Biocomplexity: Aligning an “NGSS-Ready” Curriculum with NGSS Performance Expectations

Puttick, Gillian; Drayton, Brian

doi:10.1525/abt.2017.79.5.344

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This attention to PEs has been argued to increase instructional coherence (Nordine, Opitz, Fortus, Krajcik, & Neumann, ) and to support integrated implementation of NGSS. It has also been influential in other work including systems for formative assessment (DeBarger, Penuel, Harris, & Kennedy, ; Harris et al, ), elementary curriculum that integrates science and literacy (Wright & Gotwals, ), and specific secondary topics like biocomplexity (Puttick & Drayton, ).…”

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much like many efforts to interpret NGSS using PEs (Krajcik et al, ), many articles report on alignment comparisons using NGSS as its referent and specifically targeting PEs or bundles of PEs. Puttick and Drayton () adapt this approach, again with referent to PEs. Starr and Krajcik () also look at bundles of PEs in their proposed method for comparing modeling activities against NGSS.…”

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The challenges of alignment for the Next Generation Science Standards

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alignment to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is essential in efforts to interpret the standards and to compare curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment efforts with respect to the standards. However, relatively little work has explored the alignment implications of NGSS. This article is a conceptual analysis that gives an overview of alignment definitions and methods, and then explores how alignment has been explicitly or implicitly described in extant work on interpretation of NGSS. The purpose is to highlight challenges that remain to be addressed for ensuring alignment for curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy under NGSS. Four challenges for alignment and interpretation research on NGSS are discussed: (1) What are the appropriate referents and comparands for judging alignment under NGSS? (2) How is alignment for integrated standards to be defined and judged? (3) What is the appropriate idea of focus in NGSS? (4) What role do learning progressions, and alignment with respect to them, play for interpreting NGSS?

show abstract

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenges of alignment for the Next Generation Science Standards

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their review of studies of NGSS alignment, Fulmer, Tanas, and Weiss pointed out two major questions for any claim of alignment to NGSS: (1) Which component or aspect of NGSS is being referred to in looking for alignment (the referent) and (2) How is the alignment between the referent and curricular material actually being judged? They found that most studies either used the performance expectations as referents (e.g., Krajcik et al, 2014; Puttick & Drayton, 2017) or one or more of the three dimensions (e.g., Capobianco et al, 2018; Kaderavek et al, 2015; J. Smith & Nadelson, 2017).…”

Section: Alignment With the Next Generation Science Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redesign or relabel? How a commercial curriculum and its implementation oversimplify key features of the NGSS

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) requires many teachers to drastically change their classroom instruction. Curricular materials offer a tool to support this transition, but there are questions about the degree to which available curricula truly reflect the shifts required by the NGSS. This study proposes a framework of four key elements of NGSS design that can be used to analyze both curriculum and instruction for alignment to the NGSS. The four key elements include phenomenonbased, three-dimensional, supports student epistemic agency, and coherent. We used this analytic framework to analyze one commercially available middle school curriculum and its implementation in two classrooms. We found that the curriculum and instruction oversimplified the complex vision of science learning required by using natural phenomena primarily as hooks or examples, creating lessons in which students engaged in core ideas and science practices but separately in service of different goals, placing the cognitive load on the teacher to do most of the sensemaking rather than the students, and having the teacher, rather than the students, build coherence between the lessons. Our work suggests that future curriculum should focus on asking students to tell a how and why story around a phenomenon to support threedimensionality, student epistemic agency, and coherence. Furthermore, future work should explore how educative

show abstract

“…In the wake of the appearance of the NGSS, a broad literature has sprung up to help teachers with the challenge. Since teacher professional development seems most effective when it is in the context of curriculum to be taught (Darling‐Hammond, Hyler, & Gardner, 2017), curriculum materials are seen to be crucial mediators for teachers' becoming “standards aligned” (Berk, 2014; Colson & Colson, 2016; Krajcik, 2014; Puttick & Drayton, 2017). This study involves changes in teachers' understanding of their work, and practical experience in trying new materials and new methods, evaluating the results, and refining practice as a result of experience.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Curriculum development has long been an important strategy for innovating in science education (Deboer, 1991), especially in the past half‐century of design and experimentation to transform science education to more authentically reflect science as practiced (Munby, Cunningham, & Lock, 2000; Schwab, 1962). Standards and tests provide only limited guidance to teachers and teacher educators about how to achieve the desired science outcomes; instead a common assumption is that classroom materials, their nature, choice, and implementation are essential mediating tools for the teacher (see, e.g., Berk, 2014; Colson & Colson, 2016; Krajcik, 2014; Puttick & Drayton, 2017). Unfortunately, there is insufficient research on how to design effective curricular materials intended to support the range of teacher use and adaptations likely to be seen during large scale curriculum implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of curricular adaptation strategies for implementation at scale

Drayton¹,

Bernstein²,

Schunn

et al. 2020

Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines and compares how developers designed two primary science curricula to support teacher adaptation and enable use of innovative materials at scale. The two cases-Literacy Science (a science and literacy curriculum for grades 2-5) and Science as Inquiry (a curriculum focused on matter for grades 3-5)-were selected because the curricula shared many key features, yet the designers undertook the challenge of designing for adaptation in substantially different ways. Data sources for analysis included interviews with design team members, the curriculum materials, and a range of project documentation. A comparative case study approach was chosen to enable an examination of key contrasting features within the context of each curriculum. Both curricula provide teachers with supports to enact an inquiry-based curriculum in ways that honor science epistemologies. However, one designer team designed explicitly for adaptation by providing worked examples that described a range of possible classroom and learner contingencies, along with alternative solutions. By contrast, the other design 9team sought to build teachers' pedagogical capacity by providing access to content and explanations from the cognitive and natural sciences. The paper examines how these design stances informed materials developed to support teachers' content knowledge, as

show abstract

Biocomplexity: Aligning an “NGSS-Ready” Curriculum with NGSS Performance Expectations

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

The challenges of alignment for the Next Generation Science Standards

The challenges of alignment for the Next Generation Science Standards

Redesign or relabel? How a commercial curriculum and its implementation oversimplify key features of the NGSS

Consequences of curricular adaptation strategies for implementation at scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About