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 7
1
A NEW CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
S
cience and engineering—significant parts of human culture that represent
some of the pinnacles of human achievement—are not only major intel-
lectual enterprises but also can improve people’s lives in fundamental ways.
Although the intrinsic beauty of science and a fascination with how the world
works have driven exploration and discovery for centuries, many of the challenges
that face humanity now and in the future—related, for example, to the environ-
ment, energy, and health—require social, political, and economic solutions that
must be informed deeply by knowledge of the underlying science and engineering.
Many recent calls for improvements in K-12 science education have focused
on the need for science and engineering professionals to keep the United States
competitive in the international arena. Although there is little doubt that this
need is genuine, a compelling case can also be made that understanding science
and engineering, now more than ever, is essential for every American citizen.
Science, engineering, and the technologies they influence permeate every aspect
of modern life. Indeed, some knowledge of science and engineering is required to
engage with the major public policy issues of today as well as to make informed
everyday decisions, such as selecting among alternative medical treatments or
determining how to invest public funds for water supply options. In addition,
understanding science and the extraordinary insights it has produced can be
meaningful and relevant on a personal level, opening new worlds to explore
and offering lifelong opportunities for enriching people’s lives. In these contexts,
learning science is important for everyone, even those who eventually choose
careers in fields other than science or engineering.
7
OCR for page 8
The conceptual framework presented in this report of the Committee on a
Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards articulates the
committee’s vision of the scope and nature of the education in science, engineer-
ing, and technology needed for the 21st century. It is intended as a guide to the
next step, which is the process of developing standards for all students. Thus it
describes the major practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas
that all students should be familiar with by the end of high school, and it provides
an outline of how these practices, concepts, and ideas should be developed across
the grade levels. Engineering and technology are featured alongside the physical
sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences for two critical reasons: to
reflect the importance of understanding the human-built world and to recognize
the value of better integrating the teaching and learning of science, engineering,
and technology.
By framework we mean 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. Instead, as this document lays out, the framework
is intended as a guide to standards developers as well as for curriculum design-
ers, assessment developers, state and district science administrators, profession-
als responsible for science teacher education, and science educators working in
informal settings.
There are two primary reasons why a new framework is needed at this time.
One is that it has been 15 or more years since the last comparable effort at the
national scale, and new understandings both in science and in teaching and learn-
ing science have developed over that time. The second is the opportunity provided
by a movement of multiple states to adopt common standards in mathematics
and in language arts, which has prompted interest in comparable documents for
science. This framework is the first part of a two-stage process to produce a next-
generation set of science standards for voluntary adoption by states. The second
step—the development of a set of standards based on this framework—is a state-
led effort coordinated by Achieve, Inc., involving multiple opportunities for input
from the states’ science educators, including teachers, and the public.
A VISION FOR K-12 EDUCATION IN THE SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
The framework is designed to help realize a vision for education in the sciences
and engineering in which students, over multiple years of school, actively engage
in scientific and engineering practices and apply crosscutting concepts to deepen
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
8
OCR for page 9
their understanding of the core ideas in these fields. The learning experiences
provided for students should engage them with fundamental questions about the
world and with how scientists have investigated and found answers to those ques-
tions. Throughout grades K-12, students should have the opportunity to carry out
scientific investigations and engineering design projects related to the disciplinary
core ideas.
By the end of the 12th grade, students should have gained sufficient knowl-
edge of the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas of science and engi-
neering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, to be critical
consumers of scientific information related to their everyday lives, and to continue
to learn about science throughout their lives. They should come to appreciate
that science and the current scientific understanding of the world are the result of
many hundreds of years of creative human endeavor. It is especially important to
note that the above goals are for all students, not just those who pursue careers in
science, engineering, or technology or those who continue on to higher education.
We anticipate that the insights gained and interests provoked from study-
ing and engaging in the practices of science and engineering during their K-12
schooling should help students see how science and engineering are instrumental
in addressing major challenges that confront society today, such as generating
sufficient energy, preventing and treating diseases, maintaining supplies of clean
water and food, and solving the problems of global environmental change. In
addition, although not all students will choose to pursue careers in science, engi-
neering, or technology, we hope that a science education based on the framework
will motivate and inspire a greater number of people—and a better representation
9
A New Conceptual Framework
OCR for page 10
❚ The framework is designed to help realize a vision for education in
the sciences and engineering in which students, over multiple years of
school, actively engage in scientific and engineering practices and apply
crosscutting concepts to deepen their understanding of the core ideas in
❚
these fields.
of the broad diversity of the American population—to follow these paths than is
the case today.
The committee’s vision takes into account two major goals for K-12 science
education: (1) educating all students in science and engineering and (2) providing
the foundational knowledge for those who will become the scientists, engineers,
technologists, and technicians of the future. The framework principally concerns
itself with the first task—what all students should know in preparation for their
individual lives and for their roles as citizens in this technology-rich and scientifi-
cally complex world. Course options, including Advanced Placement (AP) or hon-
ors courses, should be provided that allow for greater breadth or depth in the sci-
ence topics that students pursue, not only in the usual disciplines taught as natural
sciences in the K-12 context but also in allied subjects, such as psychology, com-
puter science, and economics. It is the committee’s conviction that such an educa-
tion, done well, will excite many more young people about science-related subjects
and generate a desire to pursue science- or engineering-based careers.
Achieving the Vision
The framework is motivated in part by a growing national consensus around the
need for greater coherence—that is, a sense of unity—in K-12 science education.
Too often, standards are long lists of detailed and disconnected facts, reinforcing
the criticism that science curricula in the United States tend to be “a mile wide
and an inch deep” [1]. Not only is such an approach alienating to young people,
but it can also leave them with just fragments of knowledge and little sense of the
creative achievements of science, its inherent logic and consistency, and its uni-
versality. Moreover, that approach neglects the need for students to develop an
understanding of the practices of science and engineering, which is as important to
understanding science as knowledge of its content.
The framework endeavors to move science education toward a more coherent
vision in three ways. First, it is built on the notion of learning as a developmental
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
10
OCR for page 11
progression. It is designed to help children continually build on and revise their
knowledge and abilities, starting from their curiosity about what they see around
them and their initial conceptions about how the world works. The goal is to guide
their knowledge toward a more scientifically based and coherent view of the sci-
ences and engineering, as well as of the ways in which they are pursued and their
results can be used.
Second, the framework focuses on a limited number of core ideas in sci-
ence and engineering both within and across the disciplines. The committee
made this choice in order to avoid shallow coverage of a large number of topics
and to allow more time for teachers and students to explore each idea in greater
depth. Reduction of the sheer sum of details to be mastered is intended to give
time for students to engage in scientific investigations and argumentation and to
achieve depth of understanding of the core ideas presented. Delimiting what is to
be learned about each core idea within each grade band also helps clarify what
is most important to spend time on and avoid the proliferation of detail to be
learned with no conceptual grounding.
Third, the framework emphasizes that learning about science and engineer-
ing involves integration of the knowledge of scientific explanations (i.e., content
knowledge) and the practices needed to engage in scientific inquiry and engineer-
ing design. Thus the framework seeks to illustrate how knowledge and practice
must be intertwined in designing learning experiences in K-12 science education.
Limitations of This Framework
The terms “science,” “engineering,” and “technology” are often lumped together
as a single phrase, both in this report and in education policy circles. But it is
important to define what is meant by each of these terms in this report—and why.
In the K-12 context, science is generally taken to mean the traditional natu-
ral sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and (more recently) earth, space, and
environmental sciences. In this document, we include core ideas for these disciplin-
ary areas, but not for all areas of science, as discussed further below. This limita-
tion matches our charge and the need of schools for a next generation of stan-
dards in these areas. Engineering and technology are included as they relate to the
applications of science, and in so doing they offer students a path to strengthen
their understanding of the role of sciences. We use the term engineering in a very
broad sense to mean any engagement in a systematic practice of design to achieve
solutions to particular human problems. Likewise, we broadly use the term tech-
nology to include all types of human-made systems and processes—not in the
11
A New Conceptual Framework
OCR for page 12
limited sense often used in schools that equates technology with modern compu-
tational and communications devices. Technologies result when engineers apply
their understanding of the natural world and of human behavior to design ways
to satisfy human needs and wants. This is not to say that science necessarily pre-
cedes technology; throughout history, advances in scientific understanding often
have been driven by engineers’ questions as they work to design new or improved
machines or systems.
Engineering and technology, defined in these broad ways, are included in
the framework for several reasons. First, the committee thinks it is important for
students to explore the practical use of science, given that a singular focus on the
core ideas of the disciplines would tend to shortchange the importance of applica-
tions. Second, at least at the K-8 level, these topics typically do not appear else-
where in the curriculum and thus are neglected if not included in science instruc-
tion. Finally, engineering and technology provide a context in which students can
test their own developing scientific knowledge and apply it to practical problems;
doing so enhances their understanding of science—and, for many, their interest in
science—as they recognize the interplay among science, engineering, and technol-
ogy. We are convinced that engagement in the practices of engineering design is as
much a part of learning science as engagement in the practices of science [2].
It is important to note, however, that the framework is not intended to
define course structure, particularly at the high school level. Many high schools
already have courses designated as technology, design, or even engineering that
go beyond the limited introduction to these topics specified in the framework.
These courses are often taught by teachers who have specialized expertise and
do not consider themselves to be science teachers. The committee takes no posi-
tion on such courses—nor, in fact, on any particular set of course sequence
options for students at the high school level. We simply maintain that some
introduction to engineering practice, the application of science, and the inter-
relationship of science, engineering, and technology is integral to the learning of
science for all students.
❚ The committee’s vision takes into account two major goals for K-12
science education: (1) educating all students in science and engineering
and (2) providing the foundational knowledge for those who will become
❚
the scientists, engineers, technologists, and technicians of the future.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
12
OCR for page 13
More generally, this framework should not be interpreted as limiting
advanced courses that go beyond the material included here—all students at the
high school level should have opportunities for advanced study in areas of interest
to them, and it is hoped that, for many, this will include further study of specific
science disciplines in honors or AP courses. Such course options may include top-
ics, such as neurobiology, and even disciplines, such as economics, that are not
included in this framework.
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
Although some aspects of the behavioral sciences are incorporated in the frame-
work as part of life sciences, the social, behavioral, and economic sciences are not
fully addressed. The committee did not identify a separate set of core ideas for
these fields for several reasons.
First, the original charge to the committee did not include these disciplines.
Second, social, behavioral, and economic sciences include a diverse array of fields
(sociology, economics, political science, anthropology, all of the branches of psy-
chology) with different methods, theories, relationships to other disciplines of
science, and representation in the K-12 curriculum. Although some are currently
represented in grades K-12, many are not or appear only in courses offered at the
high school level.
Third, the committee based the framework on existing documents that out-
line the major ideas for K-12 science education, including the National Science
Education Standards (NSES) [3], the Benchmarks for Science Literacy [4] and the
accompanying Atlas [5], the Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) [6], and the Science College Board Standards for
College Success [7]. Most of these documents do not cover all of the fields that are
part of the social, behavioral, and economic sciences comprehensively, and some
omit them entirely.
Fourth, understanding how to integrate the social, behavioral, and economic
sciences into standards, given how subjects are currently organized in the K-12
system, is especially complex. These fields have typically not been included as part
of the science curriculum and, as noted above, are not represented systematically
in some of the major national-level documents that identify core concepts for K-12
science. Also, many of the topics related to the social, behavioral, and economic
sciences are incorporated into curricula or courses identified as social studies and
may be taught from a humanities perspective. In fact, the National Council for the
Social Studies has a set of National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies that
13
A New Conceptual Framework
OCR for page 14
includes standards in such areas as psychology, sociology, geography, anthropol-
ogy, political science, and economics [8].
The limited treatment of these fields in this report’s framework should not,
however, be interpreted to mean that the social, behavioral, and economic sci-
ences should be omitted from the K-12 curriculum. On the contrary, the commit-
tee strongly believes that these important disciplines need their own framework
for defining core concepts to be learned at the K-12 level and that learning (the
development of understanding of content and practices) in the physical, life, earth,
and space sciences and engineering should be strongly linked with parallel learning
in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Any such framework must also
address important and challenging issues of school and curriculum organization
around the domain of social sciences and social studies.
Our committee has neither the charge nor the expertise to undertake that
important work. Thus, although we have included references to some of the
social, behavioral, and economic issues connected to the sciences that are the focus
of our own framework (see, for example, Core Idea 2 in engineering, technol-
ogy, and applications of science), we do not consider these references to define
the entirety of what students should learn or discuss about social, behavioral, and
economic sciences.
In a separate effort, the National Research Council (NRC) has plans to con-
vene a workshop to begin exploring a definition of what core ideas in the social,
behavioral, and economic sciences would be appropriate to teach at the K-12 level
and at what grade levels to introduce them. As noted above, there are many quite
distinct realms of study covered by the terms. Given the multiplicity and variety
of disciplines involved, only a few of which are currently addressed in any way in
K-12 classrooms, there is much work to be done to address the role of these sci-
ences in the development of an informed 21st-century citizen. It is clear, however,
to the authors of this report that these sciences, although different in focus, do
have much in common with the subject areas included here, so that much of what
this report discusses in defining scientific and engineering practices and crosscut-
ting concepts has application across this broader realm of science.
Computer Science and Statistics
Computer science and statistics are other areas of science that are not addressed
here, even though they have a valid presence in K-12 education. Statistics is basi-
cally a subdiscipline of mathematical sciences, and it is addressed to some extent
in the common core mathematics standards. Computer science, too, can be seen
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
14
OCR for page 15
as a branch of the mathematical sciences, as well as having some elements of engi-
neering. But, again, because this area of the curriculum has a history and a teach-
ing corps that are generally distinct from those of the sciences, the committee has
not taken this domain as part of our charge. Once again, this omission should not
be interpreted to mean that computer science or statistics should be excluded from
the K-12 curriculum. There are aspects of computational and statistical thinking
that must be understood and applied in learning about the sciences, and we iden-
tify these aspects, along with mathematical thinking, in our discussion of science
practices in Chapter 3.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
The Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education
Standards was established by the NRC to undertake the study on which this
report is based. Composed of 18 members reflecting a diversity of perspectives
and a broad range of expertise, the committee includes professionals in the natural
sciences, mathematics, engineering, cognitive and developmental psychology, the
learning sciences, education policy and implementation, research on learning sci-
ence in the classroom, and the practice of teaching science.
The committee’s charge was to develop a conceptual framework that
would specify core ideas in the life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space
sciences, and engineering and technology, as well as crosscutting concepts and
practices, around which standards should be developed. The committee was also
charged with articulating how these disciplinary ideas and crosscutting concepts
intersect for at least three grade levels and to develop guidance for implementa-
tion (see Box 1-1).
Scope and Approach
The committee carried out the charge through an iterative process of amassing
information, deliberating on it, identifying gaps, gathering further information to
fill these gaps, and holding further discussions. In our search for particulars, we
held three public fact-finding meetings, reviewed published reports and unpub-
lished research, and commissioned experts to prepare and present papers. At our
fourth meeting, we deliberated on the form and structure of the framework and
on the content of the report’s supporting chapters, to prepare a draft framework
for public release in July 2010. During the fifth and sixth meetings, we considered
the feedback received from the public and developed a plan for revising the draft
framework based on this input (see below for further details).
15
A New Conceptual Framework
OCR for page 16
BOX 1-1
COMMITTEE CHARGE
An ad hoc committee will develop and define a framework to guide the development of science education
standards. In conducting the study and preparing its report, the committee will draw on current research on sci-
ence learning as well as research and evaluation evidence related to standards-based education reform. This will
include existing efforts to specify central ideas for science education, including the National Science Education
Standards, AAAS Benchmarks, the 2009 NAEP Framework, and the redesign of the AP courses by the College
Board.
The conceptual framework developed by the committee will identify and articulate the core ideas in science
around which standards should be developed by considering core ideas in the disciplines of science (life sciences,
physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and applied sciences) as well as crosscutting ideas such as mathema-
tization,* causal reasoning, evaluating and using evidence, argumentation, and model development. The com-
mittee will illustrate with concrete examples how crosscutting ideas may play out in the context of select core
disciplinary ideas and articulate expectations for students’ learning of these ideas for at least three key grade
levels. In parallel, the committee will develop a research and development plan to inform future revisions of the
standards. Specifically in its consensus report, the committee will
• identify a small set of core ideas in each of the major science disciplines, as well as those ideas that cut
across disciplines, using a set of criteria developed by the committee
• develop guidance on implementation of the framework
• articulate how these disciplinary ideas and crosscutting ideas intersect for at least three grade levels
• create examples of performance expectations
• discuss implications of various goals for science education (e.g., general science literacy, college preparation,
and workforce readiness) on the priority of core ideas and articulation of leaning expectations
• develop a research and development plan to inform future revisions of the standards
*Mathematization is a technical term that means representing relationships in the natural world using mathematics.
The nature of the charge—to identify the scientific and engineering ideas
and practices that are most important for all students in grades K-12 to learn—
means that the committee ultimately had to rely heavily on its own expertise and
collective judgments. To the extent possible, however, we used research-based
evidence and past efforts to inform these judgments. Our approach combined
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
16
OCR for page 17
evidence on the learning and teaching of science and engineering with a detailed
examination of previous science standards documents. It is important to note that
even where formal research is limited, the report is based on the collective experi-
ence of the science education and science education research communities. All the
practices suggested have been explored in classrooms, as have the crosscutting
concepts (though perhaps under other names such as “unifying themes”).
Design Teams
The committee’s work was significantly advanced by the contributions of four
design teams, which were contracted by the NRC to prepare materials that
described the core ideas in the natural sciences and engineering and outlined how
these ideas could be developed across grades K-12. Each team had a designated
leader who provided guidance and interacted frequently with the committee. The
materials developed by the teams form the foundation for the core disciplinary
ideas and grade band endpoints described in this report (Chapters 5-8). A list of
the design team participants appears in Appendix D.
The design teams were asked to begin their work by considering the
ideas and practices described in the NSES [3], AAAS Benchmarks [4], Science
Framework for the 2009 NAEP [6], and Science College Board Standards for
College Success [7] as well as the relevant research on learning and teaching in
science. The teams prepared drafts and presented them to the committee dur-
ing the closed portions of our first three meetings. Between meetings, the teams
revised their drafts in response to committee comments. Following the release
of the July 2010 draft (see the next section), the leaders of the design teams
continued to interact with committee members as they planned the revisions of
the draft framework. No members of the design teams participated in the dis-
cussions during which the committee reached consensus on the content of the
final draft.
❚ The framework and subsequent standards will not lead to improvements
in K-12 science education unless the other components of the system—
curriculum, instruction, professional development, and assessment—
❚
change so that they are aligned with the framework’s vision.
17
A New Conceptual Framework
OCR for page 18
Public Feedback
The committee recognized early in the process that obtaining feedback from a
broad range of stakeholders and experts would be crucial to the success of the
framework. For this reason, we obtained permission from the NRC to release a
draft version of the framework for public comment.
The draft version was prepared, underwent an expedited NRC review, and
was released in early July 2010. It was then posted online for a period of three
weeks, during which time individuals could submit comments through an online
survey. In addition, NRC staff contacted over 40 organizations in science, engi-
neering, and education, notifying them of the public comment period and asking
them to hold focus groups to gather feedback from members or to at least notify
their members of the opportunity to comment online. The NRC also 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 both to facilitate the public input process and to organize focus
groups. Finally, the committee asked nine experts to provide detailed feedback on
the public draft.
During the 3-week public comment period, the committee received exten-
sive input from both individuals and groups: a total of more than 2,000 people
responded to the online survey. More than 30 focus groups were held around the
country, with 15-40 participants in each group. The committee also received let-
ters from key individuals and organizations. A list of the organizations that par-
ticipated in the focus groups or submitted letters is included in Appendix A.
NRC staff, together with the committee chair, reviewed all of the input and
developed summaries that identified the major issues raised and outlined possible
revisions to the draft framework. Committee members reviewed these summaries
and also had the opportunity to review the public feedback in detail. Based on
discussions at the fifth and sixth meetings, the committee made substantial revi-
sions to the framework based on the feedback. A summary of the major issues
raised in the public feedback and the revisions the committee made is included in
Appendix A.
Structure of the Report
The first nine chapters of this report outline the principles underlying the frame-
work, describe the core ideas and practices for K-12 education in the natural
sciences and engineering, and provide examples of how these ideas and practices
should be integrated into any standards.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
18
OCR for page 19
The remaining four chapters of the report address issues related to design-
ing and implementing standards and strengthening the research base that should
inform them. Chapter 10 articulates the issues related to curriculum, instruction,
and assessment. Chapter 11 discusses important considerations related to equity
and diversity. Chapter 12 provides guidance for standards developers as they work
to apply the framework. Finally, Chapter 13 outlines the research agenda that
would allow a systematic implementation of the framework and related standards.
The chapter also specifies the kinds of research needed for future iterations of the
standards to be better grounded in evidence.
N EXT STEPS
The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School
Officers have developed “Common Core State Standards” in mathematics and
language arts, and 43 states and the District of Columbia have adopted these stan-
dards as of early 2011. The anticipation of a similar effort for science standards
was a prime motivator for this NRC study and the resulting framework described
in this report.
To maintain the momentum, the Carnegie Corporation commissioned the
nonpartisan and nonprofit educational reform organization Achieve, Inc., to lead
states in developing new science standards based on the NRC framework in this
report. There is no prior commitment from multiple states to adopt such stan-
dards, so the process will be different from the Common Core process used for
mathematics and language arts. But it is expected that Achieve will form partner-
ships with a number of states in undertaking this work and will offer multiple
opportunities for public comment.
As our report was being completed, Achieve’s work on science standards
was already under way, starting with an analysis of international science bench-
marking in high-performing countries that is expected to inform the standards
development process. We understand that Achieve has also begun some prelimi-
nary planning for that process based on the draft framework that was circulated
for public comment in summer 2010. The relevance of such work should deepen
once the revised framework in this report, on which Achieve’s standards will be
based, is released. It should be noted, however, that our study and the framework
described in this report are independent of the work of Achieve.
The framework and any standards that will be based on it make explicit the
goals around which a science education system should be organized [9]. The com-
mittee recognizes, however, that the framework and subsequent standards will not
19
A New Conceptual Framework
OCR for page 20
lead to improvements in K-12 science education unless the other components of
the system—curriculum, instruction, professional development, and assessment—
change so that they are aligned with the framework’s vision. Thus the framework
and standards are necessary but not sufficient to support the desired improve-
ments. In Chapter 10, we address some of the challenges inherent in achieving
such alignment.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
20
OCR for page 21
REFERENCES
1. Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., and Raizen, S. (1997). A Splintered Vision: An
Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. U.S. National Research
Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic.
2. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009).
Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the
Prospect. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. L. Katehi, G. Pearson, and
M. Feder (Eds.). National Academy of Engineering. Board on Science Education,
Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National
3.
Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for
Science Literacy. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. Available: http://
www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?txtRef=http%3A%2F%2F
www%2Eproject2061%2Eorg%2Fpublications%2Fbsl%2Fdefault%2Ehtm%3Ftxt
Ref%3D%26txtURIOld%3D%252Ftools%252Fbsl%252Fdefault%2Ehtm&txtURI
Old=%2Fpublications%2Fbsl%2Fonline%2Fbolintro%2Ehtm [June 2011].
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Atlas of Science
Literacy, Volumes 1 and 2. Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.
6. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). Science Framework for
the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. Developed for the National Assessment Governing
Board. Available: http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf [June
2011].
7. College Board. (2009). Science College Board Standards for College Success.
Available: http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science-
standards-2009.pdf [June 2011].
8. National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National Curriculum Standards for
Social Studies: A Framework for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Silver Spring,
MD: Author.
9. National Research Council. (2006). Systems for State Science Assessment. M.R.
Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal (Eds.). Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science
Achievement. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
21
A New Conceptual Framework
OCR for page 22
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.
