Proficiency Scales for the New Science Standards. Robert J, Marzano
Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012).
Creation of the NRC Framework
In January of 2010, the NRC convened a group of eighteen experts in science, engineering, cognitive science, teaching and learning, curriculum, assessment, and education policy. Together, the NRC committee set out to create a conceptual framework for science education, which the committee described as
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. (NRC, 2012, p. 8)
In other words, the committee did not draft actual standards. Rather, the NRC identified the most important aspects of a competitive science curriculum and articulated these elements across grades K–12 with the intention that the framework would guide the drafting of new science standards.
To begin the process of creating its framework, the NRC committee contracted four design teams—comprised primarily of professors and university faculty—to focus on four scientific disciplines: (1) physical sciences, (2) life sciences, (3) Earth and space sciences, and (4) engineering, technology, and the applications of science. Each design team reviewed the “relevant research on learning and teaching” (NRC, 2012, p. 17) in its respective scientific discipline. The design teams also considered content and skills articulated in previous science standards documents, such as the NRC’s (1996) NSES, the AAAS’s (1993, 2009) Benchmarks, the National Assessment Governing Board’s (2008) Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the College Board’s (2009) Standards for College Success in science. Using this research to inform their work, the design teams drafted sections of the framework, presented them to the NRC committee, and revised the drafts according to committee feedback.
This process continued until the summer of 2010, when the NRC posted the first draft of its framework online and invited the public to ask questions and offer comments. In addition to collecting online feedback from over two thousand people, the NSTA and the AAAS coordinated focus-group response sessions and solicited reactions from science and engineering organizations and experts across the country (NRC, 2012). Over the next several months, the NRC committee used this feedback to make “substantial revisions” (NRC, 2012, p. 18) to the document draft. One year later, in July of 2012, the NRC published the final version of A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
Writing the NGSS
To begin the writing process, Achieve invited all fifty states to apply to become one of the NGSS lead states. In the end, the following twenty-six states joined together to draft the new science standards (Achieve, n.d.f).
1. Arizona
2. Arkansas
3. California
4. Delaware
5. Georgia
6. Illinois
7. Iowa
8. Kansas
9. Kentucky
10. Maine
11. Maryland
12. Massachusetts
13. Michigan
14. Minnesota
15. Montana
16. New Jersey
17. New York
18. North Carolina
19. Ohio
20. Oregon
21. Rhode Island
22. South Dakota
23. Tennessee
24. Vermont
25. Washington
26. West Virginia
Each state assembled a group of writers and reviewers from a variety of scientific, educational, and business communities to help draft the standards. The forty-one-member writing team included K–12 science teachers, experts in special education and English language acquisition, state standards and assessment developers, business and industry professionals, and workforce development specialists (Achieve, n.d.i). Though Achieve facilitated these individuals and the twenty-six lead states’ work, the organization did not draft the standards themselves. Instead, Achieve “played a similar role” (Robelen, 2012) to its part in coordinating the development of the CCSS. Also note that the federal government did not fund the development of the NGSS (Achieve, n.d.d). Instead, private foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Noyce Foundation, the Cisco Foundation, and DuPont provided funding (Gillis, 2013).
While composing the standards, the writing team conducted several rounds of review, feedback, and revision. Figure 1.1 depicts the general process and timeline for writing the NGSS.
Source: Achieve, n.d.c.
Figure 1.1: General timeline for the creation of the Next Generation Science Standards.
Emulating the actions of the NRC in the construction of its framework and the NGA and CCSSO in the construction of the CCSS, Achieve and the NGSS lead states welcomed feedback from various parties. As indicated in figure 1.1, the NGSS went through two rounds of public feedback: one in May 2012 and one in January 2013. The writing team also received feedback from specific individuals and organizations—which Achieve (n.d.b) called “critical stakeholders”—that they believed had a special interest in the NGSS. These individuals included representatives from the AAAS and the NSTA, state leaders, K–12 teachers, professors, and scientists, as well as experts in postsecondary education, state standards and assessments, mathematics and literacy, business and industry, workforce development, education policy, special education, and English language acquisition (Achieve, n.d.b). Finally, all fifty states had the chance to read and offer feedback on preliminary drafts of the standards (Achieve, n.d.g).
In April 2013, the final version of the NGSS was published. Several features set the NGSS apart from previous standards documents for science education, prompting writing team member Joseph S. Krajcik to proclaim, “You can travel worldwide and you’re not going to find standards like them” (quoted in Robelen, 2013). These unique characteristics as well as an overview of the initial reception of the NGSS are described online at MarzanoResources.com/reproducibles.
The Influence of the NRC Framework
It is important to keep in mind that A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012) heavily informed the creation of the NGSS. As stated previously, the NRC framework was written before the NGSS with the intention of determining the critical content the standards themselves should contain. The framework divided this content into three dimensions: (1) scientific and engineering practices, (2) crosscutting concepts, and (3) disciplinary core ideas. Table 1.3 lists the three dimensions and their component parts.
Table 1.3: The Three Dimensions of the NRC Framework
| Scientific and Engineering Practices |
1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. |