Supporting the Framework’s Vision for Science Education: Next Steps

1. Supporting the Framework’s Vision for Science Education: Next Steps Helen Quinn, Chair Heidi Schweingruber, Deputy Director Board on Science Education National Research Council

2. Instruction Curricula Assessments Teacher development Implementation

3. Questions to Think About • What is new about the Framework and NGSS? • What will need to change in science education (nationally, state-level, locally) to support the vision of the Framework and NGSS? • What are the biggest challenges to making these changes? • Where are the best starting points?

4. The Framework and NGSS:Quick Refresher

5. Three Dimensions Intertwined What is new? • Central role of scientific practices • Organized around crosscutting concepts & core explanatory ideas • Organized in learning progressions

6. What is New? • Reflects science as practiced in the real world – practices, concepts and ideas intertwined • Standards are performance expectations – NOT curriculum • Ideas build coherently across K-12 • Focus on deeper understanding and application • Science and engineering are integrated • Prepare ALL students for college, career and citizenship • Aligned with the common core state standards

7. Major Decision Issues left open • Middle School sequence • High school course options and pathways • For states that only require 2 years of hs science, what to include in the “minimal” sequence, what to ignore? • What pathways keep some AP options open?

8. Assessment

9. Some Assessment Challenges • Developing rich assessment tasks that evaluate the blending of practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts • Having the platforms and resources to administer these kinds of tasks • Scoring the tasks • Developing informative, useful reports of test results • Creating a system of assessment that satisfies different purposes

10. NRC Study on Assessment • The study is conducted under the guidance of the Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA)and the Board on Science Education (BOSE) • The committee is not developing actual tests or test blueprints, but will provide advice about best practices. • Determine what available techniques might be appropriate and where additional research and development is required to create an overall assessment system for science education in K-12. • Make recommendations about the steps needed to develop valid, reliable and fair assessments

11. Committee James W. Pellegrino, University of Illinois at Chicago (co-chair) Mark R. Wilson, University of California, Berkeley (co-chair) Peter McLaren, Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Knut Neumann, Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Kathleen Scalise, University of Oregon Richard Lehrer, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University William Penuel, University of Colorado at Boulder Brian Reiser, Northwestern University Nancy Butler Songer, University of Michigan Richard M. Amasino, University of Wisconsin, Madison (life sciences) Helen R. Quinn, Stanford University (physics) Roberta Tanner, Loveland High School, CO (engineering) Edward Haertel, Stanford University Joan Herman, CRESST Scott F. Marion, National Center for the Improvement of Education Assessment Jerome M. Shaw, University of California, Santa Cruz Catherine J. Welch, University of Iowa

12. A key aspect of the process is that the Committee’s deliberations and recommendations are confidential until the report has gone through review, is finalized, and is published.

13. Teacher Development

14. Challenges for Professional Development • Practices may be unfamiliar to teachers • Knowledge of crosscutting concepts and some core ideas may be incomplete for some teachers • Thinking about learning progressions within and across grades • Some teachers will need to make major changes in instructional approach • Making connections across disciplines and to mathematics and ELA • Others……

15. NRC Study on Science Teachers’ Learning • The committee will identify teachers’ learning needs and current opportunities for learning • Considering the demands posed by the NGSS, the committee will develop guidance for providing opportunities to support teachers’ learning • The study is conducted under the guidance of Board on Science Education (BOSE) and the NRC’s Teacher Advisory Council • The study is funded by the Merck Corporation Foundation.

16. Charge to the Committee • identify learning needs for teachers throughout their careers and how these needs might differ depending on school level (elementary, middle and high school). • characterize the current state of the learning opportunities and support for learning for teachers. • consider how school and district contexts shape teachers’ learning opportunities and limit or promote teachers’ efforts to implement new classroom practices. • develop guidance for schools and districts for how best to support teachers’ learning and how to implement successful programs for professional development • develop a research agenda for future work on professional development continuums in science.

17. Committee Members’ Primary Areas of Expertise • Research on professional development and induction • Professional development provider • Science education • Diverse learners and implications for teachers • The context of teachers’ work • School or district leadership, organization, and culture • Education policy as it relates to teachers • Classroom teaching

18. Committee • Suzanne Wilson (Chair), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI • Betsy Davis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan • Zoe Evans, Central Middle School, Carrollton, GA • Adam Gamoran, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI • Kris Gutiérrez, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO • Paula Hooper, Institute for Inquiry at the Exploratorium, San Francisco, CA • Judith Warren Little, University of California, Berkeley, CA • Julie Luft, University of Georgia, Athens, GA • Barbara Miller, Education Development Center, Waltham, MA • Kathleen Roth, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO • Irwin Shapiro, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA • Patrick Shields, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA • Warren Simmons, Brown University, Providence, RI • Mark Windschitl, University of Washington, Seattle, WA • James Wyckoff, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA • Carla Zembal-Saul, Pennsylvania State University

19. Timeline • October 30-31, 2012: Committee Meeting, Washington DC • February 6-8, 2013: Committee Meeting, Washington DC • May 15-16, 2013: Committee Meeting, Irvine, CA • September 12-13, 2013: Public Workshop and Committee Meeting, Washington DC • January 30-31, 2014: Committee Meeting, Washington DC (no public sessions)

20. Again, the committee’s deliberations and recommendations are confidential until the report has gone through review, is finalized, and is published. So……..

21. Curriculum & Instruction

22. Curriculum and Instruction • Not separate treatment of “content” and “inquiry” (No “Chapter 1”) • Curriculum and instruction needs to do more than present and assess scientific ideas – they need to involve learners in using scientific practices to develop and apply the scientific ideas.

23. Standards are not Curriculum • Need for coherent development of ideas over time -- not disconnected lessons • Need for multiple experiences with each practice Argues for some very thoughtful work to develop and sequence curriculum units of study (with embedded formative assessment opportunities)

24. Curriculum and Instruction • Organize curriculum materials around limited number of core ideas: depth and coherence, not breadth of coverage. • Core ideas should be revisited in increasing depth, and sophistication across years. Focus on connections: • help learners build sophisticated ideas from simpler explanations, using evidence. • Use cross-cutting concepts to make connections between scientific disciplines • Curriculum materials should involve learners in practices that develop, use, and refine the scientific ideas, not “explain” the science for students.

25. Creating a Scientific Community in the Classroom • Students carry out investigations, interpret data, discuss findings, create representations and models, argue based on evidence, present at monthly conferences….

26. Some Challenges for Curriculum and Instruction • Build coherently in a given grade and across grades • Provide time for students to engage in the practices and explore ideas in depth • Provide support for students to become proficient with the practices • Create opportunities for students to interact with each other in productive ways • How to integrate engineering • How to support and include Language Learners

27. BOSE Workshop on Literacy and Science Practices(coming soon) Coordinating Common Core “Literacy in Science” With NGSS literacy and language requirements Eg “Obtain, evaluate and communicate information” What do science teachers need to know about language ? What do language arts teachers need to know about science communication genres?

28. Science and Language Learningell.stanford.edu • In the science classroom every student is learning new language • Attention to and support for language learning and language challenges in science benefits all • Practices are discourse rich • Inclusive classroom science discourse a language learning opportunity a classroom culture shift

29. Information about BOSE & BOSE projects: http://nas.edu/BOSEAccess to all NRC publications:www.nap.eduFree PDF version of A Framework for K-12 Science Education is available at:http://tinyurl.com/ScienceFrameworkhttp://tinyurl.com/ScienceBrief (report brief)