Integrating NGSS Core Ideas and Practices: Supporting and Studying Teachers’ ImplementationJo Ellen Roseman, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Rebecca Kruse, National Science Foundation;

and Cari F. Herrmann-Abell, American Association for the Advancement of Science

ABSTRACT: Realizing the vision of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) requires curriculum materials that integrate disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts to help students make sense of phenomena; are logically sequenced and pedagogically sound; and support teachers in guiding students’ sense making and monitoring their progress. The Evaluating the Quality of Instructional Products (EQuIP) Rubric (Achieve, 2014) provides criteria for estimating the likely success of curriculum materials in helping to achieve the vision of NGSS. This poster describes an 8th grade curriculum unit, Toward High School Biology, provides evidence (shown in the far right-hand column ) that the unit satisfies criteria in each of the three EQuIP Rubric categories, and provides preliminary findings to support the impact of the unit on teaching and learning.

INTRODUCTION: The Toward High School Biology (THSB) unit was funded to address students’ low achievement on topics that are essential for science literacy and further study of biology. Today’s middle students must be better prepared if they are going to succeed in high school and college level biology courses, which demand a solid understanding of chemistry. The National Research Council has called attention to the increased dependency of biology on chemistry, noting that this “trend will continue, as more and more biological phenomena are explained in fundamental chemical terms” (2003, p. 136). We developed an 8th grade curriculum unit to address the most common and persistent misconceptions students have about chemical and biochemical changes and their molecular-level explanations. The five years of iterative development and revision took account of the vision of Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) and NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013) for three-dimensional learning. The unit (a) aligns to physical and life science core ideas and crosscutting concepts about atom rearrangement and conservation, and (among others) the science practice of explanation to make sense of phenomena involving chemical reactions in non-living and living systems; (b) supports teaching and learning through sequenced activities and scaffolded tasks that guide students’ reasoning about phenomena and underlying molecular mechanisms; (c) includes embedded assessments requiring students to construct explanations of phenomena that allow teachers to elicit students’ initial ideas and skills and monitor their progress; and (d) supports teacher learning through print and online teacher resources and professional development. The EQuIP Rubric identifies a set of criteria that specify the characteristics of materials that are well aligned to NGSS and support achievement of NGSS goals through high-quality instruction and assessment. The rubric has three categories of criteria that can be used to examine (1) the overall alignment of a material to NGSS core ideas, practices, and crosscutting concepts; (2) the quality of the instructional support provided in a material; and (3) the extent to which the material provides support for monitoring students’ progress.

EQuI

P Ru

bric

Cat

egor

y I:

Alig

nmen

t to

NG

SS

EQuI

P Cr

iteria

EQuIP Criterion I.A: Grade appropriate elements of the science practices, disciplinary core ideas, and cross-cutting concepts, work together to support students in making sense of phenomena.EQuIP Criterion I.B: Lessons fit together coherently, targeting a set of performance expectations.

Wha

t THS

B Do

esEngages students in using core science ideas about atom rearrangement and conservation during chemical reactions; crosscutting concept of matter conservation; and science practices of data analysis, modeling, and explanation to make sense of phenomena involving changes in matter in life and physical science (Roseman et al., 2015).

EQuI

P Ru

bric

Cat

egor

y II:

Inst

ructi

onal

Sup

port

s

EQuI

P Cr

iteria

EQuIP Criterion II.F: A unit provides guidance for teachers for how lessons build on each other to support students developing deeper understanding of the practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts.EQuIP Criterion II.G: A unit/lesson provides supports to help students engage in the practices as needed and gradually adjusts supports over time so that students are increasingly responsible for making sense of phenomena.

Wha

t THS

B Do

es

Provides the following supports for constructing explanations:• Describes features of a high quality explanation and

illustrates each with examples first at the substance level (without reasoning from models) and then at the atomic/molecular level (with reasoning from models).

• Introduces criteria for judging the quality of explanations and gives students opportunities to apply them to judge the quality of examples (which include complete, incomplete, and flawed explanations) provided in the curriculum, their own explanations, and explanations of other students in classroom.

• Provides a table of features to help students organize their thinking.

• Provides opportunities for students to construct explanations in familiar and novel contexts throughout the unit.

• Provides opportunities for students to obtain feedback from the teacher and other students throughout the unit.

• Provides samples responses, including alternatives, in the Teacher Edition.

EQuI

P Ru

bric

Cat

egor

y III

: Mon

itorin

g St

uden

t Pro

gres

s

EQuI

P Cr

iteria

EQuIP Criterion III.F: Unit/lessons provides multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate performance of practices connected with their understanding of disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts and receive feedback.EQuIP Criterion III.C: Unit/lesson includes aligned rubrics and scoring guidelines that provide guidance for interpreting student performance along the three dimensions to support teachers in planning instruction and providing ongoing feedback to students.

Wha

t THS

B Do

es

• Includes formative assessments embedded throughout the curriculum that require the use of disciplinary core ideas and multiple science practices (e.g., analyzing data, using models, and explaining phenomena).

• Includes sesson analysis tasks (one per chapter plus unit level task) enable teachers to monitor students’ progress toward core disciplinary ideas and science practices over time as well as to anticipate, diagnose, and respond to their difficulties and misconceptions.

• Includes rubric/scoring guidelines for each task.• Provides teachers with opportunities to apply the rubric/

scoring guidelines to real student work during professional development.

#2. Changes during which new substances form are called chemical reactions. The correlation of increasing amounts of ending substances with decreasing amounts of the starting substances provides evidence that the new substances result from an interaction between the starting substances. (from PS1.B)THSB Lessons 1.2, 1.3

#15. Proteins are themain polymers making up animal body structures. Protein polymers are

arrangements of amino acid monomers. (from LS1.C) THSB Lessons 4.1, 4.2

chemistry

#8. The mass of a particular atom does not change during a chemical reaction, so a given number of that type of atom will always have the same total mass. (from PS1.B) THSB Lesson 2.2

#9. Because the mass of a particular atom does not change and because the number of each type of atom does not change, the total mass of the matter does not change during a chemical reaction even though atoms are rearranged. (from PS1.B) THSB Lesson 2.2

#17. When animals grow or repair, they increase in mass. Atoms are conserved when animals grow: The increase in measured mass comes from the incorporation of atoms from molecules that were originally outside of the animals’ bodies. (from LS1.C)THSB Lessons 1.1, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5

#16. The process by which proteins from food become part of animals’ body structures involves chemical reactions in which the proteins from food are broken down into amino acid monomers, and these monomers are used to build the protein polymers that make up their body structures. Atoms are rearranged during both the breakdown and building of protein polymers. (from LS1.C) THSB Lessons 4.3

#13. To build body structures for growth and repair, plants use glucose monomers to make carbohydrate polymers and water molecules. Atoms are rearranged during this chemical reaction. (from LS1.C) THSB Lesson 3.4

#14. When plants grow or repair, they increase in mass. Atoms are conserved when plants grow: The increase in measured mass comes from the incorporation of atoms from molecules that were originally outside of the plants’ bodies. (from LS1.C) THSB Lessons 1.1, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 4.5

plant growth

Toward High School Biology (THSB) Year 6 Content Storyline

#7. Atoms are not created or destroyed during chemical reactions, so the total number of each type of atom remains the same (atoms are conserved).(from PS1.B) THSB Lesson 2.2

#12. Plants use carbon dioxide and water molecules in their environment to make glucose and oxygen molecules. Atoms are rearranged during this chemical reaction.(from LS1.C)THSB Lesson 3.3

#11 Carbohydrates are the main polymers making up plant body structures. Carbohydrate polymers are molecules made of glucose

carbohydrate polymers have

numbers and arrangements of glucose monomers.(from LS1.C)THSB Lessons 3.1, 3.2

#5. During chemical reactions, atoms that make up molecules of the starting substances (called reactants) separate from one another and connect in di�erent ways ro form the molecules of the ending substances (called products). Because the arrangementof atoms in the products is di�erent from the arrangement of atoms in the reactants, the products of a chemical reaction have di�erent properties from the reactants. (from PS1.B)THSB Lesson 1.5

#4. Each substance is made up of a single type of atom or molecule. The properties of a substance are determined by the type, number, and arrangement of atoms that the substance is made up of. Because no two substances are made up of the same arrangement of atoms, no two substances have the same set of properties. (from PS1.A)THSB Lesson 1.4

#1. Every substance has a unique set of characteristic properties, such as color, odor, density, melting point, conductivity, solubility, and how it behaves (such as in limewater and glowing splint tests). The properties of substances can be observed or measured and used to decide

THSB Lesson 1.2

#3. A molecule is made up of two or more atoms connected

arrangement. (from PS1.A) THSB Lesson 1.4

#10. The measured mass of reactants and products is not always the same as the total mass. The measured mass changes if substances (often gases) enter or leave the system. make up these substances enter or leave the system. (from PS1.B) THSB Lessons 2.1, 2.3

This is because atoms that

#6. Very large molecules called polymers can be formed by reacting small molecules (monomers) together. Because monomers can react in two places, it is possible for each monomer to react with two other monomers to form long polymer chains. Each time a monomer is added to the chain, atoms are rearranged and another molecule, typically water, is formed.(from PS1.B) THSB Lessson 1.6

animal growth

Copyright 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Chapter #, Disciplinary Core Ideas, & Crosscutting Concepts

Students Observe, Model, & Explain These Phenomena:

1. New substances form during chemical reactions because atoms rearrange to form new molecules.

Why substances with different properties form when:• Vinegar is mixed with baking soda• Iron is exposed to air• Hexamethylenediamine is mixed with adipic acid

2. Mass is conserved in chemical reactions because atoms are conserved.

Why the measured mass of a system can change even though atoms aren’t created or destroyed when:• Vinegar is mixed with baking soda• Iron is exposed to air• Hexamethylenediamine is mixed with adipic acid

3. Plants build body structures for growth through chemical reactions, during which atoms rearrange and are conserved.

How plants produce carbohydrates for growth of their body structures that are different from what they take in from their environment when:• Algae produce 14C-glucose from 14C-carbon dioxide and they produce

18O-oxygen (not 18O-glucose) from 18O-water• Mouse-ear cress plants make more 14C-cellulose from 14C-glucose

when grown without herbicide than with it4. Animals build body structures for growth through chemical reactions, during which atoms rearrange and are conserved.

How animals produce proteins for growth of their body structures that are different from what they eat when:• Egg-eating snake eats only eggs but can replace its shed skin• Humans eat muscles but can also make tendons• Herring fish eat 14C-labeled brine shrimp and make 14C-labeled body

structures (mostly muscle)

Key phenomena for each THSB chapter. Each phenomenon listed in the right-hand column is observed, modeled, and explained using the core ideas and crosscutting concepts in the column on the left. The unit includes additional phenomena that students are asked to make sense of as they use disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and practices.

REFERENCES:Achieve. (2014). EQuIP rubric for lessons & units, Science v2. http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/EQuIP%20Rubric%20for%20Science%20v2.pdfNational Research Council. (2003). BIO: 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Roseman, J.E., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J. & Reiser, B. (2015). Curriculum materials for Next Generation Science Standards: What the science education research community can do. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

METHODS: Teachers and students who participated were from a Mid-Atlantic suburban school district. In Year 4, the unit increased support for explanation writing as described in the left hand column. In order to evaluate the effect of this increased support, we compared the scores for three explanation items that appeared on the pre- and post-test in both Year 3 and Year 4. The raw scores for each of these items were converted into percentages of the maximum possible score for the item. Effect sizes were calculated by dividing the difference of the means by the pooled standard deviation. To determine the extent to which students actually experienced these supports, we examined teachers’ responses to surveys about which activities they completed , modified, or omitted and we checked their survey responses against written work in student notebooks.

FINDINGS: Table 1(a) shows that the post-test explanation scores were significantly higher than the pre-test explanation scores for both years. Additionally, the effect sizes were large for both years with the effect size for Year 4 being greater than the effect size for Year 3. A limitation of this study, however, is that in Year 3 some classes did not complete the entire unit. Table 1(b) shows the results for a case study of one teacher who completed the unit with her gifted and talented classes in both years with effect sizes of 1.57 for Year 3 and 2.39 for Year 4.

Table 1(a): Effect of increased explanation scaffolding All Teachers Mean SD Effect Size

Year 3(N=378)

Pre-test 6% 0.08 1.46Post-test 25% 0.17Year 4

(N=545)Pre-test 6% 0.07 1.65Post-test 34% 0.23

Table 1(b): Effect of increased explanation scaffolding Case Study Teacher Mean SD Effect SizeYear 3(N=47)

Pre-test 7% 0.08 1.57Post-test 24% 0.13Year 4

(N=545)Pre-test 6% 0.06 2.39Post-test 36% 0.17

METHODS: In Year 5, teachers from the above described school district practiced scoring student explanations on embedded tasks and were given financial incentives to (a) evaluate explanations of a representative sample (15 of 100) of their students while teaching the unit, (b) summarize findings across the responses they sampled, and (c) provide feedback to students. For each of five embedded tasks, teachers submitted scanned copies of their sampled students’ explanations, ratings on each explanation using the scoring rubrics provided, a brief summary of findings for the sample, and a description of how they provided feedback. Two experts evaluated student explanations and each teacher’s summary of findings. A comparison of teacher ratings to ratings of experts was used to determine how well teachers used the rubrics.

FINDINGS: Teachers varied in their ability to approximate the scores of experts on students’ explanations on the embedded tasks. (Note that the expert calibration process identified problems with some of the rubrics, leading to more stringent rubrics than were initially shared with teachers.) The extent of the agreement between teacher scores and expert scores appears related to the number years teachers taught the unit (Chart 1). Other potential factors include teachers’ knowledge of the science content, their identification of explanation writing as an important practice, and the extent to which their school focused on argument writing in Common Core for ELA.

y = 0.1229x + 0.4917R² = 0.7554

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1 2 3 4

% a

gree

men

t

# years using THSB

Chart 1: Agreement between teacher and expert scores of student explanations as a function the number of years the teacher has used THSB

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Toward High School Biology is funded by the US Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, Grant #IES-R305A100714. Recent contributions of Rebecca Kruse were funded by the National Science Foundation Independent Research/Development Program. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.

The equation for the linear trend line and R2 value are shown on the chart.