Читать книгу Proficiency Scales for the New Science Standards - Robert J Marzano - Страница 7
Оглавление1
The Evolution of Standards-Based Education in Science
In previous decades, educators in the United States called for K–12 science standards that schools could broadly implement across the country. These requests ultimately prompted the development of comprehensive science standards such as the National Research Council’s (NRC; 1996) National Science Education Standards (NSES) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993, 2009). These documents enjoyed extensive use and adaptation throughout the U.S. and often guided the development of individual state science standards (Colorado Department of Education, 2009; Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006; Minnesota Department of Education, 2009; Wyoming State Board of Education, 2008).
However, the NSES and the AAAS Benchmarks were originally published in 1996 and 1993 respectively. In 2010, the release of the widely adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts (ELA; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA & CCSSO], 2010a) and mathematics (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b) confirmed that these previous science standards documents needed to be updated. As Achieve (n.d.a) noted, during the fifteen-year period between the publication of both science standards documents and the CCSS, “major advances in science” warranted adjustments to K–12 science instruction. Aside from the demand for an up-to-date curriculum, new science standards were needed for at least four additional reasons.
1. Reduced economic competitiveness of the U.S., including decreases in U.S. patent applications and technology exports (National Science Board, 2012)
2. Comparatively low or average performance of U.S. students on international reading, science, and mathematics assessments (Fleischman, Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelley, 2010) and in terms of high school graduation rates (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012)
3. Low academic achievement of U.S. students in science (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012)
4. Low rates of scientific and technological literacy among U.S. adults (Miller, 2010)
The NRC (2012) added to the call for updated science standards, noting that “understanding science and engineering, now more than ever, is essential for every American citizen” (p. 7). As evidence, the organization pointed to “everyday decisions” (2012, p. 7) such as interpreting water policy or choosing between medical treatments—relatively common decisions for many Americans. According to the NRC, K–12 science education in the U.S. had failed to prepare Americans for these situations.
These concerns, among others, incited widespread re-evaluation of the way the U.S. approaches science education. Ultimately, these doubts spurred an effort to develop a new, common set of science standards—“the first broad national recommendations for science instruction since 1996” (Gillis, 2013). This broad initiative was named the Next Generation Science Standards* (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
The Next Generation Science Standards Initiative
The three-year process of forging the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) began with the partnership of four prominent organizations in the fields of education and science.
1. The National Research Council (NRC), a nonprofit organization that produced the National Science Education Standards (NSES) in 1996
2. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a nonprofit organization that produced the Benchmarks for Science Literacy in 1993
3. Achieve, a nonprofit education reform organization that partnered with the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO; 2010a, 2010b) to produce the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010
4. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), an organization of science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, and business and industry representatives dedicated to improving science education in the U.S.
These four partner organizations collaborated at various stages of the development process to create the NGSS. Table 1.1 depicts an overview of this process.
Table 1.1: Development Process of the Next Generation Science Standards
| Development Stage | Time Period | Development Steps |
| Conceptualization | 2009–2012 | • The NRC, AAAS, Achieve, and NSTA teamed up to develop the NGSS. • Achieve (2010) published its International Science Benchmarking Report. • The NRC (2012) published A Framework for K–12 Science Education after multiple rounds of revision. |
| Writing | 2012–2013 | • Using the NRC (2012) framework as a guide, Achieve managed twenty-six lead states and forty-one writers and reviewers as they drafted the NGSS. • Achieve released two public drafts of the NGSS (one in May 2012 and one in January 2013) for web-based review and feedback. • The AAAS, the NSTA, state leaders, K–12 teachers, professors, and scientists reviewed the NGSS draft and offered feedback. • The NRC conducted an independent review of the NGSS to ensure alignment to its framework. • Achieve published the final version of the NGSS in April 2013. |
Source: Adapted from Henderson, 2013.
* “Next Generation Science Standards” is a registered trademark of Achieve. Neither Achieve nor the lead states and partners that developed the Next Generation Science Standards were involved in the production of, and do not endorse, this product.
As shown in table 1.1, the formation of the NGSS proceeded in two main phases: (1) conceptualization and (2) writing. Here, we briefly describe each phase.
Conceptualization of the NGSS
Unlike the CCSS, which were conceived, drafted, and published in a period of about one year, initial writing of the NGSS did not begin until 2011, two years after the project’s inception. Instead, the process of creating the NGSS began with an extensive foundational period of research and theorizing that occurred in two stages: (1) international benchmarking and (2) creation of the NRC framework.
International Benchmarking
Achieve (2010) took the first step in developing the NGSS by using an analytical method called benchmarking. In business, benchmarking is the practice of comparing a company’s procedures and expectations to those of highly successful companies or to a set of industrywide best practices. This allows a business to identify which areas need attention in order to improve overall performance. Educational benchmarking applies this same principle to a classroom, school, or district. For example, throughout a school year, a district might conduct benchmark assessments to help teachers monitor student progress or modify their instruction. A district or an individual school could also perform benchmark analyses of high-performing schools to identify areas it can improve within its own system.
Achieve’s (2010) process of international benchmarking involved reviewing and evaluating science standards from other countries around the world. The overall goal of the international benchmarking study, according to Achieve (2010), was to “inform the development” (p. 3) of the NGSS. Achieve (n.d.e) summarized the benefits of international benchmarking:
International benchmarking is important from a national perspective to ensure our long-term economic competitiveness. Many feel it is necessary for American students to be held to the same academic expectations as students in other countries. The successes of other nations can provide potential guidance for decision-making in the United States.
However, international benchmarking does not simply involve copying the standards of high-performing nations. Instead, Achieve (2010) recommended that results of its study be used as guidelines during the process of standards development, rather than strict rules that must be followed or replicated:
International benchmarking does not mean that the United States should simply emulate other countries’ standards. In recent years, the United States has made significant strides in advancing the research base that underpins science education and also has its own exemplars. It is also the case that there are shortcomings in all of the standards Achieve examined that are equally instructive for improving standards. (p. 9)
Achieve’s (2010) international benchmarking study involved a quantitative and qualitative review of the science standards from specific countries with particularly strong performance on international assessments or of special interest to the United States (Achieve, n.d.e). The quantitative component included an analysis of the science content and skills in each nation’s standards, which yielded the four key findings shown in table 1.2 (page 6).
Table 1.2: Four Key Findings of Achieve’s Quantitative International Benchmarking Analysis
| Finding #1 | All countries required participation in integrated science instruction through the lower secondary level. Seven of ten countries continued that instruction through grade 10, providing a strong foundation in scientific literacy. |
| Finding #2 | Content standards in other countries focused most heavily on biology and physical sciences (physics and chemistry content taken together) and least heavily on Earth and space sciences. |
| Finding #3 | Other countries’ standards focused life science instruction strongly on human biology and relationships among living things in a way that highlighted the personal and social significance of life science for students. |
| Finding #4 | Crosscutting content common to all of the sciences (such as the nature of science, the nature of technology, and engineering) received considerable attention, as did the development of inquiry skills at the primary level and advanced inquiry skills at the lower secondary level. |
Source: Adapted from Achieve, 2010, pp. 2–3.
In the qualitative component of the study, Achieve (n.d.d) identified the following features of effective science standards:
• The use of an overarching conceptual framework
• Clarification statements to provide examples that clarify the level of rigor expected and connect concepts with applications
• Concrete links between standards and assessments
• Development of inquiry and design processes in parallel to facilitate students engaging in both science and engineering practices
Traces of all four of these features were observable in the final version of the NGSS. Nonetheless, the first element—use of an overarching conceptual framework—had perhaps the most direct influence on the development of the standards. It manifested as A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012).
Creation of the NRC Framework
In January of 2010, the NRC convened a group of eighteen experts in science, engineering, cognitive science, teaching and learning, curriculum, assessment, and education policy. Together, the NRC committee set out to create a conceptual framework for science education, which the committee described as
a broad description of the content and sequence of learning expected of all students by the completion of high school—but not at the level of detail of grade-by-grade standards or, at the high school level, course descriptions and standards. (NRC, 2012, p. 8)
In other words, the committee did not draft actual standards. Rather, the NRC identified the most important aspects of a competitive science curriculum and articulated these elements across grades K–12 with the intention that the framework would guide the drafting of new science standards.
To begin the process of creating its framework, the NRC committee contracted four design teams—comprised primarily of professors and university faculty—to focus on four scientific disciplines: (1) physical sciences, (2) life sciences, (3) Earth and space sciences, and (4) engineering, technology, and the applications of science. Each design team reviewed the “relevant research on learning and teaching” (NRC, 2012, p. 17) in its respective scientific discipline. The design teams also considered content and skills articulated in previous science standards documents, such as the NRC’s (1996) NSES, the AAAS’s (1993, 2009) Benchmarks, the National Assessment Governing Board’s (2008) Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the College Board’s (2009) Standards for College Success in science. Using this research to inform their work, the design teams drafted sections of the framework, presented them to the NRC committee, and revised the drafts according to committee feedback.
This process continued until the summer of 2010, when the NRC posted the first draft of its framework online and invited the public to ask questions and offer comments. In addition to collecting online feedback from over two thousand people, the NSTA and the AAAS coordinated focus-group response sessions and solicited reactions from science and engineering organizations and experts across the country (NRC, 2012). Over the next several months, the NRC committee used this feedback to make “substantial revisions” (NRC, 2012, p. 18) to the document draft. One year later, in July of 2012, the NRC published the final version of A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
Writing the NGSS
To begin the writing process, Achieve invited all fifty states to apply to become one of the NGSS lead states. In the end, the following twenty-six states joined together to draft the new science standards (Achieve, n.d.f).
1. Arizona
2. Arkansas
3. California
4. Delaware
5. Georgia
6. Illinois
7. Iowa
8. Kansas
9. Kentucky
10. Maine
11. Maryland
12. Massachusetts
13. Michigan
14. Minnesota
15. Montana
16. New Jersey
17. New York
18. North Carolina
19. Ohio
20. Oregon
21. Rhode Island
22. South Dakota
23. Tennessee
24. Vermont
25. Washington
26. West Virginia
Each state assembled a group of writers and reviewers from a variety of scientific, educational, and business communities to help draft the standards. The forty-one-member writing team included K–12 science teachers, experts in special education and English language acquisition, state standards and assessment developers, business and industry professionals, and workforce development specialists (Achieve, n.d.i). Though Achieve facilitated these individuals and the twenty-six lead states’ work, the organization did not draft the standards themselves. Instead, Achieve “played a similar role” (Robelen, 2012) to its part in coordinating the development of the CCSS. Also note that the federal government did not fund the development of the NGSS (Achieve, n.d.d). Instead, private foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Noyce Foundation, the Cisco Foundation, and DuPont provided funding (Gillis, 2013).
While composing the standards, the writing team conducted several rounds of review, feedback, and revision. Figure 1.1 depicts the general process and timeline for writing the NGSS.
Source: Achieve, n.d.c.
Figure 1.1: General timeline for the creation of the Next Generation Science Standards.
Emulating the actions of the NRC in the construction of its framework and the NGA and CCSSO in the construction of the CCSS, Achieve and the NGSS lead states welcomed feedback from various parties. As indicated in figure 1.1, the NGSS went through two rounds of public feedback: one in May 2012 and one in January 2013. The writing team also received feedback from specific individuals and organizations—which Achieve (n.d.b) called “critical stakeholders”—that they believed had a special interest in the NGSS. These individuals included representatives from the AAAS and the NSTA, state leaders, K–12 teachers, professors, and scientists, as well as experts in postsecondary education, state standards and assessments, mathematics and literacy, business and industry, workforce development, education policy, special education, and English language acquisition (Achieve, n.d.b). Finally, all fifty states had the chance to read and offer feedback on preliminary drafts of the standards (Achieve, n.d.g).
In April 2013, the final version of the NGSS was published. Several features set the NGSS apart from previous standards documents for science education, prompting writing team member Joseph S. Krajcik to proclaim, “You can travel worldwide and you’re not going to find standards like them” (quoted in Robelen, 2013). These unique characteristics as well as an overview of the initial reception of the NGSS are described online at MarzanoResources.com/reproducibles.
The Influence of the NRC Framework
It is important to keep in mind that A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012) heavily informed the creation of the NGSS. As stated previously, the NRC framework was written before the NGSS with the intention of determining the critical content the standards themselves should contain. The framework divided this content into three dimensions: (1) scientific and engineering practices, (2) crosscutting concepts, and (3) disciplinary core ideas. Table 1.3 lists the three dimensions and their component parts.
Table 1.3: The Three Dimensions of the NRC Framework
| Scientific and Engineering Practices | 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information |
| 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 |
| Disciplinary Core Ideas | Physical Sciences PS1: Matter and its interactions PS2: Motion and stability: Forces and interactions PS3: Energy PS4: Waves and their applications in technologies for information transfer Life Sciences LS1: From molecules to organisms: Structures and processes LS2: Ecosystems: Interactions, energy, and dynamics LS3: Heredity: Inheritance and variation of traits LS4: Biological evolution: Unity and diversity Earth and Space Sciences ESS1: Earth’s place in the universe ESS2: Earth’s systems ESS3: Earth and human activity Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science ETS1: Engineering design ETS2: Links among engineering, technology, science, and society |
Source: NRC, 2012, p. 3.
The first dimension included scientific and engineering practices, which were defined as “behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world” (Achieve, n.d.h). The second dimension contained crosscutting concepts, which were defined as concepts that “bridge disciplinary boundaries [and have] explanatory value throughout much of science and engineering” (NRC, 2012, p. 83). (We recommend addressing the crosscutting concepts through vocabulary instruction, as detailed in the book Vocabulary for the New Science Standards [Marzano, Rogers, & Simms, 2015].) The third dimension was composed of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), which were defined as ideas that “focus K–12 science curriculum, instruction and assessments on the most important aspects of science” (Achieve, n.d.h). Within the third dimension, the NRC identified four scientific disciplines: (1) physical sciences, (2) life sciences, (3) Earth and space sciences, and (4) engineering, technology, and applications of science. Each discipline contained core ideas, which specified areas of knowledge within the discipline with which students should become familiar. Table 1.4 shows how sub-ideas further divide each core idea.
Table 1.4: Core and Sub-Ideas Within the Four Scientific Disciplines
Source: NRC, 2012, pp. 105, 142, 171, 203.
It is important to note that the organizational structure of the NGSS mirrored the order of the core ideas from the framework listed in table 1.4, as content knowledge—disciplinary core ideas—organized the standards rather than either of the other two dimensions (scientific and engineering practices or crosscutting concepts).
Though the NRC (2012) defined the three dimensions separately, it recommended that “in order to facilitate students’ learning, the dimensions … be woven together in standards, curricula, instruction, and assessments” (pp. 29–30). To accomplish such an amalgamation, the NGSS used performance expectations. Each performance expectation in the NGSS was a synthesis of related elements from the three dimensions. As depicted in figure 1.2, each NGSS standard has three sections: (1) a performance expectations section, (2) foundation boxes, and (3) a connections section.
Source: Achieve, 2013b, p. 1.
Figure 1.2: Generic format of an NGSS standard.
The first section contains performance expectations, grade-specific statements that serve as an indication of a student’s proficiency with related knowledge and skills. These statements were considered the leading edge of the NGSS. Some performance expectations have clarification statements, which are specific examples of how the performance expectation manifests in the classroom, or assessment boundaries, which limit the scope of a performance expectation. The three foundation boxes below the performance expectation section represent each of the three dimensions of the framework, with science and engineering practices in the box on the left, disciplinary core ideas in the center box, and crosscutting concepts in the box on the right. The elements within the foundation boxes were eventually “combined to produce the performance expectations (PEs)” found in each standard (Achieve, 2013b, p. 1). Finally, the connections section relates the performance expectations from a given standard to the CCSS, disciplinary core ideas at other grade levels, and other science disciplines at the same grade level.
Figure 1.3 (page 12) shows the first-grade standard related to the core idea of Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits.
Source: Achieve, 2013a, p. 13.
Figure 1.3: Grade 1 NGSS standard for the core idea of Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits.
The standard shown in figure 1.3 contains one performance expectation—“Students who demonstrate understanding can: Make observations to construct an evidence-based account that young plants and animals are like, but not exactly like, their parents” (Achieve, 2013a, p. 13). All the elements in the foundation boxes pertain to the single performance expectation.
Performance expectation codes appeared to the left of each performance expectation in the NGSS. Each code identified the grade level, discipline, core idea, and performance expectation number of the performance expectation associated with it. The grade level identifications were fairly straightforward. A number indicated the corresponding grade level (for example, 1 meant grade 1), and K, MS, and HS aligned to kindergarten, middle school, and high school, respectively.
The following letter combinations related a performance expectation to its specific discipline.
✦ Physical sciences = PS
✦ Life sciences = LS
✦ Earth and space sciences = ESS
✦ Engineering, technology, and applications of science = ETS
Although the NGSS named the fourth discipline engineering, technology, and applications of science, we simply refer to this discipline as engineering.
The number immediately following each discipline abbreviation signaled the core idea within a discipline with which a performance expectation was associated. A list of the core ideas within each discipline can be found in table 1.3 (page 9) or 1.4 (page 10). The final number at the end of a performance expectation code identified which performance expectation within a core idea the code referenced.
Thus, the performance expectation code found in figure 1.3 (1-LS3-1) indicates that the performance expectation is at the first-grade level. The LS3 relates this performance expectation to the core idea of Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits within the discipline of life sciences. The 1 at the end of the performance expectation code identifies this specific performance expectation as the first performance expectation in its core idea of Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits.
Performance expectation codes appeared in each of the foundation boxes to allow the reader “to see how the information in the foundation boxes is used to construct each performance expectation” (Achieve, 2013b, p. 3). The codes also served as a way to navigate the NGSS. As seen in figure 1.3, the connections section refers the reader to 3.LS3 to see the performance expectation in the standard articulated at a higher grade level.
Summary
In this chapter, we discussed the process used to create the NGSS and the organization and format of the standards themselves. The multiyear process for creating the NGSS included two parts: (1) conceptualization and (2) writing. The conceptualization process involved international benchmarking and the creation of the NRC framework, which informed the writing of the NGSS. Each NGSS performance expectation is built from elements of the three dimensions in the framework: (1) scientific and engineering practices, (2) crosscutting concepts, and (3) disciplinary core ideas. In the next chapter, we discuss how the proficiency scales found in part II (page 55) developed from the NGSS.
