Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Introduction to NGSS - Next Generation Science Standards
Similar to Introduction to NGSS - Next Generation Science Standards (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Introduction to NGSS - Next Generation Science Standards
- 1. Introduction to NGSS Fall of 2014 Marie Bobias Bacher SCUSD Science Coordinator
- 4. The Guiding Principles of the Framework are Research- Based and Include. . . 4
- 5. NGSS Lead States 5 NGSS Lead States
- 6. Three Dimensions Intertwined • NGSS will require contextual application of the three dimensions by students • Focus is on how and why as well as what
- 7. Guiding Assumption of Framework & Standards: Meld Content Knowledge and Scientific Practices “Science is not just a body of knowledge that reflects current understanding of the world; it is also a set of of practices practices used to establish, extend and refine that knowledge. Both elements– knowledge and essential.” Science practice--- are essential.”
- 8. The Next Generation Science Standards are written as performance expectations Disciplinary Core Ideas Crosscutting Concepts Science and Engineering Practices
- 9. Scientific and Engineering Practices 1. Asking questions and defining problems. 2. Developing and using models. 3. Planning and carrying out investigations. 4. Analyzing and interpreting data. 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking. 6. Developing explanations and designing solutions. 7. Engaging in argument from evidence. 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. DRAFT Santa Clara Unified School District
- 10. Disciplinary Core Ideas Santa Clara Unified School District
- 11. Crosscutting Concepts 1. Patterns 2. Cause and effect: mechanism and explanation 3. Scale, proportion and quantity 4. Systems and system models 5. Energy and matter: flows, cycles, and conservation 6. Structure and function 7. Stability and change Santa Clara Unified School District
- 12. 2011 2013 2014 CA State Drafting California Science Framework Adoption State NGSS Rollout PD of NGSS Fall 2014 Next Generation Science Standards Design Phase Awareness Phase 2015 IQC Reviews CA Framework Sp. 2015 Grades 5, 8, 10 CST Science Test Sp. 2015 Public Review of CA Framework Summer 2015 2011 You can provide feedback on the CA NGSS implementation plan until August 25th Transition
- 13. 2016 California Science Framework the details about HOW to teach NGSS in CA Approved by SBE Jan 2016 Possible New Monitoring Assessments CA NGSS-Aligned Curricula Available 2017 Next Generation Science Standards Implementation Phase 2018 Transition Phase
- 15. Questions? Marie Bobias Bacher mbacher@scusd.net
Editor's Notes
- The organizations that are formally engaged as lead partners in the development of the NGSS are Achieve, NRC, AAAS, and NSTA.
- The Carnegie Corporation has taken a leadership role to ensure that the development of common science standards proceeds and is of the highest quality by funding a two-step process: first, the development of this framework by the National Research Council (NRC) and, second, the development of a next generation of science standards based on the framework (Framework, p. viii). This framework is the first part of a two-stage process to produce a next-generation set of science standards for voluntary adoption by states. The second step—the development of a set of standards based on this framework—is a state-led effort coordinated by Achieve Inc. involving multiple opportunities for input from the states’ science educators, including teachers, and the public (Framework, p. 1-2). As our report was being completed, Achieve’s work on science standards was already under way, starting with an analysis of international science benchmarking in high-performing countries that is expected to inform the standards development process (Framework, p. 1-8). Recommendation 3: Standards should be limited in number. The framework focuses on a limited set of scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas, which were selected by using the criteria developed by the framework committee (and outlined in Chapter 2) as a filter. We also drew on previous reports, which recommended structuring K-12 standards around core ideas as a means of focusing the K-12 science curriculum [3, 4]. These reports’ recommendations emerged from analyses of existing national, state, and local standards as well as from a synthesis of current research on learning and teaching in science (Framework, p. 12-3). Basically, a coherent set of science standards will not be sufficient to prepare citizens for the 21st century unless there is also coherence across all subject areas of the K-12 curriculum (Framework, p. 12-8).
- . . . as well as on nearly two decades of efforts to define foundational knowledge and skills for K-12 science and engineering. From this work, the committee concludes that K-12 science and engineering education should focus on a limited number of disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts, be designed so that students continually build on and revise their knowledge and abilities over multiple years, and support the integration of such knowledge and abilities with the practices needed to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering design (Framework, ES 1).
- Over 40 states have shown interest in the standards,[10] and as of March 2014, 11 states had adopted the standards:, California Delaware Illinois Kansas Kentucky Maryland Nevada Oregon Rhode Island Vermont Washington And Washington DC 26 states have volunteered to be lead states in the development of NGSS: Arizona, Arkansas California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. Lead states have agreed to seriously consider adoption of NGSS once they are complete at the end of 2012. Lead states have created committees that are responsible for reviewing and providing feedback about drafts versions of NGSS to Achieve.
- Dimension 1 [Scientific and Engineering Practices] describes (a) the major practices that scientists employ as they investigate and build models and theories about the world and (b) a key set of engineering practices that engineers use as they design and build systems. We use the term “practices” instead of a term such as “skills” to emphasize that engaging in scientific investigation requires not only skill but also knowledge that is specific to each practice (Framework, p. 2-5).
- These are the big ideas that that you will see in every grade from K to 12. There are learning progressions stated in the frameworks that start with basic ideas and get more sophisticated as you move through the grade levels. Imagine a tower of blocks…each year you build on the core idea, spiraling upward. If you miss a building block you will get a toppling tower.
- The crosscutting concepts have application across all domains of science. As such, they provide one way of linking across the domains in Dimension 3. These crosscutting concepts are not unique to this report. They echo many of the unifying concepts and processes in the National Science Education Standards [7], the common themes in the Benchmarks for Science Literacy [6], and the unifying concepts in the Science College Board Standards for College Success [9] (Framework, p. 2-5). These crosscutting concepts were selected for their value across the sciences and in engineering. These concepts help provide students with an organizational framework for connecting knowledge from the various disciplines into a coherent and scientifically based view of the world (Framework, p. 4-1). 1. Patterns. Observed patterns of forms and events guide organization and classification, and they prompt questions about relationships and the factors that influence them. 2. Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation. Events have causes, sometimes simple, sometimes multifaceted. A major activity of science is investigating and explaining causal relationships and the mechanisms by which they are mediated. Such mechanisms can then be tested across given contexts and used to predict and explain events in newcontexts. 3. Scale, proportion, and quantity. In considering phenomena, it is critical to recognize what is relevant at different measures of size, time, and energy and to recognize how changes in scale, proportion, or quantity affect a system’s structure or performance. (Framework, p. 4-1) 4. Systems and system models. Defining the system under study—specifying its boundaries and making explicit a model of that system—provides tools for understanding and testing ideas that are applicable throughout science and engineering. 5. Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation. Tracking fluxes of energy and matter into, out of, and within systems helps one understand the systems’ possibilities and limitations. 6. Structure and function. The way in which an object or living thing is shaped and its substructure determine many of its properties and functions. 7. Stability and change. For natural and built systems alike, conditions of stability and determinants of rates of change or evolution of the system are critical elements of study. (Framework, p. 4-2)
- Intent: Introduce the 3 phases The awareness phase represents an introduction to the CA NGSS, the initial planning of systems implementation, and establishment of collaborations. The transition phase is the concentration on building foundational resources, implementing needs assessments, establishing new professional learning opportunities, and expanding collaborations between all stakeholders. The implementation phase expands the new professional learning support, fully aligns curriculum, instruction, and assessments, and effectively integrates these elements across the field.
- Intent: Most of the work can’t be done until the framework is done. Awareness phase (introduce NGSS, establish collaborations, planning of systems implementation): 2013-15 Curriculum focus groups: winter 2014 California curriculum framework development: January 2014-November 2015 (pending State Board approval of the timeline) California framework public review periods: June-July 2015 and October-November 2015 (pending State Board approval of the timeline) California curriculum framework adoption by State Board of Education: January 2016 Instructional materials adoption: 2017-2018 Plans for transition, development of curriculum materials, assessment development, and implementation will likely take place throughout 2014-2017. We do not expect full implementation until the 2016-17 school year.