next year. My district is planning to use the NexGen standards starting next year. My school is one of three pilot schools in our district currently using draft 1 (now switching to draft 2) of the NexGen standards. My district currently teaches Earth Science in 6th grade, Life Science in 7th, and Physical Science in 8th. We will be spiraling next year. I am on the committee to try and help determine curriculum mapping and units/Problem Based Learning opportunities associated with draft 2 of the standards.
|
|
|
|
Karan-
NSTA is working on developing (in conjunction with Achieve) a database that would allow you to examine the standards in an number of different configurations. Please let us know any ideas you all have for how to view the standards.
-Ted Willard
|
|
|
|
Arlene-
As you might think, I've done some thinking about this. :)
Mapping the Disciplinary Core Ideas would be very similar to the maps in the Atlas.
In a similar manner, the Practices and Crosscutting Concepts can be mapped as well.
Finally, the Performance Expectations can also be mapped. Where the 3D aspect comes up, in my opinion is that each Performance Expectation is "connected" to a Practice, Core Idea, and Crosscutting Concept, but this "connection" is of an entirely different type than the arrows on maps. So I think of there being maps on four different planes. (1. Core Ideas, 2. Practices, 3. Crosscutting Concepts, 4. Performance Expectations) and that there are arrows connecting the objects on each plane, with a links between the planes.
Does that make sense to you?
-Ted
|
|
|
|
Ted, do you know if there is a plan for AAAS to modify their maps based on the final standards. It would be nice to know they were both aligned.
|
|