Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 331
A
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND
SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS
T
he committee recognized early in the process that obtaining feedback from
a broad range of stakeholders and experts would be crucial to the frame-
work’s success. For this reason, we secured permission from the National
Research Council (NRC) to release a draft version of the framework for public
comment. The draft underwent an expedited NRC review in early July 2010 and
was posted online on July 12 for a 3-week period.
This draft did not include all of the chapters intended for the final volume,
although it did thoroughly address all three dimensions of the framework: cross-
cutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and scientific and engineering practices.
Individuals could submit comments through an online survey. In addition, NRC
staff contacted over 40 organizations in science, engineering, and education to
notify them of the public comment period; they were asked to hold focus groups
for gathering feedback from their members or to notify members of the oppor-
tunity to comment online. Notably, the NRC worked closely with the National
Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Achieve, Inc., and the Council of State Science Supervisors to facilitate the
public input process. Finally, the committee asked a number of disciplinary experts
to provide detailed feedback on the draft from their own particular perspectives.
During the 3-week public comment period, the committee received exten-
sive input from both individuals and groups. Overall, more than 2,000 people
responded to the online survey. Over 30 focus groups were held around the coun-
try by 24 organizations, with a total of over 400 participants. The committee also
received letters from key individuals and organizations. Lists of the organizations
331
OCR for page 332
that participated in the focus groups and those that submitted letters are provided
at the end of this summary.
NRC staff and the committee chair reviewed this input, developed summa-
ries identifying the major issues raised, and outlined possible revisions. Committee
members then evaluated these summaries and potential revisions, and they had the
opportunity to examine the public feedback in detail. After discussions at its fifth
and sixth meetings, the committee made substantial revisions to the framework
based on the feedback.
We summarize this feedback below and describe the revisions that were
made in response. In cases in which the committee chose not to revise or to make
only a limited revision, we explain why this choice was made. We organize the
discussion into two sections: overarching issues, which pertain to the draft frame-
work as a whole, and issues relating specifically to any of the framework’s three
dimensions or its learning progressions.
OVERARCHING ISSUES
In general, the feedback about the draft framework indicated support for the over-
all approach. In the online surveys, many individuals commented that they were
impressed with the document and thought it provided a good next step toward
refining standards for K-12 science education. At the same time, there were many
critiques and suggestions for how to improve it. In looking across all of the modes
of gathering feedback, some key overarching issues emerged:
concerns about the purpose, audience, and voice;
•
suggestions of additional fields or topics to include;
•
how best to incorporate and describe ideas in engineering and technology;
•
concerns that there was too much material;
•
lack of guidance or examples about how to convey the integration of cross-
•
cutting concepts, core ideas, and practices;
insufficient indication of connections to other topics or issues, such as math-
•
ematics and literacy;
need for a stronger statement about science for all and insufficient attention
•
to diversity and equity;
lack of “standards” for curriculum, programs, assessment, and professional
•
development similar to those that were included in the National Science
Education Standards [1]; and
lack of attention to the challenges inherent in implementing the framework.
•
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
332
OCR for page 333
Purpose, Audience, and Voice
The feedback suggested some confusion about the purpose of the document and
the intended audience. Several focus groups suggested that a coherent vision
across the document was lacking. Some individuals thought Chapter 1 provided
a good summary of key principles, and others thought the vision was too diffuse.
Across all of the modes of response and across all kinds of individuals, people
commented that the promise of the first chapter was not consistently delivered in
the rest of the document. Some commenters said explicitly that the framework had
gone too far toward standards. Others said that the document would be difficult
for teachers to use.
Several comments from individuals and summaries from focus groups called
for more discussion of the goals of science education and a stronger argument
in the first chapter for why science education is important. There was confu-
sion about whether the document was outlining goals for all students or only for
college-bound students.
Commenters were divided on the tone of the document and its quality of
writing. Some thought it was well written; others thought it needed to be entirely
rewritten in more accessible language.
Response
The committee made several revisions aimed at giving the framework greater
focus, clarifying its goals and audience(s), and eliminating differences in tone and
writing style. We reframed the introductory chapter, incorporated an argument for
the importance of science education, provided a concise discussion of the goals
for science education for all students, and added an explicit vision statement. Also,
we shifted material that described the theoretical and empirically based assump-
tions guiding the framework to a second chapter.
To enable readers to identify the major tasks for standards developers in
translating the framework into standards, we added Chapter 12: Guidance for
Standards Developers. In that chapter, the committee presents a set of 13 recom-
mendations that lay out the steps that standards developers should take and the
considerations they need to keep in mind as they translate the framework into
standards. Finally, the report was edited extensively to achieve a more uniform
style and voice for improved readability.
333
Appendix A
OCR for page 334
Suggestions of Fields or Topics to Be Included
Several stakeholder groups voiced strong concerns that content relevant to their
disciplines was either underrepresented or left out entirely. The strongest concerns
were voiced by organizations and individuals affiliated with the behavioral and
social sciences, computer sciences, and ocean sciences. Each of these communities
mounted some kind of formal response, including letters from professional societ-
ies and campaigns to encourage their membership to respond to the online survey.
There also was mention of health, but this involved a less organized response.
Behavioral and Social Sciences. The behavioral and social sciences com-
munity made a very strong request for inclusion in the framework. Community
members wanted to see these fields acknowledged throughout the document
as legitimate elements of the overall scientific enterprise. They also wanted to
see a separate set of core ideas developed for the behavioral and social sciences
and included in the framework. They pointed out that courses related to the
behavioral and social sciences are already included at the secondary level (e.g.,
Advanced Placement psychology). Acknowledging that developing a separate set
of core ideas would take time, they asked that the framework’s project time line
be extended accordingly. They also noted many places where the social sciences
could inform issues that were raised, particularly in discussions related to science,
technology, and society.
Computer Science. We received a similar request for inclusion from the com-
puter science community. Some of its members noted that computing and com-
putational thinking are now an integral part of science and therefore constitute
essential knowledge and practices for students who might pursue careers in science
or engineering. They pointed out that computer science and programming courses
are already part of the K-12 curriculum, although they are not usually identified
as part of the science curriculum.
Ocean Science. This community pointed to the framework’s lack of specific
attention to the ocean, it suggested a greater focus on earth systems than was cap-
tured in the draft, and it offered very concrete and detailed suggestions for revi-
sions. The community developed some standard wording for members to use in
filling out the survey. For example, there was an argument for greater inclusion of
ocean sciences in the earth and space sciences section.
Nature of Science. Many of those who provided comments thought that the
“nature of science” needed to be made an explicit topic or idea. They noted that it
would not emerge simply through engaging with practices.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
334
OCR for page 335
Response
Behavioral and Social Sciences. The committee considers the behavioral and
social sciences to be part of science, but for a number of reasons we think it inap-
propriate at this time to include them as a separate disciplinary area with its own
set of core ideas. The primary reason is that these subjects are not currently part
of what is considered the K-12 science curriculum. To include them here would
speak to a major reorganization of K-12 schooling, which would go far beyond
the committee’s charge and, indeed, the professional expertise of the committee.
In grades K-8, topics related to the behavioral and social sciences are typically
covered in social studies, although they are not necessarily taught from a scien-
tific perspective. At the secondary level, there are courses that do teach behavioral
and social sciences topics from a scientific perspective—for example, Advanced
Placement psychology. However, the framework as currently structured does not
prevent these courses from being taught. In fact, the committee considers them
appropriate science courses for extending and enriching the foundational science
education described in the framework.
The secondary reason is that the committee has a responsibility to meet its
charge and to maintain as closely as possible the intended time line of its work
in order to inform the science standards development efforts of Achieve, Inc.
Undertaking the task of identifying and articulating the core ideas in the behav-
ioral and social sciences would be impossible within the available time and budget
constraints. In the committee’s judgment, this is a task for another group.
Although the committee did not think it was appropriate to include the
behavioral and social sciences as a separate discipline, we did make efforts to dis-
cuss them explicitly throughout the document and particularly to identify places
where they intersect with the framework’s three dimensions. More specifically, the
following changes were made in response to this input:
In the Introduction, we acknowledge that the behavioral and social sci-
•
ences are part of science and that they are not broadly represented in this
framework.
We revised language throughout the report to note the role of behavioral
•
and social sciences expertise for addressing such issues as the connections
among science, technology, and society.
We included some behavioral and social sciences examples in the descrip-
•
tions of science and in the chapters on crosscutting concepts and scientific
and engineering practices.
335
Appendix A
OCR for page 336
We added more emphasis on behavior and psychology, especially cognitive
•
science, in the life sciences chapter, including a component idea on informa-
tion processing under LS1 and a component idea on social interactions and
group behavior under LS2.
Computer Science. In considering whether and how to include topics related to
computer science, the committee noted that such concepts are more typically
included under mathematics; we acknowledge, however, that the mathematics
common core does not include such topics as algorithms or algorithmic approach-
es to computation and includes very little about the use of computational tools.
Although the committee determined that it was not appropriate to include
computer science in the framework as a separate discipline with its own set of
core ideas, in the revisions of the draft we made an effort to stress the impor-
tance both of computational thinking and of the use of computers as scientific
tools, particularly in Chapter 3: Scientific and Engineering Practices. One of the
eight major practices is labeled “Using Mathematics, Information and Computer
Technology, and Computational Thinking,” and the chapter stresses the impor-
tance of the application of these skills throughout science learning. The chapter
also includes more emphasis on computers as tools for modeling, data collection
and recording, and data analysis.
Although the framework does not include material usually covered by
courses under the title “computer science,” we stress that this choice in no way
diminishes the importance either of general computer literacy for all students or of
options for advanced computer science courses at the high school level.
Ocean Science. The earth and space sciences core ideas and grade band endpoints
were revised to include more attention to the ocean whenever possible and to shift
to more of a focus on earth systems.
Nature of Science. The committee added a section to the end of Chapter 4 to
emphasize the need to reflect on scientific and engineering practices as a means to
deepen students’ understanding of the nature of science.
Inclusion of Engineering and Technology
The inclusion of engineering and technology and their own set of core ideas gener-
ated a substantial amount of feedback. Many indicated that they were pleased to
see engineering and technology given an explicit place in K-12 science education.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
336
OCR for page 337
However, there were numerous concerns, including the amount of space devoted
to engineering and technology, the kinds of core ideas included, and the capacity
of the K-12 science education system to get these areas right. Some individuals
commented that including engineering and technology could present a problem:
given that a goal of the framework is to cut the amount of material to be covered
in K-12 science, it would be ironic if such inclusion expanded the amount of mate-
rial considerably.
One key issue that appeared frequently in the comments was whether engi-
neering and technology were well defined in the framework. This suggested the
need to be more explicit about how engineering and technology are related to
each other and to the natural sciences. Thoughtful advice from the experts we
consulted was that some of the engineering and technology ideas incorporated ele-
ments that would be more appropriately placed in practices.
A letter to the committee from the International Technology and Engineering
Educators Association raised a number of issues related to including engineer-
ing and technology in the science framework. The association argued that science
teachers might not have sufficient background to teach the new material and,
moreover, that there is currently no agreement in the field about what the core
ideas in engineering and technology should be. The letter also pointed out that a
corps of technology teachers at the secondary level already exists.
A related issue among respondents was treatment of the applications of sci-
ence (such as medicine, public health, and agriculture) and their links to engineer-
ing and technology. Some individuals suggested that this topic needed more atten-
tion in the draft framework. Experts we asked to review the draft also pointed out
that discussion of applications of science was mostly absent there.
Response
The committee deliberated extensively on the best way to respond to these con-
cerns and chose to make significant revisions. We trimmed the material included
under engineering and technology and focused on design as one of the major ele-
ments of engineering. We did this because design is the one core idea of engineer-
ing around which there appears to be consensus [2]. There also is evidence that
engaging in design activities can enhance students’ understanding of science [3].
Elements of design are now represented in Chapter 3: Scientific
and Engineering Practices and also under the first core idea in Chapter 8:
Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science. The second core idea,
which stresses the connections among engineering, technology, science, and
337
Appendix A
OCR for page 338
society, discusses applications of science as well. Definitions of engineering,
technology, and applications of science and of the relationships among them are
clearly stated. These definitions then inform how engineering and technology are
treated throughout the framework.
Too Much Material
Many individuals and organizations indicated that the draft framework still
contained too much material, and some thought that the committee had not suc-
ceeded in making any reduction compared with previous documents. There were
particular concerns not only about the amount of the material but also about its
difficulty for the earlier grades. People also expressed trepidation that the learning
progressions in the draft contained too many discrete and disconnected notions
and that some were not central to the core idea being developed.
Response
The committee was particularly concerned with this feedback and in response
made significant revisions to the core ideas and progressions. We revised the struc-
ture and content of the core ideas in all of the disciplines and replaced detailed
progressions with grade band endpoints for grades 2, 5, 8, and 12. When neces-
sary we consulted experts in teaching and learning science to supplement the
committee’s expertise. For example, six experts on learning science in grades K-5
provided detailed input regarding what ideas were appropriate for those levels and
in which grade. As a result, some core ideas or component ideas begin their pro-
gression only at the 3-5 grade band to allow necessary prior knowledge of other
core ideas to be established.
Overall, the committee thinks that the framework’s content is now con-
tained in a more suitable structure—one that provides guidance to standards
developers rather than extremely detailed sets of discrete content statements.
How to Integrate the Three Dimensions
There were many concerns that too little guidance was given about how to inte-
grate the crosscutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and scientific and engineer-
ing practices. In particular it was deemed that the learning progressions in the
draft framework did not integrate the three dimensions at all, focusing solely on
the progression for the core ideas.
The presentation of the crosscutting concepts and the practices in sepa-
rate chapters led some to ask whether there would be separate standards for the
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
338
OCR for page 339
crosscutting concepts and for the practices. Some pointed out that, without guid-
ance about integration, the crosscutting concepts might be omitted entirely or be
taught as a set of separate ideas.
Response
The committee was charged with identifying the disciplinary core ideas and prac-
tices for K-12 science education and with providing examples of the integration of
these ideas and practices. One of the major tasks of the standards developers will
be to determine ways to integrate the dimensions at the level of standards and per-
formance expectations; we anticipate that full integration of the dimensions will
occur at the level of curriculum and instruction.
In attending to the framework itself, we expanded Chapter 9: Integrating
the Three Dimensions, which in the draft included only examples of perfor-
mance expectations; for example, we added an example of how the dimensions
might be brought together in curriculum and instruction. We also created a
chapter on implementation issues (Chapter 10) that spelled out the need for cur-
ricula and instruction that integrate the three dimensions. Finally, in Chapter 12:
Guidance for Standards Developers, we explicitly recommended that standards
should incorporate the three dimensions in both their content statements and
performance expectations.
Strengthening Connections to Other Subjects
Many people wanted to see more connections made to mathematics and lit-
eracy, some asked for explicit connections to the Common Core Standards, and
some wanted to see more indications of the links between the core ideas and
other disciplines.
Response
We added explicit reference to other subject areas in multiple places. In the
chapter on scientific and engineering practices, we included two practices that
specifically link to mathematics and literacy: “Using Mathematics, Information
and Computer Technology, and Computational Thinking” and “Obtaining,
Communicating, and Presenting Information.” In discussions of these practices,
we called out the need to parallel the Common Core Standards. We also included
a recommendation for standards developers that the science standards be consis-
tent with the mathematics and English/language arts Common Core Standards. In
339
Appendix A
OCR for page 340
Chapter 8: Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science, and elsewhere as
appropriate, we have stressed linkages to social studies.
Science for All, Diversity, and Equity
Many readers thought it was unclear whether this document was intended to
prepare future scientists or to acquaint all students with science. Many also com-
mented on a lack of clear statements about diversity and equity.
Response
In the introductory chapter, we clarified the vision for the framework and its
emphasis on science for all students. We added Chapter 11: Equity and Diversity
in Science and Engineering Education. This chapter had already been planned, but
it was not ready in time for the draft released in July 2010.
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
Many educators raised concerns about the challenges to implementing the frame-
work—especially the demands it would place on curriculum developers, providers
of professional development, and others. In some cases, commenters suggested
that it would be useful to include the kinds of standards related to curriculum,
instruction, teacher development, and assessment that were presented in the
National Science Education Standards [1].
Response
The committee already recognized the challenges that the framework will place on
K-12 science education. But although we had planned a chapter related to imple-
mentation, it was not available for the 2010 draft release. We have since written
this chapter, and it is included in the present document as Chapter 10.
ISSUES RELATED TO EACH DIMENSION
Chapter 3: Scientific and Engineering Practices
Overall, the majority of those who commented were pleased to see discussion
of scientific and engineering practices. Some specifically mentioned that it was a
positive step to discuss particular practices instead of referring broadly to inquiry.
There were varying reactions to the chapter itself. Some felt that there was too
much introductory material about the work of scientists and engineers generally
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
340
OCR for page 341
and that this discussion could be cut. Others thought that too many discrete prac-
tices with no uniform “grain size” were specified. Some had difficulty understand-
ing how the tables in the chapter that described progressions were to be used in
conjunction with the tables outlining the learning progressions for the disciplinary
core ideas. Feedback from the individual experts indicated that in several cases the
detailed progressions for the practices did not have supporting empirical evidence.
Response
We revised the introductory material in the chapter to make it more focused. We
collapsed the practices into a shorter top-level list. We discussed developmental
trajectories for each practice but cut the tables and the “levels” of practice that
they had introduced. We refined the parallel treatment of scientific and engineer-
ing practices and clarified how the goals of work in the two areas differ.
Chapter 4: Crosscutting Concepts
Most of those who provided comments liked the framework’s inclusion of cross-
cutting concepts. There were some suggestions of particular concepts to cut
and of others to add. Many suggested that the section titled “Topics in Science,
Engineering, Technology, and Society” did not fit in this dimension and should be
integrated elsewhere.
Response
We chose not to delete or add to the crosscutting concepts. We did remove
“Topics in Science, Engineering, Technology, and Society” from this chapter and
placed the important elements of that material elsewhere (in practices; in the engi-
neering, technology, and applications of science chapter; and in the chapter on
implementation under the discussion of curriculum).
Chapters 5-8: Disciplinary Core Ideas
Many commenters provided detailed feedback on the core ideas and component
ideas in each discipline. Their comments ranged from whether the inclusion of a
core or component idea was appropriate, to suggestions for additions, to word-
level editorial changes. Expert feedback from individuals and focus groups was
particularly helpful in guiding the revisions of these four chapters.
Overall, readers tended to assume that each core idea would be given equal
time in curriculum and instruction, leading to the impression, for example, that
341
Appendix A
OCR for page 342
we were advocating that 25 percent of time be devoted to engineering. Although
we have reduced the number of core ideas in Chapter 8: Engineering, Technology,
and Applications of Science, we also noted that different core ideas will take dif-
ferent amounts of instructional time, both within and across grade levels; thus, the
above-cited accounting was not a correct interpretation of the document. We have
made appropriate clarifications in the introductory chapter and in the guidance
for standards developers.
Physical Sciences. Physicists expressed concern that the content in physics
was not articulated clearly, and chemists had a similar concern about the chem-
istry ideas. These responses suggested confusion about whether the framework
is intended to define a full chemistry and physics course at the high school level.
The committee’s actual intent is for the framework to outline a foundational
set of core ideas and for individual courses in physics or chemistry to deepen or
extend the study of these ideas. Input from a group convened by the American
Association of Physics Teachers, the American Physical Society, the American
Institute of Physics, and the American Chemical Society was particularly useful.
There were some specific critiques of the core ideas on waves and communi-
cation technology, with some individuals suggesting that they were inappropriate
to include in the physical sciences.
Life Sciences. Aside from a small subset of responders who wanted to
eliminate evolution, overall the response to the life sciences core ideas was posi-
tive. Critique focused on (a) elements perceived as missing or underemphasized,
particularly regarding psychology and behavior, and (b) elements perceived as
misplaced in terms of grade-level appropriateness. Our disciplinary experts, who
gave thoughtful input based on research on learning, suggested greater stress on
the physical, chemical, and molecular bases of biological processes, at least in the
higher grades.
Earth and Space Sciences. Several responders indicated that there were too
many component ideas in this domain, and they offered concrete suggestions for
reducing or streamlining the number of topics. Some individuals thought that the
organization of the core and component ideas in the earth and space sciences was
less conceptually coherent than in the other disciplines. They expressed concern
that the ideas were more like a table of contents for a textbook than a coherent
learning progression. Some noted that the level of detail was uneven, both within
the earth and space sciences chapter and in comparison to the other science disci-
plines. Responders offered specific examples of ideas in the learning progressions
that seemed developmentally inappropriate—that would require understanding of
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
342
OCR for page 343
concepts from other disciplines or that were actually introduced in later grades.
A number of reviewers suggested placing more emphasis on an “earth systems”
approach; this suggestion was particularly emphasized by the ocean science
community.
Engineering and Technology. The feedback related to these core ideas,
together with the committee’s response, is summarized in the previous section
(Chapter 3: Scientific and Engineering Practices).
Response
The committee undertook significant revisions of the core and component ideas
for all of the disciplines. For the physical sciences and the earth and space sci-
ences, the revisions included reorganization and relabeling of the core and com-
ponent ideas.
Learning Progressions
Many concerns were expressed about the draft learning progressions—the sections
in Chapters 5-8 now labeled “Grade Band Endpoints.” Several people, including
some of the individual experts we asked to comment, objected to the term “learn-
ing progressions” for these sequences. They offered a number of reasons for why
this term should not be used and made strong cases for changing it.
There was also concern about the level of detail included in the progres-
sions; some felt that they went too far toward becoming standards. There was
concern that the progressions were presented as many discrete bits of knowledge,
which seemed to promote memorization of facts. Some thought that, for certain
component ideas, the connections from grade band to grade band were unclear.
And there was concern that the progressions were not clearly based on research; a
couple of the experts pointed out places for which research suggests realignment
of the content.
A number of criticisms stated that the progressions were not always grade
appropriate; some pointed out that material included in the K-5 bands in particu-
lar was often too difficult. Others thought that the progressions underestimated
what younger students can do. There was general concern that the expectations
for the 3-5 and 6-8 grade bands were quite high, given the number of very impor-
tant, but challenging, ideas that were covered. Finally, there was concern that the
progressions focused on the disciplinary core ideas and did not attempt to inte-
grate the crosscutting concepts and scientific and engineering practices in any way.
343
Appendix A
OCR for page 344
Response
The committee was especially attentive to the feedback on the learning progres-
sions. The detailed progressions were changed to grade band endpoints, with the
number of details significantly reduced. Meanwhile, the introductory discussion
of each core idea was expanded into a single coherent statement that reflected the
idea’s overall knowledge content.
To address the concerns about grade-level appropriateness, the committee
solicited additional comments from six experts in science learning in grades K-5.
Based on this feedback and review of the document by committee members with
expertise in elementary school science, some core ideas or component ideas were
excluded at the K-2 level, with development of these ideas beginning instead in the
3-5 grade band.
ORGANIZATIONS THAT CONVENED DISCUSSION/FOCUS GROUPS
Achieve, Inc.
American Association of Physics Teachers, American Physical Society,
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society Astronomy Education Board
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Plant Biologists
Association for Computing Machinery
Association for Science Teacher Education
Biotechnology Institute
Climate Literacy Network
Computer Science Teachers Association
Council of Elementary Science International
Council of State Science Supervisors (45 state representatives in 8 groups)
Einstein Fellows
Hands-On Science Partnership
International Technology and Engineering Education Association
Massachusetts Department of Education
Minnesota Department of Education
NASA Science Education and Public Outreach
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
344
OCR for page 345
NASA Science Mission Directorate Education Community
National Association of Biology Teachers
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of Research in Science Teaching
National Earth Science Teachers Association
National Middle Level Science Teachers Association
National Science Education Leaders Association
National Science Teachers Association (100 people in 4 groups across the country)
New Hampshire Department of Education
North American Association for Environmental Education
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Triangle Coalition
University of Colorado at Boulder Biology Educators Group
University of Washington, Seattle
Vermont Department of Education
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
REFERENCES
1. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National
Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
2. National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Standards for K-12 Engineering
Education? Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
3. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009).
Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the
Prospects. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
345
Appendix A
OCR for page 346
Print copies of the Next Generation Science Standards are available for pre-order now or you can view the online version at nextgenscience.org
The standards are based largely on the 2011 National Research Council report A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
