Stephen Pruitt, vice president for content, research, and development for Achieve, Inc., gave teachers an engaging preview of the Next Generation Science Standards during his talk this afternoon. “We have incredible teachers in this country…that’s the reason [the NGSS] will go forward,” he maintains. He also emphasized that the NGSS are “for all students” because all students are “born investigators,” and noted that some Nobel prize winners are working on the committee to develop the new standards.

The new standards will emphasize that understanding builds over time, and they “don’t stop at just memorizing details,” but will require students to understand “the evidence of how something works,” such as cell division. He referred to the NGSS as “inquiry unpacked,” a term he said he’s not crazy about but admits is important because not all educators have a cohesive understanding of what inquiry is.

The NGSS will reflect that “math is part of the language of science” and will indicate to teachers ”here’s where math is appropriate,” Pruitt explained. Cross-cutting concepts are key in the NGSS because “shouldn’t energy be the same regardless of which class you’re sitting in?”

He suggests teachers think about the NGSS outside of their classroom and school and “come together for what will be good for the students, not what will be good for me…I’m going to ask that you have an open mind.” He reminded everyone, “When was the last time that we got better by doing less?” He urged teachers to read the framework, if they haven’t yet done so, because the framework serves as a preview to what will be in the new standards.

When teachers in the audience expressed concerns about how the NGSS will be implemented in their states, Pruitt responded, “Make sure people are informed about this and build a base…You can lead from your classroom just like any policy leader can.”

Here’s what Terri Jones of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, had to say about this session.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Greetings … Interested in learning more about NRC’s Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards now in development, catch one of the many sessions slated for the Hartford Regional Conference.

Featured Panel: Stephen Pruitt, Achieve, and Francis Eberle, NSTA

Thursday, October 27
12:30–1:30 PM
Connecticut Convention Center, Ballroom A

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Helen Quinn, NRC Study Director

Friday, October 28
12:30–1:30 PM
Connecticut Convention Center, Ballroom A

Exploring the Science Framework; Harold Pratt and Francis Eberle, NSTA

FRIDAY, October 28 (CORRECTION)
2:00–3:00 PM
Connecticut Convention Center, Ballroom A

If you need more information on the conference, click here.

A panel discussion on the Next Generation of Science Education Standards with NSTA executive director Francis Eberle; Helen Quinn, chair of the board on Science Education, The National Academies in Menlo Park, California; and Stephen Pruitt, vice president, Achieve, Inc., wrapped up a few minutes ago.

The trio shared an overview of how the draft framework was created and talked about the next steps.

Interest was evident—the room was full with many people standing around the periphery and several sitting on the floor. When microphone was opened for questions, several people quickly lined up.

The framework is expected to service as the basis for new K–12 science education standards.

“To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.”

—Chinese Proverb

A team of science educators has developed a new NSTA position statement acknowledging the value of 21st-century skills within the context of science education (available here). The statement advocates for the science education community to support 21st-century skills consistent with best practices across a science education system and notes that “exemplary science education can offer a rich context for developing many 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and information literacy.”

With the first decade of the 21st century already in the rear view mirror, it is somewhat interesting-for several reasons-to still be considering what we call 21st century skills. Like it or not, the 21st century is already 11% over, and yet 21st century skills discussions are couched as if 1) there is a really a choice, and 2) the 21st century is still to come.

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane to consider the challenges to traditional education when calendar pages all over the globe flipped from 1899 to 1900, or in this case, to 1911.

Some of the notable events of the first 11 percent of the 20th century include:

• The first Nobel Prizes are awarded
• The first Trans-Atlantic Radio Signal
• Einstein proposes his theory of Relativity
• The first electric washing machine
• Ford begins selling the Model T
• Plastic is invented
• Peary is first to reach North Pole
• The air conditioner is invented
• Blériot flew his monoplane across the English Channel
• Rutherford discovers structure of the atom
• Raymonde de Laroche was the first woman to receive a pilot’s license
• Amundsen reaches the South Pole
• The first talking motion picture is demonstrated

Digested, this list indicates we drive cars, human flight is obvious, instant global communication is possible, we have a serious challenge to Newton, the guts of an atom are known, and we have stood on the extreme reaches of our planet. In essence, kids, everything from here on out will be much different than anything known before. Ever.

Two years before the first moon landing, Marshall McLuhan penned the following: “Today’s child is bewildered when he enters the 19th century environment that still characterizes the educational establishment, where information is scarce but ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns, subjects and schedules.”

Now lets jump ahead a few decades to see how the 20th century skills played out. But what were the skills of the last century? I’m not sure, however the students of that era either dealt with, discovered, or invented some big ticket things like world wars, the great depression, electrification, antibiotics, the atomic bomb, x-rays, television, telephones, jet flight, radar, vaccines, computers, the moon landing, the internet, and cell phones, just to name a few of the thousands of new additions to society. Not an insignificant list compared with our list that includes iPods, Facebook, eBay, YouTube, video chat and digital books. Sure, I know there are greater things to point a finger at for examples of 21st century change, but as governments fall and rise, the revolutions of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and soon (my guess) Google Earth should hardly be surprising. If you recall, Thomas Jefferson did once say, “Information is the currency of democracy.” And if there is anything the above list of web-based tech shouts out, its information.

So were people in 1911 concerned that the education system was failing to teach the skills necessary to be a productive citizen in the new century? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But there are plenty quotes from education experts of the time expounding upon the perils and pitfalls of our current public school trajectory. For example, in the first half of the last century John Dewey wrote, “Education is a social process. Education is growth. Education is, not a preparation for life; education is life itself.” Wow, John, that sure sounds a lot like our 21^st century skillset.

However, what I do believe is different in the 21st century is the acknowledgement that we can only use today cautiously to predict tomorrow. Further, the skills expected of high school graduates are not limited to those of content, but also must include a flexible, fluid, dynamic attitude that integrates well with any situation the student may encounter. Oh, and the student will encounter situations unlike any generations previous.

What the 21st century has taught us thus far, very much like the first decade of the 20th century, is that inventions and institutions are not much more than suggestions. And to think otherwise is to place too much faith in stasis. As NSTA solicits input about 21st century skills, something should feel familiar about the topic. In the draft position statement, the following list is provided including: core subject knowledge; learning and innovation skills; information, media, and technology skills; life and career skills; adaptability; complex communication/social skills; nonroutine problem solving; self- management/self-development; and systems thinking.

Sounds an awful lot like the processes of science to me. And what’s not to like about that?

Actually, there is something. It’s subtle, but we have longed for predictability in education, and now it seems we are attempting to encapsulate unpredictability into a predictable program with defined outcomes.

My worry here is that we might be using the same piece of 20th century educational practice that concerned McLuhanin in order to package and sell the concept of 21st century skills. As Dewey foretold, the future is not a destination where one arrives and the story ends. And similarly, 21st century skills are not a finite set of testable proficiencies. Instead they are goals of direction and objectives of strategy. As we race against the clock to capture and cage the skills of the 21^st century, let’s not incarcerate them, for once in captivity they might fail to thrive. The skills will need to roam in the wild if they are truly going to make a difference.

“Only when we know a little do we know anything; doubt grows with knowledge.”

—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Science learning begins in early childhood.

Teachers of K-12, including early childhood educators, we have until August 2^nd, 2010 to comment on the preliminary public draft of the Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards

Here are a few paragraphs from the beginning of the document to get you interested:

“This document is an interim draft of a report from a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) on K-12 science education in U.S. schools. It is being made public so that the authoring committee can receive comments and suggestions from interested practitioners, researchers, and the public to inform its final product.” (first page of Memo)

[Peggy: They want to hear from us! Therefore the authors may be forgiven for staying within the K-12 scope by describing children who are “entering school” as being kindergarteners. In this preschool teacher’s view, children “enter” school the first time they are formally taught, at home, in preschool, or in kindergarten.]

“The conceptual framework in this report presents the committee’s vision of the scope and nature of the education in science and engineering that is needed in the 21st century. Thus, it describes the major scientific ideas and practices that all students should be familiar with by the end of high school. Engineering and technology are featured alongside the natural sciences in recognition of the importance of understanding the designed world and of the need to better integrate the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.” (Chapter 1, Introduction: A New Conceptual Framework, pg. 1-1)

 “The rationale for organizing content around core ideas comes from studies that show that one major difference between experts and novices in any field is the organization of their knowledge. Experts understand the core principles and theoretical frameworks of their field. Their retention of detailed information is aided by their understanding of its placement in the context of these principles and theories. Novices tend to hold disconnected and even contradictory bits of “knowledge” as isolated facts, and struggle to find a way to organize and integrate them. Learning to understand science or engineering in a more expert fashion requires development of an understanding of how facts are related to each other and to overarching core ideas. Research on learning shows building this kind of understanding is challenging, but is aided by explicit instructional support that stresses connections across different activities and learning experiences.” (Chapter 1, Introduction: A New Conceptual Framework, Understanding Develops Over Time, pg. 1-6)

[Peggy: Making connections may be easier in early childhood—before students have different teachers for different subjects.]

“As a result of our effort to identify fewer core ideas of science and engineering, some scientists and educators may be disappointed to find little or nothing of their favorite science topics included in this framework. The committee is convinced that by building a strong base of core knowledge and competencies, understood at a deep enough level to be used and applied, students will leave school with a better grounding in scientific knowledge and practices and greater interest in further learning in science, than those whose instruction “covers” multiple disconnected pieces of information, to be memorized and forgotten as soon as the test is done.” (Chapter 1, Introduction: A New Conceptual Framework, Selecting Core Ideas and Practices, pgs. 1-14 & 1-15)

[Peggy: Yes, let children work on a few topics or concepts for a long time to develop the deep understanding they are capable of. There are many favorites still in the mix.]

There are four grade level bands, K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12. I have only taken a brief look at Chapter 3, Core Ideas and Chapter 7, Learning Progressions, (similar in structure to the conceptual strand maps in the Atlas of Science Literacy (AAAS)), and see that there is more than one progression for each branch of science, one for each Core Idea. I definitely need more time to read and think about this draft and may need to see it printed out to really be able to think about it.

Here’s one question I have:

Does the Life Science Core Ideas 1, or 3, (see below) need to add something about plants and animals needing access to air into the K-2 section? Maybe it is omitted because the concept of matter existing as a gas is not introduced in the Physical Science Core Idea progression until Grades 3-5 (also below). 

On page 7-9, Life Science (LS) Core Idea 1: Organisms have structures and functions that facilitate their life processes, growth, and reproduction.

Grades K – 2

How do living things meet their basic needs?

All living things have various external parts. Different animals use their body parts in different ways to see, hear, grasp objects, seek, find and take in food and move from place to place. Plants also have different parts that help them meet their needs.

On page 7-11, LS Core Idea 3: Organisms and populations of organisms obtain necessary resources from their environment which includes other organisms and physical factors.

Grades K – 2

Where do animals get food?

Animals depend on plants and other animals for food. When animals and plants (or plant parts) die, they are fed upon by tiny organisms that break them apart. Plants depend on air, water and light to grow.

On page 7-40, Physical Science (PS) Core Idea 1: Macroscopic states and characteristic properties of matter depend on the type, arrangement and motion of particles at the molecular and atomic scales.

Grades K – 2

What kind of parts are objects made of? (macroscopic)

Objects are generally made of different parts. The parts can be made of different materials. Materials can be natural or manufactured from natural resources. The identity, characteristics and function of an object depend on the materials/building blocks used to make it, and the way they fit together. The same materials can exist as a solid or a liquid depending on the temperature. Solids have a definite shape while liquids flow to the lowest level in the container.

Grades 3 – 5

How do the parts of an object affect its structure and function? (macroscopic)

All substances are considered matter. Matter can exist as solid, liquid, or gas. In all forms it can be felt and weighed. It is possible to break materials apart into pieces too tiny to see. However, the material still exists and continues to have weight even though we can’t see it. You can make a great variety of objects with just a few types of components. The structure, properties and uses of the objects depend on the nature of the components and they ways they attach to one-another, but can be quite different from those of the components. Knowing about the characteristics of materials helps design uses of them. Many substances can exist as solid, liquid or gas depending on the temperature. Solids have definite shape and volume, liquids also occupy definite volume, but not shape, gases are made of particles too small to see that move around throughout the full volume of any container.

Thank you to all involved in this important endeavor. Let’s take a close look and give the committee our feedback. A survey will be posted on July 14, 2010.

Peggy

I had an interesting conversation with some teachers about technology skills for the 21st century. Many years ago in the last century (the mid 1980s), when personal computers were emerging into the schools, we had similar discussions and made up lists of skills we thought would take our students into the future. Looking back at some of these lists, I can see that although we were well-intentioned, the technology continues to change and some of knowledge (e.g., how a floppy disk worked) and skills (MS-DOS commands) we thought were important are now obsolete. What we thought was a high-end use of technology (e.g., word processing or spreadsheets) is now standard. And the Internet didn’t even exist then (at least not in the sense that virtually everyone had access to it).

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has a sets of technology standards that go beyond specific applications. Before we start thinking “just what we need, another set of standards when we can’t even get to everything in science,” look at the headings for the student standards:

• Creativity and Innovation
• Communication and Collaboration
• Research and Information Fluency
• Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making
• Digital Citizenship

Many of descriptions and performance indicators for these might already be incorporated in our science classes, and they’re independent of specific software and applications. ISTE also has sets of standards with performance indicators for teachers and administrators that would be helpful in designing professional development programs. They’re worth a look.

As the revision of the national science education standards gets started, many educators, administrators, parents, and other community members will be concerned not just the final product, but how the final product will be decided.

Henry Kepner, Jr., president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, shared his observations from the development of the Common Core Standards in Mathematics—and possible implications for science educators—in the May issue of NSTA Reports.

Read “A Math Perspective on the Common Core Standards Initiative” online now.

As the great Dr. Seuss once said, “The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.” In Jodi Wheeler-Toppen’s new book, Interdisciplinary Activities to Create Confident Readers, she utilizes the parallels between how people learn science and how people become better readers. This book is geared towards teachers of middle and high school life science who want to improve students’ reading abilities while supporting science content learning. In her quest to create confident readers, Wheeler-Toppen strategically organized this book by lessons, which consist of an activity, a reading based on an important life science concept (as defined by the National Science Education Standards), and an application that asks to correlate the activity with the reading. Wheeler-Toppen’s inclusion of the three-phase learning cycle, which consists of exploration, concept introduction and concept application, is established on the notion that students’ base new knowledge on information they already have. This interdisciplinary book will ensure that your students’ improve their reading skills, increase their science knowledge and become more confident learners.

Sometimes during the publishing process, we find we must trim some of our Reports stories to fit the alloted space in print. This was the case for “NSTA Awardees: Creative, Committed, and Caring” from our March 2010 issue. The good news is our online outlets allow us to share everything with you—no trimming necessary!

With that in mind, meet three 2010 NSTA Teacher Awardees whose work we had wanted to highlight in the March piece. (And learn more about NSTA’s Teacher Awards here. You too could be in print or online in 2011!)

Robert H. Carleton Award

Arthur Eisenkraft, Distinguished Professor of Science Education
University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts

2000–2001 NSTA President Arthur Eisenkraft co-created three NSTA recognition programs: the Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision Awards, the Duracell Scholarship Competition, and the Toyota TAPESTRY Grants for Teachers. Not only have these programs “benefitted thousands of teachers and students,” but they also “brought recognition and financial gain to NSTA,” observes 2001–2002 NSTA President and nominator Harold Pratt.

Eisenkraft’s service to the profession includes helping to develop the National Science Education Standards, creating the Active Physics and Active Chemistry curricula, and working on the committee to develop the National Assessment of Educational Progress for the years 2009–2019.

Shell Science Teaching Award

Tamica Stubbs, Biology and Research Teacher
E.E. Waddell High School, Charlotte, North Carolina

One of Stubbs’s students says, “She has taught me biology, AP biology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and biomolecular modeling via proteins—but more than that, she has taught me what it means to have a teacher [who] believes in her students and will do anything in her power to help them succeed.”

Stubbs has established science clubs and mentored students in projects that led to her school entering district, state, and county competitions. Her grant writing skills and community networking activities have brought a range of new equipment to her classroom, inspiring even students disinterested in science to become researchers and investigators.

Bio-Rad Biotechnology Explorer Award

(New Award for 2010)

Jennifer Hand, Science Teacher
Cairo High School, Cairo, Georgia

With funds from a local grant, Hand incorporated biotechnology into her classroom using Bio-Rad’s Crime Scene Investigator kits and DNA fingerprinting equipment. She enlisted the help of a molecular geneticist to train her and her colleagues in using the equipment and doing the fingerprinting. As a result, she says, more of her students at all levels are passing the science portion of the high school graduation exam, and they look forward to their science classes “instead of dreading the doldrums of yet another worksheet.”

One of her students remarked, “I see this kind of stuff on television, so to be able to do this in my 10th-grade biology class was awesome.”

Read about the other 2010 awardees.

The seventh ESP monograph, now in final stages of editing, should be available for the three NSTA fall area conferences.  This series from NSTA Press has focused on meeting the reforms central to the National Science Education Standards. Titles available are

1. Science for Grades PreK–4;
2. Science for Grades 5–8;
3. Science for Grades 9 –12;
4. Professional Development of Science Teachers;
5. Science in Informal Education Settings;
6. Inquiry: The Key to Exemplary Science; and
7. Science in a Social and Societal Contexts.

NSTA members are invited to use these monographs and to volunteer to help as members of the National Review Team for the future ESPs.

In addition, plans for ESP 8 are in the works.  It is to focus on NSES Goal 4, which seeks to identify exemplary situations that illustrate preparation of students for science- and technology-related careers.  Your nomination of potential authors (teachers) in your state would be of great help!  In addition, you are invited to assist some of your outstanding teachers in preparing an outline, and it would be great if you were not only encouraging, but also if you would consider being a co-author.

Please direct questions, suggestions, or ready-to-be contributors to Bob Yager, who coordinates the national efforts.  E-mail robert-yager@uiowa.edu; call (cell) 319-541-2857 or (office) 319-335-1189; or write to Room 769 VAN, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242.