Forums

I wanted to start this thread to bring-up what I see as the most severe failure of both the first and now second draft of the NGSS, the integration of the “scientific practices” directly into the content standards. Hopefully some discussion will encourage the reevaluation of this policy. I had hoped that they would just go away and be like a bad nightmare. However, despite much criticism it was kept in for this draft. The meager response to these criticisms in Appendix B of the new draft is dismissive at best. The response: "[Science practices] specify student outcomes and not instruction" seems like a bad joke and can't possibly have been written by anyone who has ever taught a class. If they HAD ever developed a lesson plan they would know that instruction is directed by outcomes. You specify a given outcome then you design the instruction to achieve that outcome. If the outcome describes a specific "practice", the instruction will necessarily require the teaching of that practice. For example, if it says that students need to "USE A MODEL to support the explanation of how mitotic cell division results in daughter cells", then teachers will spend their class time making sure that students can USE A MODEL of mitosis to explain how it works. The problem, which the writers still don’t seem to understand, is that this is very limiting to instruction and curriculum, while apparently being arbitrary as well. Why will teachers limit their instruction to the mode of practice described in the standards? First, because state, district, and administrative personnel will expect it. They will expect that what's STATED in the standards will be what is taught in the class. Second, formal high-stakes tests will reflect the standards AS STATED and as usual teachers will set-up their classes to achieve the greatest success on those tests (ie teach-to-the-test). It is all well and good that the "intentions" are for teachers to use diverse "practices" throughout the year as needed, but if those intentions are not explicit in the standards themselves then standardized tests won't reflect those intentions and neither will the classes. More-so, if the expectation is that the practices will be used in a diverse way throughout the year, then why bother stating them so rigidly in the standards in the first place? Finally, some of these practices just don't even make any sense and appear completely arbitrary. For example, "Ask questions to obtain information about the role of DNA..." Even when I looked to the clarification for this standard it just said the same thing "emphasis is on the practice of asking scientific questions and obtaining reliable information to describe roles of chromosomes and DNA." Due to the the way a “scientific practice” was forced onto this standard, no actual content learning is ever described or required. The standard, as written, basically comes down to "be able to ask questions about DNA," but never specifies that anything actually needs to be known about DNA. Hopefully by the end, this absurd policy of tying rigid practices to content standards will be removed.

Nathan, While I am not sure that I completely follow your argument, I do see a distinction between content (knowing what) and process (knowing how). It also seems that we are moving in the right direction with greater emphasis on process. This distiction is alluded to in the section of college readiness. Yes we do seem to have better information on what constitutes readiness in math and language arts than in science. In my own view there is often too much emphasis on content, what a student should know and not enough emphasis on how a student should know. Complicating this picture is that fact that one can often cram content into a mind that is otherwise unable to grasp how that knowledge was created or why we know it to be the case. Personally I think that college readiness pertains more to how one knows (process) than to what one knows (content). If a student has developed sound higher level cognitive skills the content gaps are easily addressed, but if students have a bunch of content stuffed in their heads and have no idea why we know this, it is much harder to develop the higher level cognitive skills. In fact there is often resistance to the development of these skills. Over the years that I have taught chemistry, I have come to NOT accept responses without explanation. There is a no naked answer policy in my class. Whenever a student responds in class,whether the response is correct or not, I ask how do you know that? If the response is incorrect, I ask more questions that navigate to a logical inconsistancy and we work it out. If the answer is correct and they do not know why the process is much the same. To me college ready means, able to reason logically and conceptually. Developing valid assessment or incorporating this idea into standards conducive to highstakes testing is another matter entirely. So if you are saying that content standards are soemtime confining, I think I agree.

Pamela, I couldn't agree more with your entire post about the importance of process in the science class and the need to work on explanations and cognitive development. Personally, I think the content should be used in the service of learning the process, not the other way around. My concern is that certain process skills are so rigidly and arbitrarily attached to specific content knowledge. For example, if I find a better way to help my students to understand mitosis than through models, then in that case the NGSS would be limiting (especially if administrators and/or standardized testing are strictly aligned to the NGSS as written). If the NGSS isn't meant to be limiting in this way, then why bother putting such rigid expectation in the learning outcomes? As you said, it is confining. So why make it any more confining than necessary? In California we just have a separate section of process skills that students should be making use of and learning in every science class.

I feel more conflicted than Nathan about this but I have the same questions. On the one hand, I love that the practices are there because they turn the objectives into performance objectives, and I think those offer much more powerful and often much more flexible learning outcomes than we have had in previous standards. However, as I read the standards I can't determine the logic behind the choice of which practice was selected in some cases, nor are there alternatives given. So the requirement that a particular piece of understanding be demonstrated through a specific practice sometimes seems arbitrary and/or limiting. If we are going to keep the performance outcomes, which we definitely should, then I think there needs to be more clarity and guidance on how and why specific practices were tied to each of the core ideas to create the learning outcomes in the published standards, and on where there is flexibility in what practices can be used to demonstrate knowledge. Tom

Tom, Just for the record I think science process skills are even more important than science content knowledge. The problem is that these two areas need to be separated out in the standards. Can you imagine what English Language Arts would be like if content and process standards were integrated and then used for state/federal assessments? For example: Standard 1) Explore the use of symbolism in King Lear. Standard 2) Describe the authors use of setting in the Grapes of Wrath. So what happens if you want to explore symbolism in Grapes of Wrath? Nope, that's what we do in King Lear because the state test questions only ask about symbolism in King Lear. And they only ask about symbolism in King Lear because that's how the standards are written. If that's how the standards are written then that's how they get assessed in state tests, and that's also what administrators and others look for in a classroom. Unfortunately, in science, the problem is even more severe. The NGSS makes it appear that the “practices” are all isolated and independent. As if scientists do modeling just for the sake of modeling or they ask questions just for the sake of asking questions. Of course WE know that these are all tied together in the process/nature of science, but the NGSS never bother to tie them all together in an integrated standard that would allow us to teach and explore the whole process together. So we are just left with these discrete items and the hope that future administrators will understand why we aren't following the standards as written and are instead teaching a mishmash of various parts of them. Upon further research, I have found that the NSTA has already taken a strong stand regarding my exact concerns as seen in their review of the 1st draft of the NGSS http://www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate/recommendations2.aspx It is very disappointing that these concerns were not addressed in the 2nd draft. I hope the NSTA can throw its weight more strongly behind this issue before this mess spreads through the entire country's science standards.

The above link with the NSTA concerns to the first draft is dead. Is there a live link that will take us to that document? I understand the concerns about the seemingly arbitrary assignment of Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) and Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs) in the performance indicators. In the webinar following the draft release, Stephen Pruitt addressed this point, stressing that these assignments should not be considered limiting, but instead a starting point. Without such a "start," many teachers would default to just directed teaching of the content. The above notwithstanding, if the assessments are constructed specifically with those pairings, we all know where a majority of instruction will focus. If the assessments assume generalizable transfer of the SEPs and the CCCs, they could assess with other pairings. Does that make sense? All in all, given alternatives of no pairings or just describing the SEPs and CCCs separately and hoping for integration, my vote is for the former.

Sorry about the link, it sucked in a ) and a . which messed it up. It now works. Totally get your point about most teachers just doing the typical content thing if they aren't explicitly forced to do otherwise. It should certainly be a primary goal to use these standards to escape the trappings of content only science. Your description of how the "practices" might actually be used in assessments is completely reasonable in regards to their generalization. That therefore begs the following questions. If the "linked practices" are just a "starting point" and assessments are just going to broadly integrate these practices across the content anyways, then why bother being so rigid about it in the 1st place? If there is no real intention of enforcing these links, then they really just clutter things up and create the serious potential for future problems (esp with administrators who don't see any further than the standards as written or teachers who don't look any further either and sadly just teach it like it's written). This is a thorny issue indeed and I appreciate all the comments so far. If only everyone else viewed standards as minimums and not maximums this problems wouldn't even exist.

David I agree with most of your points. I think what's needed here to generate better understanding, and to avoid the traps these pairings will create when they are interpreted literally -- particularly for standardized testing -- is to offer either (a) a complete matrix showing all the practices that might make sense for teaching a particular DCI (not all practices tie well to every DCI at every grade level); or (b) 2 - 4 examples of possible pairings for each DCI (rather than just 1). The former is certainly time-prohibitive but the latter might be doable. At the very least there needs to be a clear disclaimer, probably with each page of such pairings, indicating that they are examples and not intended to be limiting. It sounds like Achieve is well-intentioned and has the right expectations, but perhaps doesn't understand the dangers here.

I am hoping that each state that is considering adopting the NGSS have a plan in place for how they will align them within courses required for graduation. I see much more inquiry going on, with several standards being used in conjunction with each other to complete different projects. If you have done PBIL in your classroom, this would be a great approach to apply these standards in crafting curricula. They are not intended to be "the curriculum" but as tools to design curricula that address the needs of business and industry, as well as institutions of higher learning, to help our students get the tools they will need to be competitive in their chosen career fields.

A couple of thoughts...
First, we need to remember that the performance expectations piece of the standard is a student expectation. Students need to be instructed in how to use models to explain the concept of mitosis.

The standards which consist of the performance expectations,the science and engineering practices, the DCIs and the Cross-Cutting Concepts are not curriculum. They are not meant to be all the instruction.

I think that if the standard says 'Use models to support an explanation of how mitosis works',then using the model is one way that students need to be instructed so they can explain the information around mitosis.

It does not mean that using models is the only instruction students receive around the concept of mitosis. The expectation is that using a model to demonstrate mitosis is one of a multitude of possiblities around instruction of mitosis.


I think using and understanding the importance of these practices is crucial to improving science education. The use of these practices will be a huge shift for some teachers in the field.


Those are my thoughts...

Kathy

Kathy, I think all of us agree that it is vital to teach the process skills of science. Our concern is that in this environment of ever more important high-stakes testing (now even our jobs depend on it) the current NGSS draft leads to 2 problems: 1) Why would a teacher spend instructional time teaching something that's not on the test? 2) Why would an administrator encourage or necessarily even tolerate teaching something that's not on the test? Your last comment suggests that the integration of the science practices is a way to force the average teacher to at least teach some process skills. I see 2 problems with this plan. 1) The teachers who are truly forced to teach these skills only to meet the requirements of the standards/tests won't go beyond what's written there anyways. 2) For those of us that already teach process skills and who do so extensively, this present draft presents a huge danger of confining/limiting our teaching. As you say, it might be the "intention" of the NGSS writers to have teachers go beyond what's actually written and tested, but in reality that's unlikely to happen.

OK, I think that I am very confused. I understand that these are performance standards and not a curriculum. However we get to "Use models to support an explanation of how mitosis works" I am thinking that the description of mitosis IS a model from the perspective that the cell has no idea it is going through mitosis. Mitosis a scientific model of what is going on in the cell that was conceived through human observation. Now I may not have in my classroom microscopes that would allow my students to observe this directly so I use pictures (models) or maybe some other manupulative (model) I created. So I guess one might say I modeled the model. Nonetheless, I personally can not imagine teaching this any other way. It seems obvious. So I guess I am not following the objections. On one level it is the model of mitosis that allows be to "see" it in the first place. Modeling is an abstraction of "reality" and is the basis for all science so if I were not teaching models could I even be teaching science?

I agree with a lot of the above posts so will not repeat too much except to say that I think the main reason they are integrated is to keep them from being a "science process unit". Instead the process should be embedded all along the way and they gave suggestions for doing it. Last week I was walking through science classes (I am a science coordinator) and in one week I saw almost the same lesson on the metric system taught in 5th grade, 6th grade, and 8th grade. Not a more advanced version...but almost the same thing. I think that is because the process was being taught in isolation. I think you bring up a good point that other processes or practices could be done in one area but I believe embedding as opposed to separating them was the point so that students could just see it as the way it always is...not just another unit.

I agree with the comments on the importance of process skills. To be honest, when I ask teachers, parents, industry, college why we teach science, they usually list these skills/practices. So, I see nothing wrong with units on process skills. In CT, students currently get a content and "inquiry skill" score on assessments (each question is double coded to allow this.. so a question about inertia and motion is content, but a critique of a motion lab results or technique is inquiry). This allows us to pinpoint schools/teachers and work on developing those skills... Our students have benefited from this emphasis. IF the PEs as written are "assessable" and they are organized as listed, either by topic or by DCI I am very concerned that assessments will ONLY be able to give us info on by topic/content... In other words, they would get a earth science score or PS1A DCI score, but not an overall practices score... So teachers/schools would assume to improve, all they will have to do is to "do the content better", which means (especially with Common Core ELA), just read more... and there goes the emphasis on practices that kids need.... ugh Richard Therrien New Haven Science Supervisor

Here in Hawaii we are also implementing the NGSS and it seems as though a lot of it, especially in science is looking at the human aspect or ecology process. We are also reworking our curriculum maps by department and are finding it difficult to keep the key concepts and also pushing the ecology portion onto our students in the time allotted. This is my first year teaching science and I am already falling behind my colleagues partially due to changing up certain projects or assessments to fit my teaching style, but I also feel that a lot of my time goes to reteaching or delving further onto a certain unit than i would normally just because I am worried about their first standardized test coming up in a few weeks. I do like and appreciate the fact that the NGSS are focusing more on higher level thinking and process, but I am finding it hard to find the balance between giving our students content and explaining the process to them especially when so much of our teaching is reflected on and criticized by how well our students perform on the state's standardized achievement assessments.

Mike, I appreciate your perspective on NGSS. It is really frustrating to see the same thing taught year after year in the same way with very little attempt at modifications to move students through the thinking process. In my Design and Engineering class I teach a lot through project based learning because as a STEM class, I have the freedom to do so. I have to admit I am a little scared of what education in the middle school will look like with the implementation of the standards. I am not concerned about the standards themselves, as many have said, they are guidelines to appropriate content at appropriate ages. What concerns me the most though is how administration is going to interpret the standards and then expect us to apply their interpretation of the standards to our teaching practice. Unfortunately I have heard way too many conversations about the curriculum of NGSS and as Kathy so adeptly pointed out, “The standards which consist of the performance expectations,the science and engineering practices, the DCIs and the Cross-Cutting Concepts are not curriculum. They are not meant to be all the instruction.” This is definitely a hot button topic. It will be interesting to see how these new standards as well as new teacher evaluation practices and criteria pan out.

I have run into some sections of the standards that I just don't know what to do with. Our district just had a PD day on Friday where the teachers spent all day looking at the standards and it was quite exciting to see so much collaboration and thinking outside the box they did. It will take some time to take it all in but if the only thing that happens is a rejuvenation then I would be happy.

When I first started this thread I couldn't understand why so many teachers were willing to forgo their own professional autonomy regarding their classroom teaching. I couldn't understand the willingness to embrace more of a technician role versus a professional role. After reading many of these comments, especially those by Mike, I think I understand. It would appear that a great deal of science instruction (especially at the primary levels?) is very poor and that many of our colleagues are unable or unwilling to teach science in a professional manner (aka make effective instructional decisions on their own). Therefore, some teachers would rather give up some professional autonomy in exchange for possibly better science instruction across the board. I'm still disappointed in our loss of professionalism and continue to hope for a different solution, but I feel like I understand the cause and the attempt at a cure.

I want to correct what I think is a misinterpretation of what the standards require.

The performance expectations describe what students need to be able to do at the end of instruction. They are not instructions for what teachers need to do during instruction.

A teacher could choose to never look at the performance expectations and just use the lists of practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts to guide their plans. I don't think that is the easiest way to plan instruction, but I mention it to emphasize the point that the performance expectations are instructions for developing assessments, not for developing curriculum.

Teachers still have full autonomy to decide how to prepare their students. They can use the particular combination of practice, core idea, and crosscutting concept that is used in the performance expectation if they want to. They can, if they prefer, use a different combination of practice and core idea.

I don't see how you can help students gain an understanding of a particular core idea without having them engage in multiple practices.

I hope this helps ease some people's concerns.

-Ted Willard

Ted, The NGSS supporters continue to use this line: "the performance expectations describe what students need to be able to do at the end of instruction. They are not instructions for what teachers need to do during instruction," but I refuse to believe that an actual teacher would make such a claim, especially in light of your other comment that "performance expectations are instructions for developing assessments." From practically day one of teacher training programs we are taught that ASSESSMENT DRIVES INSTRUCTION. NGSS supporters can SAY anything they want about mixing and matching practices and content, but when a teacher's job is on the line the teacher is going to teach directly to the assessments the students will be taking (that being the entire point of standards and high stakes tests based on those standards, otherwise why would teachers bother with them at all). In my state, when there is a standard that says students need to be able to interpret a graph there is a 100% chance that there will be a test question asking for the same thing. So I make sure to spend ample time in class on graph interpretation. If the NGSS says to "Use a model to illustrate how photosynthesis" works then I will spend as much time as necessary for the students to be able to do that. While I might be interested in having the student "Plan and conduct an investigation" to better understand photosynthesis, I'm sure not going to take away from class time to do so if I'm not absolutely sure they will be able to "use a model to illustrate photosynthesis". The NGSS designers have their hearts in the right place, I just don't think they understand the real world classroom repercussions they are creating. So unless someone can refute my claim that assessment drives instruction and hence that the NGSS will essentially drive/force certain kinds of instruction then I can't see these attempts at placation as anything other than words. -Nathan

Nathan- I appreciate your comments about the idea that assessment drives instruction. But given that reality (right or wrong) it seems to me that teachers would like to have as much specificity as possible. If the performance expectations didn't describe the specific combination of practice, core idea, and crosscutting concept, teachers would need to prepare their students for any and all combinations which is obviously a much greater challenge In addition, I think it is important to keep in mind that simply having students do the tasks described in the performance expectations during instruction is NOT the best way to prepare them for successfully engaging in those tasks during assessment of the performance expectations. The best way to prepare students is to have them engage in a number of practices to develop their understanding of each core idea. Ted

Ted, Actually I don't agree that the specificity due to the integration of the practices and content is in any way a good thing. The way this has been done in the NGSS reflects a poor understanding of the goals of learning. The goal should NOT be to have the students demonstrate their ability to use the practices in a pre-chosen context that they have already been taught about (ie models of photosynthesis). The goal of learning should be the application of knowledge to novel situations (ie models of any kind of content). Effective instruction should provide the students with generalizable skills that they can make use of in a variety of contexts. For example, students SHOULD KNOW how to "plan and conduct" ANY experiment they might want to, regardless of the content being explored. Therefore, if my students actually understand the science practices of the NGSS then they should be able to apply them to virtually any assessment question regardless of the content. It's not helping students or committed teachers by dumbing down the material into a pre-formed context just because it is easier to teach or easier to assess. What it's really doing is limiting our teaching options. However, given my colleagues previous posts I understand why this has been done. It falls under the idea of "better than nothing" since it appears that most teachers fall into the nothing category. And this is where we return to my earlier comment about placation through just words. Sure, I could theoretically mix and match things as I see fit in my classroom to help students learn the content and the practices. However, that's not how things work in the educational bureaucracy. When the original California science standards were kicked into full gear after NCLB it became the standards way or the highway. If you weren't teaching exactly what was written in those standards, then you weren't teaching it right. If those standards weren't written on every lesson plan AND on the board AND on any handouts to show exactly how what you were doing was a perfect reflection of the standards, then you were doing it wrong. Perhaps many teachers in this country haven't experienced this brutal standards focus and that's why they are so gung-ho about these overly narrow standards. In my case, if these get adopted in California as they are, I know I will be spending most of my photosynthesis unit teaching about models instead of planning and conducting investigations. If my job is on the line I'm not sure I would spend classtime on things that aren't on the test or on what administrators would likely see as not aligned with the standards (and I actually really care about my subject enough to give these possibilities serious consideration, unlike many who will just follow the standards as they are written word-for-word.) Sorry this is so long, but I'm really concerned about this. I've seen the chilling effect from the last batch of science standards and now there is an even greater push for lock-step uniformity. Thanks, Nathan

Nathan, I am really sorry that the new science standards have such negative connotations for you. You are very correct in that I have never had the experience that seems to be the norm for you and your colleagues. I was lucky enough to be part of a state team working on the development of the Next Generation Science Standards and I know my intent and the intent of the state led teams I worked with was not to limit instruction. In fact it was just the opposite. We were trying to provide ALL students with access to quality science instruction. Now when I look at a PE, I think..what scaffolding, what instruction do my students need to be able to reach that goal. I then have the opportunity to create science instruction that engages my students as well as leads them to meeting a specific outcome. I hope sincerely hope that my students will be able to generalize, to apply that learning in other situations. I think the Next Generation Science Standards will open so many doors for our students and their teachers. Kathy

Kathy, Thanks so much for your comments. I think we both understand where the other is coming from at this point. I had no idea that there were places in this country that weren't completely standards crazy! Thanks for the insight, Nathan

Nathan – I just came across this very interesting thread. I will stick my neck out and disagree that assessment drives instruction, which seems to be your main sticking point. It certainly doesn’t in my classrooms, whether for K-12 kids, or graduate level PD for K-12 science teachers. Rather, learning goals dominate my instruction. Assessment is used as a(n imperfect) tool to measure how well those learning goals were achieved. I feel most successful when that is 90+% formative, and 10-% summative. From that perspective, the K-12 Science Framework , not the NGSS, is the primary next generation resource to find learning goals on which to build instruction. The NGSS are “just” tools to guide the design of the assessments to measure how well those learning goals were achieved. Imperfect, yes, but I would argue in the same sense as Winston Churchill’s view of democracy: “the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” ;-) p.s. Btw, in my opinion, the linkage of SEPs, DCIs, and Crosscutting concepts, with closely associated assessment boundaries, is actually the main strength, not weakness, of the NGSS Performance Expectations. If we are going to be precise about language, note that they are no longer even called “standards!”

I am in Oregon and we are transitioning to proficiency based grading. We have just finished aligning our learning targets with the standards and I am completely behind Nathan's critique of the connection between the process and the content. In all of the HS Life Science Standards there is only one that includes "Plan and conduct an investigation...". If my students are only going to be asked to plan and conduct an investigation in the context of feedback mechanisms and homeostasis, then how do I justify including investigations in any of my other units when it won't connect with any of the standards, and thus, none of my learning targets? I have to teach to the standards. If the standard is limited, my instruction is limited. The only way around this limitation that I have seen is including the CCSS on following a procedure: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.9-10.3 Follow precisely a complex multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks, attending to special cases or exceptions defined in the text. Who knew that I'd have to use literacy standards to justify having my students complete an experiment in a science class? I am so disappointed that the NSTA recommendations were not implemented and I am horrified that it will likely be years before a new set of standards are created.

Carrie, Read in the "tombstone" from the HS-LS1 page: "Planning and carrying out in 9-12 builds on K-8 experiences and progresses to include investigations that provide evidence for and test conceptual, mathematical, physical, and empirical models. Plan and conduct an investigation individually and collaboratively to produce data to serve as the basis for evidence, and in the design: decide on types, how much, and accuracy of data needed to produce reliable measurements and consider limitations on the precision of the data (e.g., number of trials, cost, risk, time), and refine the design accordingly. (HS-LS1-3)" THIS is also part of the standards! Further, if you click on that text, you will be automatically taken to the page of the [i]Framework[/i] that outlines the justification and progression of "Planning and Carrying Out Investigations" as a core science practice. Not only will your students not be able to as effectively meet performance expectations relating to this practice (including in physical science, Earth science, and engineering) if you do not thread it throughout your life science curriculum, but they will not understand the disciplinary core ideas of life science (including those not related to the PE) if they are not able to engage in authentic investigations related to those DCIs. Not integrating this particular practice throughout the LS curriculum will also, I believe, weaken the context for the CCCs and thus your students ability to truly integrate these into their thinking about science. REFUSE to "teach to the test" as a naif would do given only the PEs. All standards are subject to horrible misinterpretations, and perhaps Nathan is right that the NGSS PEs may lead to particularly egregious misinterpretations. But I think it's important for us to remember the tombstone, remember the [i]Framework[/i], and remember that our curriculum should thread the DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs throughout, not simply in the context of the PEs (how dull that would be!) In Illinois we have long used the College Readiness Standards, and indeed they are THE driving focus of all high school instruction in my district (other than attendance and drop out rates, they are all that matter). This can be horribly limiting, especially when the standards are taught out of context, as is the temptation when so much pressure is put on teachers to increase test scores (next year, our jobs will be on the line). I do my best not to fall into this trap though. I trust that my students will learn more and ultimately perform better on the assessments if I approach my curriculum with authentic context, not simply the context of misused and abused learning standards. I hope that helps. Please do not feel like you need to justify having your students plan and carry out science investigations with ELA standards. You can, and should, justify it as something your students do regularly with the new science standards.

I'm glad to see that we are finally getting down to the nitty-gritty of the problem of implementation which was always my main concern. Carrie brings-up my exact concern and William makes a valiant attempt to "rise above the test" and do the right thing in order to address that concern. However, I think Carries' and my concern has more to do with justifying curriculum development in light of the expectations of administrators, DO people, colleagues, etc. When the common refrain from admins is to "put the standard on the board" or "put the standard on the lesson plan" in order to justify what we are doing in the classroom, we run into the problem Carrie is pointing out. We can't very well spend a unit doing "plan and conduct an investigation" if the standard we are referring to on the board or in the lesson plan only states that we are supposed to be teaching about models. I too would love to see a practical solution to this problem that would convince an admin who doesn't know anything about the NGSS or NRC beyond the PE's and isn't interested in finding out.

For the NGSS-aligned lesson plans that I have written, I've included "NGSS Disciplinary Core Idea:", "NGSS Cross Cutting Concept:", and "NGSS Practice:", and mixed and matched these in way that best fit with the goals and activities of the lesson. I've also included "Most relevant Performance Expectations", based on the DCIs, though I'm not sure that this is even necessary. The PEs that I included certainly did not "match" my lesson exactly, but there was some overlap. Again, I don't think listing the PE is necessary- for a lesson that involves students, say, discovering the basis and meaning of Chargaff's rule, just list one practice (ie: "Analyzing and interpreting data"), one CCC (ie: "Patterns"), and one DCI (ie: HS-LS1) on your lesson plan.

One final thought. The critiques offered by Nathan, Carrie, and others are substantial and relevant, and need to be addressed. There is a real danger that the NGSS will be misused (which isn't to say that if the NGSS is not misused, it is somehow above criticism). I recommend showing all interested parties, and especially administrators, the following essential section of the NGSS Front Matter (awkwardly split across pages 5 and 6). [u]"Use of the Next Generation Science Standards in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment"[/u] "The NGSS have been constructed to focus on the performance required to show proficiency at the conclusion of instruction. This focus on achievement rather than the curriculum allows educators, curriculum developers and other education stakeholders the flexibility to determine the best way to help their students meet the standards based on their local needs. Teachers should rely on quality instructional products and their own professional judgment as the best way to implement the NGSS in classrooms. The NGSS open the opportunity to include medicine, engineering, forensics, and other applicable sciences to deliver the standards in ways that interest students and may give them a desire to pursue or STEM careers." "Pairing Practices with Disciplinary Core Ideas is necessary to define a discrete set of blended standards, but should not be viewed as the only combinations that appear in instructional materials. In fact, quality instructional materials and instruction must be able to flexibly apply the science practices students need to experience their use, separately and in combination, in multiple disciplinary contexts. The practical aspect to science instruction is that the Practices are inextricably linked. While the NGSS couples single practices with content, this is intended to be clear about the Practice used within that context, not to limit the instruction." "Curriculum and instruction should be focused on “bundles” of performance expectations to provide a contextual learning experience for students. Students should not be presented with instruction leading to one performance expectation in isolation; rather, bundles of performances provide a greater coherence and efficiency of instructional time. These bundles also allow students to see the connected nature of science and the practices." "Finally, classroom assessment of the NGSS should reflect quality instruction. That is to say, students should be held responsible for demonstrating knowledge of content in various contexts and Scientific and Engineering Practices. As students progress toward the performance expectation, classroom assessments should focus on accumulated knowledge and various practices. It is important here to remember that the assessment of the NGSS should be on understanding the full Disciplinary Core Ideas -- not just the pieces. "

That was Nathan in the above post, there seems to be a problem w/ the discussion thread authors.

Has anyone read any articles or researched the integration of science practice in with content instead of being taught as content.