May 2012 Draft Page 1 of 5
This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations
are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team.
Conceptual Shifts in the Next Generation Science Standards
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provide an important opportunity to improve
not only science education but also student achievement. Based on the Framework for K–12
Science Education, the NGSS are intended to reflect a new vision for American science
education. The following conceptual shifts in the NGSS demonstrate what is new and different
about the NGSS:
1. K–12 Science Education Should Reflect the Real World Interconnections in Science.
“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.”1
The vision represented in the Framework is new in that students must be engaged at the nexus of
the three dimensions:
1. Science and Engineering Practice,
2. Crosscutting Concepts, and
3. Disciplinary Core Ideas.
Currently, most state and district standards express these dimensions as separate entities, leading
to their separation in both instruction and assessment. Given the importance of science and
engineering in the 21st century, students require a sense of contextual understanding with regard
to scientific knowledge, how it is acquired and applied, and how science is connected through a
series of concepts that help further our understanding of the world around us. Student
performance expectations have to include a student’s ability to apply a practice to content
knowledge, thereby focusing on understanding and application as opposed to memorization of
facts devoid of context. The Framework goes on to emphasize that:
“…learning about science and engineering involves integration of the knowledge of
scientific explanations (i.e., content knowledge) and the practices needed to engage in
scientific inquiry and engineering design. Thus the framework seeks to illustrate how
knowledge and practice must be intertwined in designing learning experiences in K–12
science education.”2
1
(2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 10). Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
2
(2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 11). Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
May 2012 Draft Page 2 of 5
This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations
are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team.
2. Using all practices and crosscutting concepts to teach all core ideas all year.
As stated previously, past science standards at both the state and district levels have traditionally
treated the three dimensions of science as separate and distinct entities leading to preferential
treatment in assessment or instruction. It is essential to understand that the emphasis placed on a
particular Science and Engineering Practice or Crosscutting Concept in a performance
expectation is not intended to limit instruction, but to make clear the intent of the assessments.
An example of this is best illustrated in two performance expectations from the high school
physical sciences May 2012 draft. The practice of modeling is a significant change on its own.
Models are basically used for three reasons; 1) to represent or describe, 2) to collect data, or 3) to
predict. The first use is typical in schools since models and representations are usually
synonymous. However, the use of models to collect data or to predict phenomena is new, for
example:
Construct models to explain changes in nuclear energies during the processes of fission,
fusion, and radioactive decay and the nuclear interactions that determine nuclear
stability.
and
Use system models (computer or drawings) to construct molecular-level explanations to
predict the behavior of systems where a dynamic and condition-dependent balance
between a reaction and the reverse reaction determines the numbers of all types of
molecules present.
In the first performance expectation, models are used with nuclear processes to explain changes.
A scientific explanation requires evidence to support the explanation, so students will be called
upon to construct a model for the purpose of gathering evidence to explain these changes.
Additionally, they will be required to use models to both explain and predict the behavior of
systems in equilibrium. Again, the models will have to be used to collect data, but they will be
further validated in their ability to predict the state of a system. In both cases, students will need
a deep understanding of the content, as well as proficiency in the ability to construct and use
models for various applications. The practice of modeling will need to be taught throughout the
year—and throughout the entire K–12 experience—as opposed to during one two-week unit of
instruction.
The goal of the NGSS is to be clear about which practice students are responsible for in terms of
assessment, but these practices and crosscutting concepts should occur throughout each school
year.
May 2012 Draft Page 3 of 5
This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations
are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team.
3. Science Concepts Build Coherently Across K–12.
The focus on a few Disciplinary Core Ideas is a key aspect to a coherent science education. The
Framework identified a basic set of core ideas that are meant to be understood by the time a
student completes high school:
“To develop a thorough understanding of scientific explanations of the world, students
need sustained opportunities to work with and develop the underlying ideas and to
appreciate those ideas’ interconnections over a period of years rather than weeks or
months [1]. This sense of development has been conceptualized in the idea of learning
progressions [1, 25, 26]. If mastery of a core idea in a science discipline is the ultimate
educational destination, then well-designed learning progressions provide a map of the
routes that can be taken to reach that destination. Such progressions describe both how
students’ understanding of the idea matures over time and the instructional supports and
experiences that are needed for them to make progress.”3
There are two key points that are important to understand:
First, focus and coherence must be a priority. What this means to teachers and
curriculum developers is that the same ideas or details are not covered each year. Rather,
a progression of knowledge occurs from grade band to grade band that gives students the
opportunity to learn more complex material, leading to an overall understanding of
science by the end of high school. Historically, science education was taught as a set of
disjointed and isolated facts. The Framework and the NGSS provide a more coherent
progression aimed at overall scientific literacy with instruction focused on a smaller set
of ideas, but with an eye on what the student should have already learned and what they
will learn at the next level.
Second, the progressions in the NGSS automatically assume that previous material has
been learned by the student. Choosing to omit content at any grade level or band will
impact the success of the student toward understanding the core ideas and puts additional
responsibilities on teachers later in the process.
4. The NGSS Focus on Deeper Understanding and Application of Content.
The Framework identified a smaller set of Disciplinary Core Ideas that students should know by
the time they graduate from high school and the NGSS are written to focus on the same. It is
important that teachers and curriculum/assessment developers understand that the focus is on the
core ideas—not necessarily the facts that are associated with them. The facts and details are
important evidence, but not the sole focus of instruction. The Framework states,
“The core ideas also can provide an organizational structure for the acquisition of new
knowledge. Understanding the core ideas and engaging in the scientific and engineering
3
(2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 26). Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
May 2012 Draft Page 4 of 5
This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations
are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team.
practices helps to prepare students for broader understanding, and deeper levels of
scientific and engineering investigation, later on—in high school, college, and beyond.
One rationale for organizing content around core ideas comes from studies comparing
experts and novices in any field. Experts understand the core principles and theoretical
constructs of their field, and they use them to make sense of new information or tackle
novel problems. Novices, in contrast, tend to hold disconnected and even contradictory
bits of knowledge as isolated facts and struggle to find a way to organize and integrate
them [24]. The assumption, then, is that helping students learn the core ideas through
engaging in scientific and engineering practices will enable them to become less like
novices and more like experts.”4
5. Science and Engineering are Integrated in Science Education from K–12.
The idea of integrating technology and engineering into science standards is not new. Chapters
on the nature of technology and the human-built world were included in Science for All
Americans (AAAS 1989) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS 1993, 2008). Standards
for “Science and Technology” were included for all grade spans in the National Science
Education Standards (NRC 1996).
Despite these early efforts, however, engineering and technology have not received the same
level of attention in science curricula, assessments, or the education of new science teachers as
the traditional science disciplines have. A significant difference in the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) is the integration of engineering and technology into the structure of science
education by raising engineering design to the same level as scientific inquiry in classroom
instruction when teaching science disciplines at all levels, and by giving core ideas of
engineering and technology the same status as those in other major science disciplines.
The rationale for this increased emphasis on engineering and technology rests on two positions
taken in A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2011). One position is aspirational;
the other practical.
From an aspirational standpoint, the Framework points out that science and engineering are
needed to address major world challenges such as generating sufficient clean energy, preventing
and treating diseases, maintaining supplies of food and clean water, and solving the problems of
global environmental change that confront society today. These important challenges will
motivate many students to continue or initiate their study of science and engineering.
From a practical standpoint, the Framework notes that engineering and technology provide
opportunities for students to deepen their understanding of science by applying their developing
4
(2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 25). Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
May 2012 Draft Page 5 of 5
This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations
are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team.
scientific knowledge to the solution of practical problems. Both positions converge on the
powerful idea that by integrating technology and engineering into the science curriculum
teachers can empower their students to use what they learn in their everyday lives.
6. Science Standards Coordinate with English Language Arts and Mathematics Common
Core State Standards.
The timing of the release of NGSS comes as most states are implementing the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Mathematics. This is important to science
for a variety of reasons. First, there is an opportunity for science to be part of a child’s
comprehensive education. The NGSS are aligned with the CCSS to ensure a symbiotic pace of
learning in all content areas. The three sets of standards overlap in meaningful and substantive
ways and offer an opportunity to give all students equitable access to learning standards.
Some important work is already in progress regarding the implications and advantages to the
CCSS and NGSS. Stanford University recently released 13 papers on a variety of issues related
to language and literacy in the content areas of the CCSS and NGSS.5
5
Stanford University. (2012). Understanding language. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/papers.
