Cassie Soeffing Cassie Soeffing

Next Generation Science Standards

Posted on January 16, 2013 - 1:25 PM CST

Tags: SMD E/PO Community | Education Standards / Benchmarks | Forum Posts

The final open commenting period for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is January 8-28, 2013. The Forums have put together these suggestions for reviewing and providing input on the Next Gen. Here is a link to the survey http://fluidsurveys.com/s/SMDNEXTGEN2/

The NGSS are an expression of desired student outcomes and not curriculum or instructional methodology. Your comments are valuable so please comment on the specific performance expectations as well as the broad design features or assumptions.

The Next Generation Science Standards are based on the National Research Council (NRC) Framework for K–12 Science Education, which describes the major practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that all students should be familiar with by the end of high school, and provides an outline of how these practices, concepts, and ideas should be developed across the grade levels. A draft copy of the Framework is attached. The updated draft will be found here: http://www.nextgenscience.org

• Review the Next Gen standards through a particular disciplinary core idea. The core maps are attached to this document. Review all the standards associated with a core idea through all grades. The NGSS represents a progression of understanding.

• Review the full set of standards (all disciplines) at a particular grade or grade range. For example, review a particular grade performance expectation to understand the progression that leads to expectations.

• Review a selected discipline (ESS, PS, etc) at a grade or across grades. Look across grades to see how the learning leads to performance expectations and how those expectations deepen understandings.

The Forums have hosted a Brown Bag webex led by Don Boonstra on Next Generation Standards, “Understanding the NGSS Through the Frameworks.” This was an informal discussion that covered why it is time for NGSS, what has changed, and why the changes have occurred. Time was given to explore the progression from science skills to NGSS Practices, and to examine the change in emphasis that included the addition of engineering and an altered role of inquiry and the nature of science. Here is a link to the archived webex (http://video.strategies.org/videos/2012/November/NextGenerationScienceStandards_DBoonstra_Nov15_2012/index.html)

The Forum E/PO NGSS survey http://fluidsurveys.com/s/SMDNEXTGEN2/ and will be available beginning January 16, 2012. All comments will rolled up and submitted as a group response to Achieve. There are open comment boxes for you to submit ideas not solicited by the specific survey questions.

You may also complete the survey at (www.nextgenscience.org) with further details available on the website.

The NGSS will be completed in March of 2013. Since the May draft release, the Lead States and the writers evaluated all feedback and worked on revising the standards. As a result, over 90% of the standards have been revised. In addition, the lead states charged the NGSS team with finalizing the definition for college and career readiness in science. The NGSS then went through a second round of revision to ensure the standards supported this definition.

An excellent source of information is available by Paul Andersen, 2011 Montana Teacher of the Year. Paul currently has 5 videos explaining the NGSS. His video series will grow to eventually contain 60 videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9SrSBGDNfU&list=SPllVwaZQkS2rtZG_L7ho89oFsaYL3kUWq

Immediately following the January 8 release, on Wednesday, January 9, at 7:30 p.m. (Eastern), NSTA will host a web seminar on key components of the second NGSS draft featuring Stephen Pruitt, Vice President for Content, Research and Development for Achieve. The 90-minute webinar will also include NSTA President Karen Ostlund. To register for the web seminar, click here: http://learningcenter.nsta.org/products/symposia_seminars/NGSS/webseminar14.aspx

Attachments:

Comments

  • Don Boonstra Don Boonstra

    Posted: January 9, 2013 by Don Boonstra at 11:49 AM CST

    Attached here are four documents that will be helpful for our discussion of the NGSS open for review in January.
    The first looks at all Performance Expectations (PE) organized by the Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI).
    The second organizes all Performance Expectations organized by large Topics that can be used to group several related PE's to facilitate the teaching process.
    The third document describes the Practices and how they play out at each grade band.
    The fourth document describes the Cross-cutting Concepts and how they play out at each grade band.

  • Cassie Soeffing Cassie Soeffing

    Posted: January 14, 2013 by Cassie Soeffing at 12:55 PM CST

    Hi Everyone,

    Helpful tip:
    If you use the search box on the top of the NGSS page with your key word/topic, it shows you where all those related standards are in a very easy to use way.

    www.nextgenscience.org

    Cheers,
    Cassie

  • Lin Chambers Lin Chambers

    Posted: January 21, 2013 by Lin Chambers at 8:41 AM CST

    Here's a concern from Don Duggan-Haas of the Climate Literacy Network that I thought was worth considering. If people agree you could include a comment on this in your response to NGSS.
    "Appendix J - Model Course Mapping in Middle and High School for the Next Generation Science Standards, lays out three different possible ways courses might be laid out to meet the standards. Here are the brief descriptions of those three models from page 4 of Appendix J:

    Conceptual Progressions Model (6-8 and 9-12) ␣ the 6-8 and 9-12 grade band PEs are organized so that student understanding of concepts is built progressively throughout the course sequence. This model maps PEs into courses based on what concepts are needed for support without focusing on keeping disciplines separate.
    Science Domains Model (6-8 and 9-12) ␣ the 6-8 and 9-12 grade band PEs are organized into content-specific courses that match the three science domains of the Framework: Physical Science, Life Science, and Earth Science. Since the Engineering domain is integrated into the other three in the NGSS, it was not separated out.
    Modified Science Domains Model (9-12) ␣ the 9-12 grade band performance expectations are organized into content-specific courses that do not match the domains of the Framework, but rather match a common high school course sequence of biology, chemistry, and physics.
    You may have guessed that it's the third alternative that caught my eye and inspired me to jot you all a note.

    While I recognize these course alternatives are just suggestions, I wish the set didn't include a suggestion that looks so much like the status quo in states without expectations of high school Earth science (that is, most states) and that might look like an opportunity to some legislators and bureaucrats to do away with it for some in states that have high school Earth science now.

    It wouldn't bother me if I felt what I regard as the most important issues of the coming decades -- climate, energy, and water -- would be well addressed as crosscutting issues throughout the course sequence of biology, chemistry and physics, but I'm leery that that will be done well. And, yes, I'm leery of any of these alternatives coming to fruition, but the others don't so clearly open the option to an Earth science-free high school science program.

    So, I'm writing to ask you to take a look at Appendix J and include comments on it when you provide feedback on this draft. There is an open response question on the survey for General Recommendations for Improvement of NGSS that appears on page 15 of the pdf of the survey, as the last question of the section, "General Survey on ALL K-12 Standards.""

    • Cassie Soeffing Cassie Soeffing

      Posted: January 25, 2013 by Cassie Soeffing at 2:01 PM CST

      I sure will Lin. Thanks!

  • Jessica Taylor Jessica Taylor

    Posted: January 23, 2013 by Jessica Taylor at 8:48 AM CST

    Here's a small suggestion. Reword MS-ESS1-d to include something about how space technology also used to study Earth.
    MS-ESS1-d. Apply scientific knowledge to support explanations of how technologies developed for manned and unmanned space exploration provide information about the surfaces of planets, "including Earth;" moons; and other solar system bodies.

    Jessica Taylor
    NASA Langley Research Center, Science Directorate
    Bldg. 1250, M.S. 475
    Hampton, VA 23681-2199
    757-864-6358

  • Michelle Nichols Michelle Nichols

    Posted: January 25, 2013 by Michelle Nichols at 12:41 PM CST

    Suggestion for MS-ESS-1-d: Apply scientific knowledge to support explanations of how technologies developed for manned and unmanned space exploration provide information about the surfaces of planets, moons, and other solar system bodies.

    Change to: Apply scientific knowledge to support explanations of how technologies developed for human and robotic space exploration provide information about the sun, planets (including Earth), moons, and other solar system bodies and regions.

    Why change: The terms “manned” and “unmanned” are very outdated. “Human” and “robotic” are much more descriptive of the types of exploration occurring. Adding the sun to the list is important because a large part of NASA’s exploration program is about studying the sun specifically, as well as its influence on the rest of the solar system. As for the term “regions” – the solar system does not only consist of objects like planets. There are vast regions, such as the Kuiper Belt, the asteroid belt, our heliosphere, and the boundary of our solar system that all do not fall neatly into a package such as “surfaces” or “bodies.” Also, the “clarification statement” even includes examples that are not surfaces, such as the “subsurface of Mars” and the “atmosphere of Jupiter", and the “geology of the Galilean satellites” includes their interiors, not just their surfaces. Finally, the clarification statement includes incorrect information at the end. The Mars rovers were not designed to look for biological activity on Mars. This should be removed from the clarification statement.

  • Michelle Nichols Michelle Nichols

    Posted: January 25, 2013 by Michelle Nichols at 2:04 PM CST

    Regarding 1-ESS1-b: The DCI for this PE is flawed and would perpetuate a misconception. "At night one can see the light coming from many stars with the naked eye, but telescopes make it possible to see many more and to observe them and the moon and planets in greater detail." Suggested change is to remove the words "at night" at the beginning. Why change: it is a misconception that objects can only be seen at night, especially the moon, and including “at night” at the beginning of the DCI makes it look like that it has to do with the rest of the sentence. While I would not expect students in first grade to know or investigate objects other than the Sun & Moon as visible daytime objects, it would help educators much farther down the road if we didn't start young students off with this misconception.

  • Michelle Nichols Michelle Nichols

    Posted: January 25, 2013 by Michelle Nichols at 2:05 PM CST

    Regarding MS-ESS1-c and MS-ESS1-e: The DCI that supports this PE is flawed: "Earth and its solar system are part of the Milky Way galaxy, which is one of many galaxies in the universe." The alteration suggestion is: "The sun and its solar system...". Why change: The Earth is part of the solar system. The solar system doesn’t belong to Earth and is not defined by the Earth. The Solar System is defined by the Sun. Also, “Solar” in “Solar System” refers to “Sol”, which is the name of our Sun.

  • Michelle Nichols Michelle Nichols

    Posted: January 25, 2013 by Michelle Nichols at 2:15 PM CST

    Regarding MS-ESS1-c and MS-ESS1-d - the DCI that supports this PE is flawed. "The solar system consists of the sun and a collection of objects, including planets, their moons, and asteroids that are held in orbit around the sun by its gravitational pull on them." The term "solar system" includes the word "system". A system consists of components that interact in a complex way, and boiling the solar system down to just a "collection" is very misleading. It also was not an inclusive list of components. Also, moons are held in orbit around planets, not around the sun. Suggested change to something like: "The solar system consists of the sun and an array of components, including planets, their moons, asteroids, comets and others. Planets and various other objects are held in orbit around the sun by its gravitational pull on them."

  • Cassie Soeffing Cassie Soeffing

    Posted: January 25, 2013 by Cassie Soeffing at 2:24 PM CST

    from Marc Hariston:

    I think you remember my wife, Becky, from back at the NSTA meetings in Philadelphia and San Francisco. She's elementary school science and gifted and talented teacher and she was looking at the new standard.
    Overall she really likes them, but she did find a problem. I don't know if she's allowed to comment, but she wanted to pass it along to you so maybe you could add this to the list.

    On page 9 of "E. Disciplinary Core Idea Progressions"
    <http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20E%20-%20Progressions%20within%20NGSS%20-%20FINAL.pdf>

    on the row PS4.A about wave properties it looks like the standards for
    3-5 and 6-8 got swapped accidentally. The 3-5 one says "Waves of the same type can differ in amplitude and wavelength. The interaction of waves of the same type is affected by the relative phase of the interacting waves."
    Becky says most elementary teachers won't even understand that while the
    6-8 one is much more conceptually simple: "A simple wave has a repeating pattern with a specific wavelength, frequency, and amplitude. A sound wave needs a medium through which it is transmitted." So that's why she thinks they got switched.

    Thanks!
    Marc

  • Michelle Nichols Michelle Nichols

    Posted: January 25, 2013 by Michelle Nichols at 3:58 PM CST

    Regarding HS-ESS1-d - The examples of things that are affected by short-term changes in the Sun is too specific. Space weather does affect human technologies (such as power systems) and societies (such as the ability for people to communicate with each other), but space weather also greatly affects Earth's magnetic field and all of these are linked. Suggested change: Analyze data on the variability of mass and energy outputs from the sun to justify the valid and reliable scientific claim that short-term changes in the sun affect Earth's magnetic field, human technologies, and societies.

  • Cassie Soeffing Cassie Soeffing

    Posted: January 29, 2013 by Cassie Soeffing at 5:06 PM CST

    Thank you to everyone who attended our Cross-Forum webinars hosted by Don Boonstra and to those who commented both on our survey and in this thread. Your comments were submitted as a group response at 3:30pm CT on 1/29/13.

    Attached is the summary document of responses.

    Attachments: