STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units [1 ed.] 9781681406275, 9781681406268

Citation preview

STEM, STANDARDS, STRATEGIES D N

A

for

High-Quality Units RODGER W. BYBEE Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM, STANDARDS, STRATEGIES D N

A

for

High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM, STEM, STANDARDS, STANDARDS, STRATEGIES STRATEGIES D N

AND

A

for

for High-Quality Units

High-Quality Units RODGER W. BYBEE Arlington, Virginia Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Claire Reinburg, Director Rachel Ledbetter, Associate Editor Jennifer Merrill, Associate Editor Andrea Silen, Associate Editor Donna Yudkin, Book Acquisitions Manager

Art and Design Will Thomas Jr., Director Printing and Production Catherine Lorrain, Director

National Science Teaching Association

1840 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201 www.nsta.org/store For customer service inquiries, please call 800-277-5300. Copyright © 2020 by the National Science Teaching Association. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. 23 22 21 20   4 3 2 1 NSTA is committed to publishing material that promotes the best in inquiry-based science education. However, conditions of actual use may vary, and the safety procedures and practices described in this book are intended to serve only as a guide. Additional precautionary measures may be required. NSTA and the authors do not warrant or represent that the procedures and practices in this book meet any safety code or standard of federal, state, or local regulations. NSTA and the authors disclaim any liability for personal injury or damage to property arising out of or relating to the use of this book, including any of the recommendations, instructions, or materials contained therein.

Permissions

Book purchasers may photocopy, print, or e-mail up to five copies of an NSTA book chapter for personal use only; this does not include display or promotional use. Elementary, middle, and high school teachers may reproduce forms, sample documents, and single NSTA book chapters needed for classroom or noncommercial, professional-development use only. E-book buyers may download files to multiple personal devices but are prohibited from posting the files to third-party servers or websites, or from passing files to non-buyers. For additional permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this NSTA Press book, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) (www.copyright.com; 978-750-8400). Please access www.nsta.org/permissions for further information about NSTA’s rights and permissions policies. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Bybee, Rodger W., author. Title: STEM, standards, and strategies for high-quality units / Rodger W. Bybee. Description: Arlington, VA : National Science Teaching Association, [2020] | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2019054062 (print) | LCCN 2019054063 (ebook) | ISBN 9781681406268 (paperback) | ISBN 9781681406275 (adobe pdf ) Subjects: LCSH: Science--Study and teaching (Elementary) | Science--Study and teaching (Secondary) | Technology--Study and teaching (Elementary) | Technology--Study and teaching (Secondary) | Engineering--Study and teaching (Elementary) | Engineering--Study and teaching (Secondary) | Mathematics--Study and teaching (Elementary) | Mathematics--Study and teaching (Secondary) Classification: LCC Q181 .B985 2020 (print) | LCC Q181 (ebook) | DDC 507.1/2--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054062 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054063

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Contents Preface..........................................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................xiii About the Author...........................................................................................................xv Chapter 1: Using This Book: An Introduction and Guide...................................................1

Part I YOUR LEADERSHIP FOR CREATING STEM UNITS

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 13 Chapter 2: Introducing a Vision for High-Quality Units.................................................. 17 Chapter 3: Establishing a Plan of Action for High-Quality Units..................................... 25 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 31

Part II MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT SELECTING, ADAPTING, AND DEVELOPING STEM MATERIALS Introduction.................................................................................................................. 33 Chapter 4: Clarifying and Assessing the Choices for Instructional Materials................... 35 Chapter 5: Recommendations for Selecting and Adapting STEM Materials.................... 39 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 47

Part III BEGINNING THE DESIGN OF A STEM UNIT

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 49 Chapter 6: An Initial Engagement: Preparing a Preliminary Design................................ 51 Chapter 7: Exploring the Design of a Unit..................................................................... 59 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 65

Part IV CONTEMPORARY IDEAS FOR HIGH-QUALITY STEM UNITS

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 67 Chapter 8: Innovations and STEM Education................................................................ 69 Chapter 9: How Students Learn STEM Content............................................................. 75 Chapter 10: 21st-Century Skills and STEM Units.......................................................... 83 Chapter 11: STEM Practices.......................................................................................... 89 Chapter 12: Civil Discourse in STEM Classrooms........................................................101 Conclusion..................................................................................................................106

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Contents

Part V PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLETING YOUR UNIT DESIGN Introduction................................................................................................................107 Chapter 13: Using Backward Design..........................................................................109 Chapter 14: Using an Instructional Model..................................................................119 Chapter 15: Completing Your Unit Design..................................................................125 Conclusion..................................................................................................................132

Part VI DEVELOPING A STEM UNIT

Introduction................................................................................................................133 Chapter 16: Science and Engineering in Standards and the Curriculum.......................135 Chapter 17: Planning, Conducting, and Communicating Investigations........................149 Chapter 18: Principles and Processes for Curriculum Development..............................159 Chapter 19: What Does a High-Quality STEM Unit Look Like in Practice?....................173 Chapter 20: Developing Your STEM Unit....................................................................185 Conclusion..................................................................................................................194

Part VII IMPLEMENTING YOUR STEM UNIT

Introduction................................................................................................................195 Chapter 21: Planning Lesson Study for Your STEM Unit...............................................197 Chapter 22: Lesson Study: Teaching, Reviewing, and Improving Your STEM Unit.........203 Conclusion..................................................................................................................212 Afterword...................................................................................................................213 Index..........................................................................................................................215

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Preface

S

TEM is, to say the least, very popular. The acronym is used in the media as a reference to any or all of the respective disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and math. Educators use the STEM acronym when referring to a range of experiences, from a singular activity to the curricular emphasis of a school. Although quite popular, the acronym also is highly ambiguous. How exactly does STEM relate to a state’s, district’s, or school’s programs and a teacher’s classroom practices? A majority of states have adopted new standards for science. But in apparent contrast with the widespread interest in STEM, there are few curriculum programs actually aligned to these new standards. What follows is a summary of that situation. The release of A Framework for K–12 Science Education (the Framework; NRC 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013) signaled a new set of innovations for science teaching. Briefly, the innovations included the following: • Teaching to three dimensions—science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas; • Having students engage in explaining natural phenomena and solving design problems; • Introducing science practices and crosscutting concepts in ways that include engineering and the nature of science; • Including units or yearlong programs based on coherent learning progressions; and • Making connections to the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and literacy (NGAC and CCSSO 2010). The major innovations in contemporary state science standards like the NGSS present a complex array of changes for curriculum and instruction, and especially for the many curricular decisions made by classroom teachers and professional learning communities (PLCs). Some of the innovations directly relate to STEM disciplines. (This includes, for example, the practices of engineering design and using mathematics and computational thinking). Unfortunately, in some cases, the complexity of standards resulted in the omission of some innovations as they were translated to instructional materials. Here, the role of crosscutting concepts serves as a significant example. In other cases, states omitted specific standards or did not adopt the NGSS because they included politically (but not scientifically) controversial topics, such as biological evolution and global climate change. The misperception that new science standards were national mandates also resulted in fewer states adopting the NGSS. However, most states did adopt new science standards that were influenced by the Framework and NGSS. The Framework and NGSS created a demand for instructional materials and professional development for classroom teachers. But the supply of instructional materials

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

vii

Preface

2

and opportunities for learning about the curriculum reform implied by the new standards was marginal at best. Now, it is approaching a decade since the Framework’s release, and there is still a significant need for clarification and concrete discussions about the new directions for science education, especially in reference to instructional materials for grades preK–12. I wrote STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units with individual teachers, teams of teachers in PLCs, and professional development providers in mind. My thinking and subsequent approach for the book developed from a series of questions. First, what has the highest priority within states—STEM or science? I think the accurate answer is science. In large measure, this answer is supported by the fact that states align assessments with the new science standards. But doesn’t STEM present a unique opportunity to address some other priorities and issues of educational and public interest and support? To this, I answer yes. So wouldn’t it be efficient and productive to find appropriate connections between STEM and science? Educators need not perceive STEM and standards in competition for time and resources; rather, they can be seen as complementary. Several STEM-related organizations and the federal government have policy statements recognizing the place of STEM in the education community. I refer you to the following list: • STEM4: The Power of Collaboration for Change, a 2019 document authored by Advance CTE, the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, the Council of State Science Supervisors, and the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association • STEM Education Teaching and Learning, a 2020 policy statement from the National Science Teaching Association • Building STEM Education on a Sound Mathematical Foundation, released in 2018 by the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics • Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education, released by the National Science and Technology Council in 2018 These policy statements clearly support STEM in K–12 education programs. However, the challenge of instructional materials remains. The current marketplace offers limited examples of high-quality, well-aligned science instructional materials, especially if one considers variations among states’ science standards. There are efforts currently underway to increase the supply of and access to high-quality science instructional materials designed for the NGSS. One such effort is the OpenSciEd initiative, launched by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and supported by other private foundations. In August 2019, OpenSciEd announced the release of three units. And in February 2020, two more units were released. The units are publicly available and were externally evaluated by Achieve’s EQuIP Peer Review Panel. Topics for the units include thermal energy, metabolic reactions, sound waves, matter cycling and photosynthesis, and forces at a distance; they are available as print-ready PDFs or

viii

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Preface

editable Google documents. This is an encouraging advance for science education in general; and in particular, it helps meet the need for instructional materials. As the field awaits a supply of instructional materials to fill the demand, curriculum reform can be accomplished through transitional strategies such as a systemic approach that requires educators to adapt current curricula or develop instructional materials and learn new ways of using them. Putting curriculum reform into practice is a difficult and demanding process that requires a vision of instructional materials, knowledge of new standards, support for change, collaboration among teachers to learn, and leadership at different levels in the educational system. Contemporary state standards incorporate research on learning and challenge teachers to think differently about learning and teaching content knowledge and practices of the disciplines. Designing, developing, and implementing a high-quality STEM unit could be an initial transitional step in the process of the larger challenge of reforming STEM and/or science programs. This book describes processes for teachers, teams of teachers, and professional developers to provide leadership for the design, development, and implementation of STEM units. The purpose is to present experiences, activities, and information that may be modified to accommodate unique priorities of classrooms, schools, and states. I go beyond the rhetoric of reform and offer a plan of action. Some educators may perceive STEM and state standards as conflicting priorities. I do not. STEM represents creative and exciting possibilities, whereas new standards for science are clearly policy mandates for curriculum reform. I propose that STEM and state standards for science may well represent a complementary relationship with implications for both school programs and teachers’ professional learning. My proposal addresses an additional priority for the education community: connecting teachers’ professional learning to the design, development, and implementation of instructional materials. Teachers’ knowledge and skills have as much of an effect on student learning as the choice or development of instructional materials (Chingos and Whitehurst 2012). As states, school districts, and schools decide to develop and implement STEM units, there likely will be simultaneous recognition of the need to provide professional learning experiences for teachers. Teachers may require additional knowledge, skills, and abilities to develop and implement STEM units—hence the need for professional learning. Although professional learning experiences may be designed to support the development and implementation of STEM units, they should also address instructional strategies that promote learning for adults. Some of these strategies also mirror the methods to be used with students (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010). The point of emphasis is that instructional materials designed to increase student learning in both STEM and science convey teaching largely as a process of provoking students to think, supporting

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

ix

Preface

2

them as they work, and guiding them to reach the content and competencies (i.e., the learning outcomes). How can teachers learn the strategies and pedagogical content knowledge necessary to effectively implement STEM instructional units? The answer is professional learning experiences that model the instructional approaches intended for teaching students. Engaging teachers in the actual development and subsequent implementation of STEM units will require teachers to think clearly and directly about learning and teaching STEM disciplines. Professional learning experiences that support the development and implementation of the STEM units will challenge teachers’ current beliefs about learning and teaching STEM. So, what is the action plan presented in this book? Briefly, I propose that individual teachers or teams of teachers in PLCs work with professional development providers to create and implement a STEM unit. Before you reject this approach as undoable based on its requirements of time and specific skills, consider the following: As I have discussed, both STEM and standards have challenges and opportunities, and incorporating features of each will contribute to stronger science curricula and teaching practices. The identifiable challenges to STEM education can be balanced with opportunities of the Framework and NGSS. For example, the science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas of the Framework and NGSS can provide important content and skills, thus reducing some ambiguities of STEM programs. The NGSS also recommends making connections to math concepts from the Common Core State Standards. Three of the four disciplines in STEM (science, engineering, and mathematics) are included in the NGSS, and technology is easily incorporated as instructional materials and curricular programs are designed and implemented. Conversely, the complexities of implementing the NGSS can be offset by the options of different STEM activities. The education community can address innovations included in new state science standards (for example, engineering design) and even topics omitted from some standards (for example, global climate change) through the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. Though I recognize that balancing STEM and standards will not be perfect, this perspective will help educators with responsibilities for reform to think creatively and strengthen the implementation of school programs and classroom practices. In conclusion, U.S. education has a long history of large and small innovations that have influenced policies, programs, and practices. STEM education is one example that holds promise of improving students’ interest and achievement. Unfortunately, we have also developed a perspective that all such innovations carry equal importance and our work is finished once we have implemented the new ideas. First, innovations like STEM education cannot be equated with other innovations such as the NGSS and new state standards because the latter are dominant organizers that influence all significant components of the educational system. For an innovation such as STEM to be sustainable, it must be included as part of these significant components. In the case of STEM, that means connecting to both state standards and the instructional materials

x

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Preface

for school programs and classroom practices. The important point here is that educators cannot assume that we are finished with the work of making STEM a continuing aspect of education. The steady work of STEM-based reform is nearer to the beginning than the conclusion, and integrated STEM units are an essential place to begin the process of making STEM a sustainable component of education. The opportunities for STEM and the responsibilities of implementing state science standards can be addressed together, creating more coherence and high-quality school programs and classroom experiences for all students.

References Advance CTE, the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, the Council of State Science Supervisors, and the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. 2019. STEM4: The power of collaboration for change. North Kingstown, RI: Next Gen Education, LLC. Chingos, M., and G. Whitehurst. 2012. Choosing blindly: Instructional materials, teacher effectiveness, and the common core. Report by the Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institution. http://brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/04/10-curriculum-chingoswhitehurst. Loucks-Horsley, S., K. Stiles, S. Mundry, N. Love, and P. Hewson. 2010. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 2018. Building STEM education on a sound mathematical foundation. Reston, VA: NCSM and NCTM. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards. National Science Teaching Association (NSTA). 2020. STEM education teaching and learning. NSTA position statement. www.nsta.org/about/positions/stem.aspx. National Science and Technology Council. 2018. Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

xi

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Acknowledgments

I

have had, and continue to have, colleagues whose ideas, criticisms, and recommendations established the foundation for this book. I acknowledge their inspiration and patience as I learned about STEM, standards, and professional development, as well as what goes into the design, development, and implementation of instructional materials. This book benefited from initial discussions with, reviews by, and recommendations from Chris Chopyak, Dora Kastel, John Spiegel, Kathy Stiles, Susan Mundry, Kathy DiRanna, Peter McLaren, Bonnie and Herb Brunkhorst, Harold Pratt, Bob Pletka, and Corey Bess. I will give very special appreciation to Cassie Bess, a sixth-grade teacher at Solana Highlands Elementary School in Solana Beach, California. Ms. Bess developed a STEM unit that is the basis for Chapter 19. I am sure other elementary teachers will share much gratitude for her work and contribution. I am grateful to the NSTA Press staff for their understanding and support. My appreciation goes to Claire Reinberg, Rachel Ledbetter, and Andrea Silen. Four individuals completed formal reviews of an early draft. I found those reviews thorough and challenging. The book is, in my opinion, much improved by my responses to criticisms and suggestions from Harold Pratt, James Bader, Nathan Auck, and Anne Moore. Jim Short of the Carnegie Corporation of New York dedicated several days to review the draft and provide valuable feedback. My appreciation for his time and effort is far beyond the usual acknowledgment to a colleague or reviewer. Byllee Simon’s contributions to the final manuscript were superior. Her dedication and knowledge immeasurably improved the book. Finally, my deepest appreciation and enduring gratefulness goes to Kathryn Bybee. Kathryn’s support, contributions, and recommendations brought the book into alignment with the needs and challenges of classroom teachers and professional developers.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

xiii

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

About the Author

U

ntil his retirement in 2007, Rodger W. Bybee was executive director of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), a nonprofit organization that develops curriculum materials, provides professional development, and conducts research and evaluation. From 1986 to 1995, Rodger was associate director of BSCS, where he served as the principal investigator for four National Science Foundation (NSF) programs. These included an elementary school program called Science for Life and Living: Integrating Science, Technology and Health; a middle school program called Middle School Science & Technology; a high school program called Biological Science: A Human Approach; and a college program called Biological Perspectives. Prior to joining BSCS, Rodger was executive director of the National Research Council’s (NRC) Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education in Washington, D.C. Rodger participated in the development of the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996), and from 1993 to 1995 chaired the content working group of that NRC project. He also contributed to A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012) and served on the leadership team and as a writer for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013). From 1972 to 1985, he was professor of education at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. He has been active in education for more than 50 years and has taught at the elementary through college levels. Rodger’s bachelor’s and master’s degrees are from the University of Northern Colorado, and his doctorate degree is from New York University. In 1989, he was recognized as one of 100 outstanding alumni in the history of the University of Northern Colorado. In April 1998, the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) presented him with NSTA’s Distinguished Service to Science Education Award. In 2007, he received the Robert H. Carleton Award, NSTA’s highest honor for national leadership in the field of science education. Since retiring from BSCS, Rodger has continued working as a consultant and contributing to education through presentations and publishing. With NSTA Press, he has authored The Teaching of Science: 21st-Century Perspectives (2010); EVO Teacher’s Guide: Ten Questions Everyone Should Ask About Evolution (2012), with John Feldman; The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities (2013a); Translating the NGSS for Classroom Instruction (2013b); The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Creating Teachable Moments (2015); Perspectives on American Science Education: A Leadership Seminar (2017), with Stephen Pruitt; and STEM Education Now More Than Ever (2018).

References Bybee, R. 2010. The teaching of science: 21st-century perspectives. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

xv

About the Author

2

Bybee, R. 2013a. The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R. 2013b. Translating the NGSS for classroom instruction. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R. 2015. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R. 2018. STEM education now more than ever. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R., and J. Feldman. 2012. EVO teacher’s guide: Ten questions everyone should ask about evolution. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R., and S. Pruitt. 2017. Perspectives on science education: A leadership seminar. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards.

xvi

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 1 USING THIS BOOK An Introduction and Guide

T

his chapter presents an introduction to the book’s themes and reviews the structure and possible uses of the chapters by individuals, teams of teachers, and professional developers.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To provide an introduction, background knowledge, and suggestions about the use of this book for those who plan to create STEM units Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • the book’s major themes; • the general structure of the book; and • various options for the use of chapters based on the readers’ available time, needs, and individual school or district priorities.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

1

CHAPTER 1 I begin this introduction with a few words about the book’s title, STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units. I did not include a verb such as developing, producing, inventing, or creating after the preposition for in the title. This creates some ambiguity, which is intentional. The book’s primary emphasis is indeed on the creation of STEM units and the incorporation of content and practices from state science standards. However, the ambiguous title conveys a secondary objective; namely, that developing a high-quality STEM unit also contributes to the knowledge and skills needed to select or adapt instructional materials.

The Book’s Themes: STEM and Standards

The title STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units summarizes key themes for the book. What follows are brief discussions about two of these themes. Why STEM? STEM—which of course stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—has a significant presence in schools, districts, and states. STEM has also attained a symbolic recognition in American education. In 2018, the U.S. Postal Service even released STEM-related postage stamps! (See Figure 1.1.) Despite this achievement, there still exists a need for clarification of STEM education in the specific contexts of new college and career-ready science standards, school programs, and classroom practices.

Figure 1.1. STEM Postage Stamps

Source: U.S. Postal Service, public domain.

Although the acronym STEM is widely used, the meanings attributed to it vary. For example, it may refer to a single discipline such as science; the recognition of careers; a robotics competition; connections among the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and math; or all four disciplines, collectively. Moreover, engineering and technology often are not included in science courses, even though the acronym’s ambiguity provides opportunities to include topics and approaches that are broader and deeper than state standards. Nevertheless, STEM is already a part of many school programs, thus opening the door for greater substance, connections to standards, and long-term sustainability of STEM education.

2

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING THIS BOOK: AN INTRODUCTION AND GUIDE

Why standards? Since 2013, a majority of states have either adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013) or approved new science standards based on the NGSS, most of which include connections to engineering and mathematics. These standards reflect the influence of Common Core State Standards (NGAC and CCSSO 2010) and A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012). As mentioned, many of the new science standards clearly include connections to the STEM disciplines. The architecture and expected outcomes of the NGSS differ significantly from the National Research Council’s 1996 National Science Education Standards and state standards developed before 2013. In the NGSS, science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts form the three content dimensions of learning. The learning outcomes associated with the three dimensions are clearly identified by means of performance expectations—statements of competency that describe and integrate the content and skills to be assessed. A comprehensive instructional program should provide opportunities for students to develop their understanding of disciplinary core ideas through their engagement in science and engineering practices and their application of crosscutting concepts. This three-dimensional learning leads to eventual mastery of the competencies expressed in the performance expectations. There is no postage stamp for the NGSS or new state science standards. However, there is a need for new instructional materials that address the requirements of these standards. High-quality instructional materials should clearly show how the cumulative learning experiences work coherently to build the competencies. Because most states have new science standards, it only makes sense to incorporate various aspects of those standards in STEM activities. Many states have included engineering and connections to mathematics in the science practices. The fact that Common Core State Standards includes nonfiction reading and writing and mathematics makes a further connection to state standards.

The Book’s Themes: Strategies, High Quality, and Units

Why strategies? By definition, a strategy includes the planning and conducting of a large-scale mission. A strategy can be contrasted with tactics. The strategy (i.e., plan of action) in this book is for designing, developing, and implementing STEM units that incorporate content and practices of state standards. Why high quality? Well, medium, moderate, or “just OK” quality certainly doesn’t cut it! The approach in this book is based on answering the following question: What counts as high-quality instructional materials? My answer is this: High-quality instructional materials are materials that enhance student learning. I included ideas in this book about student learning, an instructional model, information on the design and development of materials, and suggestions for improvement of the unit based on practical experience and feedback from colleagues. In addition, I included evaluative

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

3

CHAPTER 1 criteria based on what is used by the education organization Achieve in its EQuIP initiative and by EdReports in its 2019 Science Quality Instructional Materials Rubric. These criteria help to explain what I mean by high quality and what high-quality units look like in practical terms. Why units? A unit is a common category of instructional materials, and developing a unit is doable in a reasonable amount of time. That said, a unit is enough instructional time to accomplish meaningful change. As the result of creating such material, you— and perhaps colleagues from your school or district—will have a unit you can use as well as new understandings and abilities that will help you make the best choice when selecting a new program, adapting current materials, or creating your own curriculum materials, depending on your approach to new instructional materials.

Conclusion to Discussion of Themes

I conclude this discussion by clarifying several points about the book’s themes and outlining its major proposals. First, I propose STEM units of several weeks in length, rather than entire curricular programs. The rationale for doing this is to begin with a small and manageable task. Second, the units could be revisions of current science units. For instance, they could elaborate on activities such as egg drops or building and testing structures; place-, problem-, or project-based units; and capstone projects. The challenge with revisions is providing a clear context, as well as addressing appropriate concepts and practices from STEM disciplines and state college and career-ready standards for science. Third, the professional learning involved in creating units should include guidance and analysis of strong curricular models and field-testing of the new STEM units. Finally, I note that this discussion is an introduction. The chapters that follow provide more details on the background, goals, and processes of the aforementioned ideas. One place teachers can begin their work is on the creation of high-quality STEM units. This book can be the basis for one approach for curriculum reform. In summation, this book introduces practical ideas for creating STEM units and directs users through the processes of development. While waiting for the supply of instructional materials to catch up to the demand, it seems reasonable and logical to create STEM units that are both doable and usable. Creating these units will also contribute to a teacher’s knowledge and to his or her ability to make informed selections, modifications, and continued developments to instructional materials. The book is structured around the topics of leadership, design, development, and implementation of STEM units. It represents a synthesis of contemporary educational ideas such as the 5E Instructional Model, backward design, and lesson study. Table 1.1 presents a graphic summary of the book’s major sections and chapters. Each chapter includes (1) the purpose and outcomes of the section and (2) a narrative of key ideas. Some chapters include activities and worksheets (many of which are available on the book’s Extras page—www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies), examples of emerging units, resources for further information, and references.

4

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING THIS BOOK: AN INTRODUCTION AND GUIDE

Table 1.1. Organization of STEM, Standards , and Strategies for High-Quality Units PART I: Your Leadership for Creating STEM Units Effective leadership requires both a vision and a plan.

Chapter 2: A Vision

This chapter provides a vision for STEM units, setting the stage and introducing the need and rationale for these materials.

Chapter 3: A Plan

Here, you will find a plan to address practical issues of STEM unit development—the who, what, when, where, and budget.

PART II: Making Decisions About Selecting, Adapting, and Developing STEM Materials

You have three options for meeting the need for materials aligned with your state’s science standards.

Chapter 4: Clarifying and Assessing Choices

This chapter explains how choices should be clarified and analyzed.

Chapter 5: Recommendations for Selecting and Adapting Materials Detailed suggestions are provided in this chapter for those who decide to select or adapt STEM units.

PART III: Beginning the Design of a STEM Unit

High-quality STEM units begin with an architect’s blueprint—you are the architect.

Chapter 6: An Engagement

This chapter covers the preparation of a preliminary design.

Chapter 7: An Exploration

You will now explore the question “What did you already know and what do you want to learn about designing a STEM unit?”

PART IV: Contemporary Ideas for High-Quality STEM Units This section will help identify a STEM unit’s critical elements.

Chapter 8: Innovations

This chapter discusses innovations in NGSS and state standards.

Chapter 9: Learning

The focus of this chapter is on how students learn STEM content.

Chapter 10: Skills

Here, you will receive information about 21st-century skills.

Chapter 11: Practices

This chapter goes over STEM practices.

Chapter 12: Discourse

Civil discourse in the classroom is discussed in this chapter.

Continued

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

5

CHAPTER 1 Table 1.1. (continued )

PART V: Practical Recommendations for Completing Your Unit Design

It’s time to complete the design. This section will introduce you to two important ideas for the process.

Chapter 13: Using Backward Design

The process introduced in this chapter will increase your unit’s quality.

Chapter 14: Using an Instructional Model This chapter covers the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.

Chapter 15: Completing the Design In this chapter, you just get it done.

PART VI: Developing a STEM Unit

The STEM unit moves from a blueprint to actual construction, and you are the general contractor coordinating various parts of the development.

Chapter 16: Science and Engineering in Standards and the Curriculum

You will now review concepts from science and engineering, central disciplines of the NGSS and multiple states’ science standards.

Chapter 17: Planning, Conducting, and Communicating Investigations This chapter uses two practices as a way to incorporate even more practices into a STEM unit.

Chapter 18: Principles and Processes for Curriculum Development This chapter introduces principles and processes for developing instructional materials.

Chapter 19: A High-Quality STEM Unit in Practice

In this chapter, a classroom teacher describes a STEM unit that she implemented.

Chapter 20: Developing Your STEM Unit

You will begin work on the specific details of your STEM unit and apply your knowledge and abilities to create the unit.

PART VII: Implementing Your STEM Unit

Construction of your STEM unit is complete. Now it’s time to make changes based on your needs and the needs of others.

Chapter 21: Lesson Study

This chapter covers planning a lesson study.

Chapter 22: Teaching, Reviewing, Improving In this chapter, you will implement the lesson study.

6

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING THIS BOOK: AN INTRODUCTION AND GUIDE

Table 1.1 reveals a detailed description of the book’s structure: an introduction followed by sets of chapters on leadership, design, background information, development, and implementation of STEM units. There is an underlying logic to the sequence of chapters. For example, the chapters on design precede those about development. This is because a well thought out design will enhance the development of units. The chapters in Parts I–VI are designed for individuals, school teams, and professional development providers interested in improving their understanding of and skills with curriculum development, instructional strategies, and assessment methods in general and the development of STEM units in particular. The chapters build on knowledge and skills beginning with initial decisions and ending with the implementation and evaluation of the units. The sequence of chapters and activities is based on the following: • Making decisions about your unit • Getting started with preliminary designs • Improving the designs using new knowledge and skills • Developing your unit • Teaching and improving your STEM unit As I am well aware of the constraints on individuals, limitations of schools, and varying priorities of districts, I have not used a time frame for the program. It may be offered as online work, a series of sessions at professional meetings, or as part of other opportunities that occur in professional settings. To be clear, the professional learning is not a single, one-day workshop or lecture. This book is a program for the development and implementation of STEM units that involves work across an extended period of time. Important experiences and processes for the professional learning program are listed in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2. Outcomes and Processes for the Professional Learning Process • Establish norms for collaborative work with your professional learning community (PLC). • Clarify learning outcomes for STEM units in general and at grade levels. • Identify topics and coordinate units across grade levels and courses. • Review opportunities to address state standards. • Introduce the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. • Create design assessments for the STEM units. • Introduce lesson study. • Introduce backward design. • Learn about argumentation in presentations of STEM investigations.

I encourage users of this book (especially individual teachers, professional learning teams, and professional developers new to the outcomes and processes) to complete

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

7

CHAPTER 1 the chapters’ various exercises, activities, background discussions, and worksheets. That said, if you already know about components of the overall work and outcomes, you may find some experiences unnecessary. I do encourage you to keep in mind the final goal—a coherent, high-quality STEM unit.

Using the Chapters and Activities

A range of individuals and groups may use this book. For those new to the processes of design, development, and implementation of instructional materials, I encourage working within a professional learning community (PLC). For those with some experience, I trust your professional judgment to make decisions about which chapters and activities will be most helpful. This book can be used in different ways, depending on your leadership role. For the following discussion about these uses, I focus on local leaders (e.g., teachers, STEM coordinators, science supervisors, department chairs, school and district administrators). I encourage teachers to take up the mantle of leadership, especially in rural districts. I also focus on individuals who hold leadership roles outside local districts but who may be directly involved in district initiatives through provisions of professional development (e.g., state and regional educational leaders, college and university personnel, members of informal education communities, and specialists in professional development). First, some general recommendations. Although teachers and teams may already have lessons or units on hand, I suggest beginning with new designs and topics. Developing units “from scratch” opens possibilities for new and creative ideas. This said, it also works for teachers to begin with currently available materials. Other options would be to start by searching for open educational resources or available materials to purchase. If these latter options are used, I still recommend some of the processes in the program described in this book. Now, I will list some specific ways for the aforementioned groups to use the book. For local leaders and PLC teams, I suggest the following: • Use Part I for initial discussions and to create commitments to develop and implement STEM units. • Review the program described in Parts II–IV to identify priorities for planning and budgeting. • Consider needs, gaps, and opportunities in your local schools and district. What do you need to do? Who do you need to talk to? Who will be on the teams of teachers? What do you need for support? How will you communicate the program to develop a STEM unit to colleagues and the community? • Review chapters to determine what is available and what you might need for additional background material.

8

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING THIS BOOK: AN INTRODUCTION AND GUIDE

• Build support and capacity by presenting the program and your plans at local, regional, and state meetings of informal educators and STEM-related organizations. For professional development providers, college and university faculty, regional leaders, and STEM organizations, I suggest the following uses of this book: • As the basis of and guidance for creating a course, curriculum, or institute for the development and implementation of STEM units • As a way to introduce others in the educational system (e.g., policy makers, business leaders, and the general public) to the importance of and need for STEM in education

A Plan of Action for STEM and Standards-Based Reform

I have pointed out the necessity for new instructional materials that address both the needs of teachers who want to pursue STEM and the requirements of implementing standards-aligned science curricula. States, school districts, and science teachers looking to fill the demand for such materials eventually realize that their decisions are limited to selecting commercially or openly available instructional materials; adapting current instructional materials; or developing new instructional materials. There are, of course, variations on these options. But in the end, the choices boil down to these three actions: selecting, adapting, or developing the materials. In simple and direct terms, this book is a call to action to both the STEM and science education communities. With support from the extended educational community, I propose a process that centers on teachers developing STEM units for use in their classrooms. With guidance and support, the design, development, and implementation of STEM units will • complement needed curriculum reforms aligned with new state science standards, • respond to teachers’ concerns about the relevance of instructional materials, • contribute to teachers’ roles as educational leaders, and • enhance students’ learning as they become informed citizens. Typically, as new priorities such as STEM or state science standards are adopted and put in place, educators select instructional materials aligned with the innovations in these new priorities. Professional learning may be provided by publishers and school districts that adopt new curricula programs. Based on my history of work on national standards and curriculum development projects, my original approach would have been to wait for curriculum development organizations to partner with publishers and release new curricula. This response has not been the case since the release of the NGSS. Even the recent reviews of middle school science instructional materials by EdReports show the limited supply of high-quality curricula aligned with the NGSS. While teachers wait for the field to respond and produce better instructional materials, I propose a different approach—one that recognizes leadership by classroom

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

9

CHAPTER 1 teachers and represents a departure from the continued use of outdated curricula. As teachers engage in more productive strategies to address NGSS innovations and the integration of STEM, they also will help build demand for better instructional materials and aligned curricula. So, what exactly am I proposing? I begin with the basic curricular element of the proposal. Development efforts would concentrate on STEM units. These units would be more than a lesson and less than a full program. They would be one- to three-week integrated instructional sequences for elementary, middle, or high school students. STEM units could be developed as replacements for current activities, lessons, or units. They would therefore require only a small increase on time constraints of the current system or no increase at all. Moreover, if implemented in current science courses, these units could address two priorities: STEM and standards. That is, they would support the content and processes of separate STEM disciplines using the NGSS or state science standards as a blueprint. This would result in an integrated approach to STEM. Integrated STEM units could also serve as capstone projects at the end of science courses to provide students with opportunities to apply what they have learned from previous science units. Including these units in current science courses is a first step toward making integrated STEM a sustainable component both in a district’s science program and in the educational system at large. Who develops the units? My answer to this question is teams of teachers from school districts, with support from facilitators of professional learning. The approach combines teachers’ professional learning and the development of STEM units. At this point, I wish to make my position absolutely clear—the proposal is not to simply have teachers develop STEM units without professional, administrative, and public support. Most educators recognize the critical role of teachers at the interface between instructional materials and students; however, other components of the educational system must also be involved in the process that I am proposing. I am placing confidence in professional teachers and the providers of professional learning for teachers. Responsibility also resides in schools, districts, and state administrators to provide the time and support needed for professional learning.

Conclusion

This book describes the steps that may be taken as individual teachers, teams of teachers, and professional developers elect to design, develop, and implement STEM units as a complementary option to either selecting instructional materials or adapting current materials. I assume most teachers have the initiative to do as teachers have done for decades— develop units based on their interests, knowledge, and understanding of their students. I also strongly recommend that PLCs use the ideas and approach presented in this book with teams of teachers within schools and districts. Finally, there is a critical role for professional development providers to facilitate and guide the creation of

10

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING THIS BOOK: AN INTRODUCTION AND GUIDE

high-quality STEM units. No matter who is creating these units, they will provide the education community with an extremely powerful tool—an effective and exciting way to enhance student learning through STEM and standards.

References EdReports. 2019. Science quality instructional materials rubric: Grades: 6–8. EdReports.org. edreports.org/about/our-approach/index.html. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

11

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART I YOUR LEADERSHIP FOR CREATING STEM UNITS

E

ffective leadership requires a vision and a plan. The two chapters in Part I address these complementary ideas. Leadership, especially by teachers, will be required to introduce the vision proposed in this book. Lead teachers, coordinators, and administrators should have preliminary discussions in order to make the decision to develop and implement STEM units. Ideally, other procedural and administrative matters will be completed upon making this decision (e.g., arrangements for meeting spaces, identification of teacher teams for the program). Then discussions of a program for professional development can begin. Teachers can design, develop, and implement STEM units. They do this work all the time. Of course, to be successful, they need administrative support, opportunities to collaborate, and expert guidance. The latter is essential in order to develop coordinated and meaningful units across school districts. With leadership, teachers can develop units that are engaging for students, coherent across grades, and centered around innovative STEM themes.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

13

PART I I know there exists a view that many teachers already develop instructional units— but that these units may not be of the highest quality. This view is fairly widespread and largely accepted by many educators. And there is evidence for this perspective (Chingos and Whitehurst 2012). However, here is the reality. Despite evidence that teachers don’t create high-quality units, they develop units anyway. Schools, districts, and states have the following options to address the need for instructional materials aligned with new state standards: select commercially available materials or open-education resources; adapt lessons, units, or programs currently in use; or develop new instructional materials. There may be some variations or combinations of these choices, but obtaining new standards-based instructional materials boils down to these three choices. There is also the need for a professional learning program for STEM units. The processes and content that comprise the program described in this book bring together key elements and provide foundational knowledge and skills for teachers. The knowledge and skills are applicable to the three options for obtaining instructional units mentioned in the previous paragraph. In addition, the knowledge and skills will contribute to better teaching and learning. Developing a STEM unit results in practical and usable materials, as well as knowledge and skills with wider educational purposes. There are some models and evidence for the idea of teacher-developed STEM units. (See Penuel, Gallagher, and Moorthy 2011; Wiener and Pimentel 2017). To be clear, this approach to the development and implementation of STEM-related instructional materials is a variation on common practices. It is also reasonable and doable. All the components needed for the approach already exist: Teachers develop units; districts support professional development; and individuals and organizations have the knowledge required to provide said professional development. (BSCS Science Learning and WestEd are examples of organizations that have the knowledge and experience to provide the professional development described in this book.) Just because we are not developing STEM units today does not preclude us from beginning the process tomorrow. The scale of change envisioned here requires leadership by teachers to address the necessity for instructional resources that align with the needs of teachers and students, as well as with the requirements of new standards, most of which include the STEM disciplines. In this book, I suggest beginning with a bottom-up/top-down approach. This refers to teachers developing their units with guidance and support for professional development, as well as with leadership from the STEM community. Beginning with a bottom-up/top-down approach seems possible and has the potential to achieve change at a scale that makes a difference.

14

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

YOUR LEADERSHIP FOR CREATING STEM UNITS

References Chingos, M., and G. Whitehurst. 2012. Choosing blindly: Instructional materials, teacher effectiveness, and the common core. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institution. http://brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/04/10-curriculum-chingoswhitehurst. Penuel, W., L. Gallagher, and S. Moorthy. 2011. Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth systems science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal 48 (4): 996–1025. Wiener, R., and S. Pimentel. 2017. Practice what you teach: Connecting curriculum and professional learning in schools. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

15

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCING A VISION FOR HIGH-QUALITY UNITS T

his chapter addresses the role of leadership by classroom teachers; other school, district, and state leaders; and professional developers as they introduce the idea of designing, developing, and implementing STEM units.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To establish a vision for high-quality instructional materials, specifically STEM units Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • the need for STEM units; • the processes for developing STEM units; and • the connections among state standards, high-quality instructional materials, professional learning, and the role of STEM units.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

17

CHAPTER 2 As the title suggests, this chapter identifies a vision that centers on STEM units and uses a systematic perspective in order to move the community of STEM educators through the period of transition from current instructional materials to new STEMand standards-based curricula. Table 2.1 and the following paragraphs address eight points, providing recommendations for initial discussions about innovative STEM units. The activities mentioned in the figure are meant to introduce the ideas of STEM and its content and processes, contextual emphasis, and the design of units that would complement other state and local goals. Design, development, and implementation of STEM units provide the context for the strategy.

Initiating a Dialogue

I recommend an initial dialogue by leaders about STEM education in general and the implications for the proposed units in particular. The dialogue should include teachers, schools, district leaders, and state leaders in the educational system. Background information in The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities (Bybee 2013) and STEM Education Now More Than Ever (Bybee 2018) can provide a basis for the dialogue.

Defining Goals

When the discussion turns to the purposes or goals of the STEM units in the context of the state, district, or school, the responses may include providing STEM literacy preparation for college, for careers, for the development of workforce skills, for higher achievement on assessments, and for citizenship. Ask clarifying questions (located in the Clarifying Questions column in Table 2.1). What is meant by phrases like STEM literacy for college, STEM literacy for careers, and STEM literacy for workforce skills? What are their implications for the instructional materials at different grades, for different instructional strategies, and for the professional learning of classroom teachers? Here is a statement that you could use to initiate the discussion. You should feel free to modify this statement based on your local needs and priorities: By the year 2025, K–12 students in our school, district, or state will demonstrate competencies when presented with challenging STEMrelated situations. In addition to these competencies, students will have opportunities to learn content, skills, and practices that will prepare them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our 21st-century, knowledge-based society. Our school, district, or state can begin working on this vision through the design, development, and implementation of STEM units that incorporate state standards.

18

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

INTRODUCING A VISION FOR HIGH-QUALITY UNITS

Table 2.1. Introducing the Idea of STEM Units Activity

Goal(s)

Clarifying Question(s)

Discussing STEM education and possible units with key personnel (e.g., teams of classroom teachers, administrators, and professional developers)

To engage in a discussion of STEM education

What is STEM education?

Defining the goals for STEM education

To clarify the major goals for STEM-related instructional units

What do we wish to achieve through STEM-related instructional units?

Committing to state standards and the development of STEM units appropriate for teachers, schools, and students

To figure out contexts in which the STEM units should be used

What has the state already agreed that all students should know and be able to do?

What are the implications of STEM education for curriculum in our state, district, and school?

To decide what competencies the STEM units should emphasize

What topics, problems, or projects should be the basis for STEM units?

Deepening understanding of STEM and the processes of developing instructional units

Have we thought about the role To challenge and clarify fundamental conceptions of STEM of STEM units in our state, district, school, and classroom? education and the proposed STEM-related units

Increasing the coherence of STEM education in the school curriculum

To achieve greater alignment among components of the STEM units and between current curriculum and the educational system

How can we achieve greater alignment among the proposed STEM units and between current curriculum and the education system?

Establishing criteria for initiating To clarify a reasonable set of What are the specifications we the STEM units (This may include specifications that can be used for can use to judge the acceptability developing, adapting, or selecting decisions about STEM units of STEM units? instructional materials.) Making a commitment to implement STEM units by key parties

To have key parties agree and support the idea of implementing STEM units

Do we agree to the idea of implementing STEM units?

Monitoring progress

To provide feedback about the role of STEM units informing the state, district, or school leaders

How are we doing so far? What do we have to do now?

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

19

CHAPTER 2 Connecting State Standards and STEM Units

This goal statement poses several questions worthy of discussion and clarification as the teams commit to developing STEM units: • How will the proposed units incorporate state standards? • Is the year 2025 a reasonable deadline? • How are competencies defined? • What are the local challenges of STEM-related contexts? • What content and practices will help students become responsible citizens? • How do state standards inform the discussion and decisions about STEM units?

Deepening Understanding

Decisions to improve STEM programs through the design and implementation of units can facilitate discussions that result in deeper understanding of content and pedagogy. These discussions may bring to the surface fundamental misunderstandings about standards, curriculum, and improvement of educational systems. School leaders can address these and probably other misunderstandings through professional development that complements the STEM units. Deepening understanding also includes clarification of both the timeline mentioned above and the questions of who, what, how, when, where, and how much will it cost.

Increasing Coherence

In many educational situations, there is a lack of coherence among essential components of the system. For example, some content and activities of current instructional materials may not align with widely used assessments. Teacher preparation and professional development may not align with state and local frameworks. Furthermore, some initiatives, such as voucher programs and charter schools, focus attention on issues that may vary from the central components of the instructional core—content, curriculum, and teachers’ professional knowledge and abilities. The discussion of STEM units should address the challenge of increasing coherence through alignment of learning outcomes with teacher’s needs, local priorities, and state standards. To be truthful, there will be necessary tradeoffs in trying to achieve complete coherence among key components of the educational system, such as curriculum and assessments.

Suggested Criteria for STEM Units

The innovative changes implied by the discussion of STEM education should be initiated with units that demonstrate a different curriculum emphasis within K–12 programs. The essential point here is that the curriculum emphasis I propose is on competent application of knowledge and abilities to both potential life situations and the responsibilities of citizenship. The units are interdisciplinary and involve

20

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

INTRODUCING A VISION FOR HIGH-QUALITY UNITS

problem-based situations appropriate to students’ age and grade. The primary outcomes center on the development of competencies and the consideration of consequences for different solutions. This is a modest change from the current emphasis, but achievable. Proposed criteria for the units are presented in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. Suggested Criteria for Innovative STEM Units The proposed STEM units should do the following: • Be based on learning research described in several National Research Council (NRC) reports (e.g., How People Learn [Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 2000]; How People Learn II [NASEM 2018]; Taking Science to School [Duschl, Schweingruber, and Shouse 2007]). • Use an integrated instructional sequence such as the 5E Instructional Model (Bybee 2015). • Be developed using backward design (Wiggins and McTighe 2005, 2011). • Use contextual issues related to STEM as the central theme of units (e.g., place-, problem-, or project-based contexts). • Incorporate states’ standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS Lead States 2013]). • Include opportunities to develop 21st-century skills (NRC 2010). • Present units lasting a minimum of £ 2 weeks for elementary grades (K–5), £ 3 weeks for middle grades (6–8), or £ 4 weeks for high school grades (9–12). • Be field-tested and revised based on feedback and evidence of effectiveness (e.g., use PLCs [Dufour, Eaker, and Dufour 2005] and lesson study [Lewis 2003]).

Making a Commitment to Implementing STEM Units

The term implementation leaves open who, how, and where the units will be developed. My recommendation is that teams of teachers provide the leadership and propose the process for developing the STEM units. The process should clearly and directly involve professional development providers. That said, I realize some teachers and districts may want to adapt current units or select open education resources or commercially available instructional materials. Developing STEM units will provide deeper and broader learning experiences for the teachers creating the units. Adapting existing materials, which have learning outcomes, activities, content, and practices, can constrain teacher creativity.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

21

CHAPTER 2 Monitoring Progress

The final step in the strategy seems obvious. There is a need to monitor progress and provide feedback to various leaders within the system. The usual approach emphasizes assessment of student learning. States have implemented assessments. Furthermore, we have the National Assessment of Educational Progress at the national level, and we have Trends in Math and Science Study and Program for International Student Assessment at the international level. A very important complement to assessments of student achievement is the evaluation of opportunities students have had to learn the valued content of STEM education. Figure 2.2 includes background information that will be helpful for introductory discussions.

Figure 2.2. Proposed Answers to Potential Questions in Introductory Discussions What is STEM education trying to achieve? This question centers on goals. The larger, national sense of advancing STEM education focuses on the three following aims: • Achieving a STEM-literate society overall • Developing a deep technical workforce—one that meets 21st-century needs • Attaining an advanced research and development workforce with diverse individuals in the professions In general, STEM education includes the conceptual understandings and procedural skills and abilities needed for individuals to address STEM-related personal, social, and global issues. For example, STEM units would involve the basic concepts and processes of STEM disciplines and include appropriate content from state standards. STEM units would be based on the following goals: • Acquire scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical knowledge and use that knowledge to identify issues, acquire new knowledge, and apply the knowledge to STEM-related issues. • Understand the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of human endeavors that include the processes of inquiry, design, and analysis. • Recognize how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual, and cultural world. • Engage in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as concerned, effective, and constructive citizens. What else will be achieved by developing high-quality STEM Units? The professional learning that is part of this process should also provide the unit developers with a deeper understanding of state standards and ways to think about the structure and function of instructional materials.

Continued

22

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

INTRODUCING A VISION FOR HIGH-QUALITY UNITS

Figure 2.2. (continued ) What will it take to achieve these goals? First, and perhaps foremost, achieving these goals requires a recognition that STEM education means school curriculum should include experiences that give priority to STEM-related personal, social, and global issues. Traditionally, educators have assumed that students with adequate knowledge and skills in the STEM disciplines would apply these to life situations. However, in order to learn how to apply such knowledge and skills, students should have experiences requiring them to do so. The STEM units would help students apply what they have learned in more disciplinary-focused units and use that knowledge to answer critical questions or solve problems. Second, translating these goals for STEM education into K–12 school programs and instructional practices requires a way of organizing education so the respective disciplines can be integrated and instructional materials can be designed, developed, and implemented. Third, designing, developing, and implementing STEM units is a concrete, practical first step in achieving the goals—one with potential accomplishments at scales that make a difference. Finally, the proposed STEM units have two additional key features. They recognize 21st-century priorities for the workforce and include those skills and abilities within the curriculum. They also recognize the roles of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in society. Who is responsible for achieving these goals? Responsibility is distributed among multiple stakeholders within the educational system. The specific roles of each would vary. Teachers clearly have a key role, as do the professional developers. Administrations have the role of providing support, as do school boards. By the process proposed here, classroom teachers hold much of the responsibility for innovative STEM units. That said, they need the support of professional developers and administrative support to incorporate the innovations of STEM education in their classrooms. How long will it take to implement STEM programs? Answering this question requires some clarification. The view emphasized here is one of instructional units designed, developed, and implemented in K–12 classrooms. In order for this to be accomplished, it will take a year for the initial round of teacher-made units to be developed, field-tested, revised, and implemented. The development of additional STEM units would continue, perhaps, for several years. What will it cost? It is difficult to estimate the cost of release time for teachers, professional development, and new materials and equipment. The scale of the effort is indeed significant, especially when you consider program changes in K–12 classrooms and informal venues. However, with support from public and private foundations, business and industry, and possibly the federal government, the total bill should not be borne by states and school districts alone.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

23

CHAPTER 2 Conclusion

To conclude, instructional materials have a very important but sometimes neglected role in STEM education. Development and implementation of STEM units requires a systematic approach, one that recognizes state standards and sets in process a strategy that attends to the varied components of the instructional core and their interactions in the educational system.

References Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking. 2000. How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Bybee, R. 2013. The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R. 2015. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R. 2018. STEM education now more than ever. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Dufour, R., R. Eaker, and R. Dufour. 2005. On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Services. Duschl, R., H. Schweingruber, and A. Shouse, eds. 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Lewis, C. 2003. The essential elements of lesson study. NW Regional Educational Laboratory. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2018. How people learn II. Washington, DC: NASEM. National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards. Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

24

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 3 ESTABLISHING A PLAN OF ACTION FOR HIGH-QUALITY UNITS T

his chapter complements Chapter 2, addressing the role of leaders by identifying both an action plan for the development of STEM units and the essential function of professional learning.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To clarify plans for the development of high-quality instructional materials, specifically STEM units Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • basic information about current STEM initiatives; and • specific dimensions (e.g., time, location, problems, products) for development of STEM units.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

25

CHAPTER 3 It is a good idea to establish a plan of action based on both your broader vision of STEM education and the specific goal of developing STEM units. This chapter first addresses the big picture for a plan of action. The later sections of the chapter will help you identify some specifics about the various dimensions and dynamics of working within your educational system.

Why a Plan of Action?

Whether the initiative involves creating STEM units or selecting instructional materials that address the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013) or state standards, teachers will have concerns. If one thinks about economies of supply and demand as a metaphor, STEM has a surplus of supply-side lessons, activities, and supplements; it has a deficit of demand-oriented responses. That is, numerous individuals have created materials they think are important for STEM education—a supply of options. Few have considered the demand from teachers, coordinators, principals, and superintendents for high-quality instructional materials. For example, teachers ask about instructional materials that represent or model the innovations that STEM represents, and they especially express the necessity for materials that combine STEM with state standards and that meet the unique needs of their students. This chapter aims to help with the planning of the demand-side initiatives. So, imagine you are going to implement STEM units. What design criteria would you propose? For example, what length of time would the units require? What concepts would be included? What practices would be emphasized? Would assessments be formative, summative, or both? Clarifying a plan of action for developing STEM units is one very important way to think about improving STEM education in general. How will you bring about and sustain the changes that constitute an improvement in STEM education? Your approach to improving STEM education can be like planning a trip. The first step is usually to clarify the trip’s purpose. Involving key people in the planning is also important. Then it is a good idea to establish some parameters for the trip. Where are you going? Why are you going? How much time will you take? How will you travel? Who is going? Once such questions are answered and support for the trip is established, you can work out many of the specific details. As you begin working on the details, some of your initial trip plans will likely change. Elements of the plans may also change after you begin the trip. You can certainly fill in the details and elaborate on this analogy using your past experiences. Now let’s move from analogy to reality and discuss the planning of actual STEM initiatives. First, begin with a general plan to develop STEM units. Too often reforms begin with a specific action, such as selecting new instructional materials, yet they devote little or no attention to other actions, such as getting administrative or community support for the associated changes. I encourage you to take the time to think about and develop plans for the big picture. The following section guides you through

26

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

ESTABLISHING A PLAN OF ACTION FOR HIGH-QUALITY UNITS

your general, big-picture planning. After that, the chapter presents an orientation and discussion that centers on details for your action plan.

A Short Story of the Big Picture

I suggest a small and concrete beginning for your plan of action. Create a story about the process of developing a STEM unit. Figure 3.1 will help organize your story.

Figure 3.1. Clarifying a General Plan of Action for Developing High-Quality STEM Units Category

Example

Broad Goal

Reform of STEM instructional materials

Educational Components of the Plan

Instructional core

Critical Resources

Teachers

Elements of Change

Instructional materials and teachers’ knowledge and skills

Time Frame for Change

One year

Support for Change

K–12 STEM teachers, school administrators, and the public

What is the “story” behind your plans for developing STEM units? Here is an example of one story.

In the primary work of the first phase, we plan to establish clear purposes for STEM education. This phase may also include developing policies for new instructional materials, professional development, and assessments of STEM. The second phase will focus on introducing little changes with big effects. This phase includes development and implementation of STEM units. The third phase revolves around systemic changes that make a difference—in other words, bringing the reform to scale in the school. After the initial phases, efforts to bring the reform to a significant scale become important. Evaluations of teachers’ responses and students’ achievements, abilities, and attributes are also reviewed and analyzed as part of the third phase. These data form the basis for revision of the original plan of action. Moreover, this phase includes major efforts to review and revise policies and standards and create new criteria for adoptions of instructional materials. Continued

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

27

CHAPTER 3 (continued )

This phase would likely present the most difficulty as policy makers and educators directly confront resistance to change and criticisms of the new initiatives and changes in policies, programs, and practices. In phase four, the final phase, we will concentrate on building local capacity for ongoing improvement of STEM education at the district level. These efforts phase out the use of external funds for the reform effort and phase in school districts’ use of resources in response to the continued improvement of STEM and the implied changes for the school programs.

Now it is your turn. You might begin by using the forms in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 to outline your ideas. Then prepare your story.

Figure 3.2. Clarifying Your Plan of Action Categories

Your Plans

Broad Goal Educational Components of the Plan Critical Resources Elements of Change Time Frame for Change Support for Change Other Considerations Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

Figure 3.3. How Long Will It Take? Phases

Goals

Products

Initiating STEM Education Reform Implementing the Action Plan for STEM Education Bringing the STEM Reform to Scale Evaluating the STEM Education Reform Sustaining the STEM Education Reform Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

28

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

ESTABLISHING A PLAN OF ACTION FOR HIGH-QUALITY UNITS

Planning for Specific Dimensions

Figure 3.4 presents specific dimensions within a plan of action. Take time to consider these details and the questions related to each dimension.

Figure 3.4. Perspective for the Development of STEM Units Dimensions for Development of High-Quality STEM Units

Questions for Consideration

Time

• How long will it take to develop STEM units?

Participants

• Who will be involved? • What grades? • Which disciplines?

Location

• Where will the professional learning activities be held?

Problems

• What problems do you anticipate?

Products

• What actual products will be produced?

Professional Learning

• Who will provide the professional learning?

Agreement

• How difficult will reaching agreement among participants be?

Budget

• What is the budget?

Your Proposed Answers

• Who is responsible for decisions about the budget? Other

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

Conclusion

How will you as a leader plan experiences for creating STEM units? To use wording common in education, do you see the development of STEM units as an event or a process? Is the focus of change on one small component of the educational system (i.e., a unit of instructional materials) or on the larger system (i.e., K–12 STEM education)? The former is a worthy short-term goal as it will help individuals become better, more effective educators. The latter can also be a long-term outcome of this process

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

29

CHAPTER 3 as educators progress from developing an understanding of instructional materials to engaging in professional learning and the selection, adaptation, or development of materials for STEM programs. Identifying and implementing a plan of action is an essential complement to establishing a vision for STEM education and STEM units. Without such a plan, leaders have at best the rhetoric of a vision but the reality of diffuse activities.

30

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

YOUR LEADERSHIP FOR CREATING STEM UNITS

PART I CONCLUSION

T

he vision of developing and implementing integrated STEM units requires leadership by school personnel, especially teachers. I appeal to leaders at “grassroots” levels in the STEM education community. Most leaders in STEM education are in such positions. For them, their needs, aspirations, and expectations center on improving student achievement by implementing new state standards, reforming school programs, providing professional development, and improving classroom teaching. Still, the leader must consider the purposes, concerns, and values of those being led, whether from national organizations, state agencies, or classrooms. In the classic book Leadership, James MacGreger Burns has this advice: “And the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their own and their followers’ values and motivations” (Burns 1978, p. 19). In the context of this discussion, a leader in a school district may have the expectation of initiating reform through development of STEM units, and it is important for this individual to acknowledge the perspectives of those who will be influenced by the new units and the processes for developing those units. One consistent requirement of leadership is that leaders have a vision. Leaders may, for example, have a long-term perspective, see larger systemic issues, present future scenarios, or discern fundamental problems and present possible solutions rather than spend time and energy assigning blame for problems. Depending on their situation, leaders in STEM education have diverse ways of clarifying their vision. Some may do so in speeches; others in memos, emails, or texts; and still others in policies. And, importantly, they lead every day in their classrooms. One vision of a STEM leader may unify a group, organization, or community, whereas another may set priorities or resolve conflicts among constituencies. The emergence of a leader’s vision will likely have many sources and result from extensive review and careful thought. This is especially true of today’s complex and unconventional education environment. Contemporary expressions for a vision of STEM education are in themes such as economic stability, basic skills for the 21st-century workforce, and college, career, and citizenship. Such themes differ from earlier justifications such as the “space race” and responding to “a nation at risk.” The economic rationale emerged from a significant recession, as well as from the realization that the U.S. economy is part of a global economy and that the educational levels of the public at large influence the rate and direction of a country’s economic progress. A contemporary vision for STEM education resides in national and state standards and the implied reform of school programs and classroom practices. A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

31

PART I Lead States 2013) both express a vision and locate the importance of states in the reform. Contemporary visions of STEM need not be complex, but they must be different from the status quo. Visions must be new, substantial, and look to the future. Communicating the vision requires a translation from the abstract (e.g., “achieving STEM literacy”) to contexts that have meaning for a specific community. An example is translating state standards into instructional materials at the local level. A vision requires a complementary plan of action. It is one thing to express a new vision for STEM education. Many individuals do this regularly. It is quite another to provide a plan for achieving that vision. The plan must have clear examples for constituents. A vision for STEM education is OK; but what does it mean for school programs in general and the unique situations in teachers’ classrooms in particular? Part I of this book included the need for a plan for STEM units. I proposed creating such a plan to help leaders who wish to take action based on their vision. Concerning leadership in STEM education, my recommendation is this: Be a leader; do not wait for others to show the way. As leadership opportunities emerge, get involved. Show support for the idea of integrated STEM units and the connection to professional learning as a plan of action. Learn about the standards and develop an understanding of what the new standards may mean for your state, district, and school programs. Your leadership should include both a vision and a plan. I underscore the need for both of these components. If you only have a vision, there may be excitement and support. Nevertheless, the proposed changes will flounder and likely fail without a strategy in place to address key questions such as “What should change?” and “What does this mean for me and my students?” On the other hand, a plan without a vision would likely not hold up in the face of questions such as “Why are we doing this?” and “How does this change relate to other educational changes at the national, state, or district levels?” The effective leader must have answers to questions such as these. Proposed improvements in education are many and varied. Few, however, actually involve the leadership of teachers or provide them with a role in designing, developing, and implementing units in their classrooms. Rather, most reforms imply that teachers should change to implement the proposed reform, whatever it is. The difference in these approaches to reform may be subtle, but it is significant. Teachers can develop and implement STEM units. This is a variation on work they have engaged in for decades. Connecting this work with the support of administrators and professional developers holds great promise.

References Burns, J. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

32

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards.

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART II MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT SELECTING, ADAPTING, AND DEVELOPING STEM MATERIALS

T

he primary theme of this book revolves around the design, development, and implementation of STEM units and the incorporation of state science standards into these units. However, I recognize that states, districts, schools, and classroom teachers often select and adapt instructional materials, rather than create them from scratch. I address the different options for obtaining STEM materials in Chapters 4 and 5. I do not give specific and extended directions. Instead, I clarify these choices and make recommendations to organizations and groups that provide professional guidance.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

33

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 4 CLARIFYING AND ASSESSING THE CHOICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS T

his chapter centers on the choices that school districts and teachers must make about instructional materials in response to new state standards. The chapter includes a means for evaluating different decisions regarding these materials.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To address the evaluation of different options for implementing instructional materials aligned with new state standards Outcome: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand that • the basic decisions relative to new instructional materials are selection, adaptation, and development; and • there are advantages in using concepts about cost, risk, and benefit in an evaluation of instructional material options.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

35

CHAPTER 4 Approaching Your First Decision

Picture this: Your school (or district) has decided to implement instructional STEM materials. Moreover, your state has new science standards. As a leader, you realize the need for instructional STEM units and must make a choice. Should the school (or district) select available instructional materials from commercial publishers, openeducation resources, or other online sites? Should teachers adapt materials from current lesson units and activities? Should teams of teachers develop and implement their own instructional units? Too often, this decision is made with only cursory consideration. The initial questions regarding the decision-making process vary but go something like this: “My district has decided to adopt a standards-aligned program; which is the best available text?” “Because of budget restrictions, we have to modify our current units so they align with the new science standards; what is the best way to proceed?” Finally, there is this response: “My principal thinks we have to develop our own lessons (or units or courses) as a way to get started on implementing the new standards.” Selection is the dominant process for acquiring new instructional materials. This model has a long history and has included materials such as textbooks, laboratory manuals, and activity kits. Over time, the selection model has evolved to include openeducation resources and other digital options, supplemental activities, and assessments. In Chapter 5, I will discuss professional tools for the selection of materials. Adaptation of currently used lessons and units also has a history that in an informal sense is even more extensive than that of selection. Teachers have long adapted lessons to meet the unique needs of students. In this discussion, I am referring to the redesign of lessons, units, and activities in order to accommodate the innovations of new state standards. Chapter 5 expands even further on this option. Development of lessons, units, and courses by teachers and districts represents the major use of instructional materials (NASEM 2018). In other words, teachers and districts are adapting previously made materials to generate new materials. In many cases, the development likely includes adapting lessons from other sources. The role of designing, developing, and implementing a STEM unit is in the background of this chapter’s discussions. Regardless of how a state, district, or school goes about getting new instructional materials, it is essential to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to select, adapt, or develop materials with integrity. Parts III, IV, V, VI, and VII of this book—which focus on designing, developing, and implementing a STEM unit—provide knowledge and skills for the aim just described. Notwithstanding leadership’s decision about new instructional materials, my assumption should be clear: Teachers want the best possible outcome, which is an effective use of materials that will enhance their students’ learning. I also note that regardless of the decision, professional development should be a part of the selection, adaptation, or development process.

36

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CLARIFYING AND ASSESSING THE CHOICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

Include an Informal Evaluation of the Decision

At a minimum, leaders should complete an informal, qualitative cost-risk-benefit review of their three options in order to make their initial decision. This review can include the following inquiries. What is the cost for proposed solutions? What exactly does the school (or district) need? Will any of the costs be offset by, say, state support? What is the actual total cost? Are there any “hidden” costs (e.g., replacement of materials or new equipment for STEM activities)? Does the school have adequate and appropriate facilities and equipment to accommodate the potential new units? Finally, what is the cost of professional development for the different options? Other questions regarding cost will certainly emerge. These serve as an initial set of questions to ask about the three options. What is the risk? The selecting team might consider risks related to the replenishment of consumables, the requirements for professional learning, the alignment of materials with standards and assessments, and so on. What is the benefit? How will the choice of materials benefit teachers and student learning? Is there evidence supporting claims of the materials’ alignment with standards? Will the materials be manageable and usable? The goal of this initial process is to minimize adverse consequences and maximize positive outcomes of the final decision. The process should help you understand how to get the most benefit at the least cost and with minimal risk. It is safe to assume that there will be costs, risks, and benefits to each choice. However, you must determine which will have the least negative trade-offs for the school, teachers, and students. How can you go about executing a preliminary, qualitative evaluation of the costrisk-benefits of your options? After forming a small team, you might use a framework, such as what appears in Figure 4.1. Furthermore, you may use the terms high, moderate, and low to summarize your results or your teams’ judgments.

Figure 4.1. Evaluating Choices to Select, Adapt, or Develop Instructional Materials

Criteria

Selecting Instructional Materials and Professional Development

Adapting Current Materials and Professional Development

Developing Instructional Materials and Professional Development

Cost Risk Benefit Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

37

CHAPTER 4 Although high-quality instructional materials are being developed and emerging in the market, the primary emphasis has been on NGSS-based programs with less recognition of integrated STEM units (NASEM 2018). Exceptions to this observation include two volumes that Jo Anne Vasquez and her colleagues produced. These resources serve as examples of STEM lessons for elementary classrooms (Vasquez, Comer, and Villegas 2017; Vasquez, Sneider, and Comer 2013). In addition, the NSTA Press publication Designing Meaningful STEM Lessons (Huling and Dwyer 2018) will be helpful for teachers.

Conclusion

As educators confront the need for new instructional materials, they have limited options: select new materials, adapt current materials, or create their own materials. In this chapter, I recommended a cost-risk-benefit evaluation to help individuals and districts with the initial decisions. Though they may seem simple and obvious, making some initial decisions will be very helpful as you progress to the next step—preparing an initial sketch of your unit.

References Huling, M., and J. Dwyer. 2018. Designing meaningful STEM lessons. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2018. Design, selection, and implementation of instructional materials for the Next Generation Science Standards: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Vasquez J., M. Comer, and J. Villegas. 2017. STEM lesson guideposts: Creating STEM lessons for your curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Vasquez, J., C. Sneider, and M. Comer. 2013. STEM lesson essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

38

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTING AND ADAPTING STEM MATERIALS D

iscussions in this chapter address the fact that development of high-quality STEM units may originate with the selection of new materials or the purposeful adaptation of current lessons and units.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To recognize and clarify processes for the purposeful selection and adaptation of instructional materials Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • available tools and processes for effective review and selection of instructional materials, • research supporting the purposeful adaptation of instructional materials, and • a preliminary evaluation of lessons and units proposed for adaptation.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

39

CHAPTER 5 This chapter is based on the fact that you may be selecting instructional materials for your school or district. First, I provide information and recommendations that may be helpful in this process. Then I go on to discuss the purposeful adaptation of instructional materials for STEM units.

Selecting STEM Materials

As teachers and school districts respond to the demand for curriculum reform, one possibility is selecting STEM materials that align with new state standards for science. Those standards often include engineering (and by extension technology) and mathematics associated with the practices of scientific inquiry. I digress from the discussion of STEM units to provide information about the selection of instructional materials, especially those aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013) and state science standards aligned with A Framework K–12 Science Education (the Framework; NRC 2012). The goal of this digression is to prevent education leaders from choosing materials blindly (Chingos and Whitehurst 2012). Portions of the following text were adapted from a chapter in Promising Professional Learning: Tools and Practices (Bybee, Short, and Kastel 2018). Individuals, schools, and districts may need guidance when selecting the best NGSS-aligned instructional materials. A variety of tools will help with the selection process. Selection of the best materials should be based on the assessment of the materials’ effectiveness. NextGen TIME. The first resource I recommend using is NextGen TIME. It is a program of tools and processes developed by BSCS, WestEd, and Achieve. NextGen  TIME is designed for teams of educators to collaboratively evaluate and select curriculum materials based on criteria aligned with contemporary science standards. The processes of NextGen TIME provide professional learning experiences and contribute to educators’ understanding of high-quality instructional materials aligned in general with state science standards and in particular with the NGSS. The processes also contribute to the team’s and district’s capacity to plan for professional learning that supports the implementation of contemporary instructional materials that are either extended units or yearlong programs. Figure 5.1 summarizes the sequence of phases for the NextGen TIME processes. You can review the NextGen Time tools and processes at https://nextgentime.org. The EQuIP Rubric. The Educators Evaluating the Quality of Instructional Products (EQuIP) rubric for science lessons and units was developed by Achieve in cooperation with the National Science Teaching Association. The rubric helps educators make informed decisions when selecting materials. The rubric is available for download at www.nextgenscience.org/resources/equip-rubric-lessons-units-science. EQuIP provides criteria for evaluating the degree to which lessons and units are aligned to the NGSS. It also provides a process for using the rubric to review currently used materials and provide criterion-based feedback and suggestions for improvement.

40

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTING AND ADAPTING STEM MATERIALS

Figure 5.1. NextGen TIME Phases and Processes PREPARE ......................................... Prepare to evaluate, select, and implement instructional materials.

Prepare Phase During the Prepare Phase, leaders make plans to use NexGen TIME. This includes forming a team, determining readiness, and gathering potential programs.

PRESCREEN ......................................... Use a small number of criteria to focus on the most relevant materials.

Prescreen Phase During the Prescreen Phase, a team uses key criteria to reduce the number of programs under consideration to three to five programs. These programs will be evaluated using the Paperscreen Tools and Processes.

PAPERSCREEN ......................................... Use evidence and rubrics to evaluate design of materials.

Paperscreen Phase During the Paperscreen Phase, a team collaboratively collects, represents, and analyzes evidence from programs under consideration. The team identifies one or two programs to pilot in classrooms.

PILOT ......................................... Use evidence and rubrics to evaluate materials as used in the classroom.

Pilot Phase During the Pilot Phase, teachers collect evidence as they teach at least one unit from each program still under consideration. The additional evidence is analyzed to inform selection and implementation of the best program.

PLAN ......................................... Plan for broad and effective implementation of materials.

Plan Phase During the Plan Phase, leaders develop and enact a plan to use the information collected.

Source: BSCS Science Learning, developed in collaboration with the K–12 Alliance at WestEd and Achieve (2019).

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

41

CHAPTER 5 Additionally, Achieve has developed the EQuIP Peer Review Panel, which is trained in using the EQuIP rubric and finding examples of high-quality NGSS-aligned resources. The rubric works best when multiple teams of educators, such as PLCs, examine the same materials, allowing for discourse and deeper professional learning. For discourse to be constructive, it is essential that reviewers begin the process with at least an initial understanding of the NGSS or state standards. Reviewers begin by familiarizing themselves with both the student and teacher materials and the lesson’s or unit’s intended NGSS-aligned disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, science and engineering practices, and performance expectations. Once this is done, reviewers engage in a deliberate process, going through the questions for each criterion within a category. EQuIP supports the vision of the Framework in that it includes an instructional sequence rooted in an explanatory question or problem aimed at making sense of a phenomenon or designing a needed solution. Category I of the rubric begins the review with questions on each of the three dimensions of learning. When analyzing a unit, reviewers look for coherence across lessons and for connections to the Common Core State Standards (NGAC and CCSSO 2010) for both mathematics and English language arts. Participants engaging in this work as a group will often start individually before coming together to discuss their evidence and reasoning, arriving at a consensus (i.e., extensive, adequate, or inadequate) on evidence of quality and discussing suggestions for improvement. After Category I, reviewers may pause to consider whether the review is worth continuing. Lessons or units lacking sufficient evidence to show that they are aligned to the NGSS are labeled “not ready to review.” Categories II and III follow a similar process. In Category II, reviewers consider scaffolded questions about the lesson’s or unit’s relevance and accuracy, ability to build on students’ prior ideas and interest, and capacity for differentiation over time. In Category III, reviewers consider questions about formative assessments embedded in the lesson or unit and unbiased tasks or items they might employ to assess the suitability of the lesson or unit for furthering three-dimensional learning. Unless labeled as “not ready to review,” materials can receive one of the three following overall ratings upon completion of the review process: • Extensive: Exemplifies the criteria in all three categories of learning. • Adequate: Adequate overall; some improvement to one or two categories is needed. • Inadequate: Significant improvement in one or more categories is needed. The EQuIP rubric does not require consensus among team members but does emphasize discussion as a key component of the review process. By asking teachers to look for evidence of alignment at the elemental level in all these dimensions, the process deepens their understanding of the Framework and the NGSS and enhances the possibility of selecting high-quality materials.

42

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTING AND ADAPTING STEM MATERIALS

Once reviewers have identified high-quality NGSS-aligned instructional materials, they need to teach other teachers how to do the same so these educators don’t rely exclusively on reviewers’ evaluations. In fact, teaching teachers how to analyze and select such materials needs to be considered an essential professional development strategy.

Adaptation of a Current Unit: Research Worth Noting

The idea of developing a STEM unit may seem like an intimidating task, and it could lead you to ask the following question: “Could I revise a unit I currently use?” The short answer is yes. There are limitations, but this approach to development can work. One limitation can be overcoming the perception that the unit only needs a few minor changes since it has already been used successfully. In fact, this current material may require significant changes to accommodate new standards, STEM disciplines, and topics that lend themselves to STEM concepts and practices. Another limitation centers on activities in the current unit that may be engaging and exciting for students but do not align well with the learning goals. Addressing this challenge may require more than minor changes. With such limitations in mind, it may be best to begin with a current unit that you’re familiar with and revise it based on the required STEM concepts, procedures, and subject matter. You may even have a unit that will make purposeful adaptation easier—for example, a project- or place-based unit. There is empirical evidence supporting the purposeful adaptation of instructional materials and the improvement of student understanding of science. Furthermore, purposeful adaptation has been linked to shifts the teachers made in classroom culture (Debarger et al. 2017). The findings mentioned in the previous paragraph were an extension of prior research indicating that professional development in which teachers received explicit instruction in models of teaching associated with particular methods of instruction were effective at improving students’ learning (Penuel, Gallagher, and Moorthy 2011).

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations: Some More Research Worth Noting

It is certainly no revelation that teachers adapt their instructional strategies to accommodate social, cultural, linguistic, and personal needs of students. However, it may be helpful to realize some of the reasons and ways teachers adapt lessons, units, and their instructional strategies. An article by Seth Parsons and his colleagues (2018) provides insights about teachers’ instructional adaptations. Not surprisingly, the researchers found that definitions of adaptive teaching were quite similar. The definitions typically included teachers’ responses to a stimulus (or stimuli) and focused on supporting student needs. In science, for example, adaptations were often associated with

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

43

CHAPTER 5 changing instructional materials or supporting adaptive behaviors. The common emphasis across disciplines was on the teachers’ knowledge and beliefs (Parsons et al. 2018). I have previously noted some of the influences on teachers’ adaptations. These influences include affordances such as assessments, new instructional approaches, and professional development. Other influences include teacher factors (e.g., belief, experience, knowledge); barriers (e.g., curricula, standards, testing); impact on students (e.g., learning, engagement); and the nature of adaptive teaching (e.g., what teachers do as they adapt instruction). These considerations will affect the degree to which a preexisting unit can be changed and the processes one will consider in order to develop and teach the unit.

A Preliminary Screen of the Lessons and Units Proposed for Adaptation

When beginning with materials developed for a different set of learning outcomes, there is a limit to how completely they can be adapted. The task of taking action will require an analysis that answers this question: What and where are the greatest opportunities to adapt current instructional materials so students will attain the learning outcomes you have identified? (Note: You may wish to delay this preliminary screen until you have completed work on the design process that begins in Chapter 6.) Five aspects of instructional materials form the basis for this analysis. First, you should identify the learning outcomes for the revised unit. The second category for analysis involves the opportunities to address some combinations of the STEM disciplines. The third category to consider in analyzing the unit is the dynamic of instruction and the time and opportunities for students to attain the learning outcomes. One important stipulation is that the topics and activities contribute to the learning outcomes. A fourth requirement is for an integrated instructional sequence. Finally, both formative and summative assessments should be aligned with the proposed outcomes and classroom instruction. This preliminary screening can be used for a small portion (e.g., several lessons) of a unit of instruction. My advice is to begin small—for instance, with several lessons in an instructional sequence. Once you’ve identified a potential unit to adapt, you should review the NGSS or new state standards related to the discipline and grade level within which the unit will be used. Focus in particular on the science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. The aim here is to identify lessons or sequences of lessons that you think have the potential to be adapted. Remember, this is a preliminary screen. After the preliminary screen, you will have an idea of what it would take to modify the unit you chose. This will help you assess whether the more productive approach would be to design a new unit, beginning with the process detailed in Chapter 6.

44

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTING AND ADAPTING STEM MATERIALS

For this preliminary screen, use the rubric in Figure 5.2. Completing the rubric will provide an estimate of the potential for adapting the materials you have selected.

Figure 5.2. A Preliminary Screen for Opportunities to Adapt a Unit Review Questions

Alignment

Does the unit have a context that lends itself to STEM (e.g., unit is project-based)?

Yes No

Does the unit already include one, two, three, or all four STEM disciplines (i.e., science, technology, engineering, or mathematics)?

One Two Three Four

Is the unit based on learning outcomes (e.g., science standards) aligned with STEM disciplines?

Yes No

Are there opportunities to make connections to state standards (e.g., activities have science practices but not engineering)?

Yes No

Do the assessments align with STEM learning outcomes (e.g., summative test is only for science)?

Yes No

Opportunities to Adapt

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

Those who design and develop instructional materials provide a valuable resource for teachers; but like most resources, these materials must be adapted to meet unique needs of teachers and their students. The important point here is that adaptation of instructional materials by STEM teachers is key. Teachers often adopt and use materials without adaptation. The process of adaptation by STEM teachers—whether the materials were developed at the national, state, or local levels—is one critical aspect of improving STEM programs.

Conclusion

This chapter increases the depth and breadth of your understanding of instructional materials, and it helps you use that knowledge to evaluate the feasibility of selecting instructional materials or adapting a current unit. To conclude, one has to ask what it would take to modify the instructional materials and support their implementation.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

45

CHAPTER 5 The reality is that modifying instructional materials will take expertise, time, and money. After the evaluation of instructional materials, one has to make a decision to move forward and adapt—or to develop a completely new STEM unit.

References Bybee, R., J. Short, and D. Kastel. 2018. Promising professional learning: Tools and practices. In Preparing teachers for three-dimensional instruction, ed. J. Rhoton, 51–57. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Chingos, M., and G. Whitehurst. 2012. Choosing blindly: Instructional materials, teacher effectiveness, and the common core. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Debarger, A., W. Penuel, S. Moorthy, Y. Beauvineau, C. A. Kennedy, C. K. Boscardin 2016. Investigating purposeful science curriculum adaptation as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education 101 (1): 66–98. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards. Parsons, S., M. Vaughn, R. Q. Scales, M. A. Gallagher, A. W. Parsons, S. G. Davis, M. Pierczynski, and M. Allen. 2018. Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research 88 (2): 205–242. Penuel, W., L. Gallagher, and S. Moorthy. 2011. Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth systems science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal 48 (4): 996–1025.

46

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT SELECTING, ADAPTING, AND DEVELOPING STEM MATERIALS

PART II CONCLUSION

A

majority of states have new standards for science education. Establishing new standards generally implies curriculum reform and specifically establishes the need for instructional materials. What are the options for science teachers, school districts, and states? Prior discussions have described three primary options. Educators can select from commercially available programs or open-education resources, adapt instructional materials currently in use, or develop new instructional materials aligned with the new state standards and assessments. The chapters in Part II place the decisions about instructional materials in the foreground and give some directions and recommendations that will help clarify choices about curriculum materials. Now it is time to move on to chapters that give direction for the design, development, and implementation of STEM units.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

47

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART III BEGINNING THE DESIGN OF A STEM UNIT

T

he word design implies initial plans for a project or program. It is important to take time to think through your unit’s design. Part III begins by addressing your initial design decisions. After that, it covers the creation of a preliminary design and the introduction of new ideas. This section concludes with a template that can be used to develop your unit.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

49

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 6 AN INITIAL ENGAGEMENT Preparing a Preliminary Design

T

his short chapter does just what the title suggests: It has you prepare a preliminary unit plan.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To develop an initial unit design using the general categories of beginning, middle, and end Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will • describe the content and sequence for a STEM unit, • identify the unit’s learning outcomes, and • make connections to state standards.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

51

CHAPTER 6 At this point, you should simply identify the beginning, middle, and end of your unit. It is quite likely that you will begin by using activities or lessons you already teach or have previously developed. For some topics, you may have searched the internet for lessons and activities. As needed and appropriate, the initial work should clarify any use of current instructional materials. As mentioned in prior chapters, I think it is best to begin the design of units with a new and fresh perspective.

Getting Started on Your Design

Designing a contemporary STEM unit for a grade or course will require you (and your PLC team) to engage with multiple questions and considerations. One key question is as follows: How would you plan a STEM unit for your students? Responses to this question will bring forth issues about the unit. For example, approaches for the design may begin with a big-picture or step-by-step perspective; they can begin with a new unit or current unit you will adapt; or they can begin with a lesson or a yearlong program. Even though I am mindful of the various approaches to the initial design and eventual development of instructional materials, I nonetheless have specific suggestions based on my collective experiences. To the question of a big-picture versus small-steps perspective, I have attempted to identify a mid-range view—begin with a unit. As to the question about creating a new unit versus using a current unit, I think there will be greater opportunities for creative approaches and fewer constraints by initiating work on an original unit. Finally, I think that a lesson represents too little time and too limited an opportunity to create needed and adequate instructional strategies. And thinking about and developing a new yearlong program can be too overwhelming with regard to time, content, and complexity. In summation, I believe starting with a new unit will render the best results. In addition to my aforementioned recommendations, I have put together a list of suggested dos and don’ts (Figure 6.1) to help guide you in beginning your preliminary unit design.

Figure 6.1. Dos and Don’ts for Design of an Instructional Unit Do Begin With

Don’t Begin With

New standards, goals, and learning outcomes

Old objectives or lessons

Topics that are meaningful and engaging for students

Yes-no questions or questions that can be answered with facts

Phenomena or problems that present issues related to the STEM disciplines

Experiences that represent single disciplines

A project-, place-, or problem-based approach that holds interest for students

A single skill or science and engineering practice

A major category of state standards that includes STEM content A narrow category of standards and practices

52

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

AN INITIAL ENGAGEMENT: PREPARING A PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Some Specific and Basic Questions

What are the unit’s learning outcomes? What is the unit’s context? What is the larger phenomenon or problem? How long should the unit be? What about state standards and assessments? Responding to these and other questions should challenge your thinking about what STEM implies, how your unit might connect to standards, how the unit relates to the interest and abilities of your students, and how such a unit differs from and complements current lessons and units you teach. As you begin the initial design of a STEM unit, questions such as those in Figure 6.2 provide an orientation for your consideration.

Figure 6.2. Discussion Questions for Preliminary Design of a STEM Unit The following questions and discussions will help with the initial design of a STEM unit: • What are the goals of your proposed unit? What will students learn? • Where will the unit be taught within your curriculum? Would you use the unit as an introduction? A capstone near the end of the year? A project that occurs across a period of time? • What is the scale of time for the unit? How does this unit fit into other curricular obligations? How much time do you have for the unit? A week? Several weeks? A month? • What is the context/topic for the proposed unit? Some general examples of contexts for STEM units include career awareness, energy resources, environmental quality, hazard mitigation, health maintenance and disease prevention, natural resources, population changes, and research, development, and innovation. (Also see Figure 6.3, p. 54). Specific topics should be appropriate for the grade, abilities, and interests of your students. • What is the storyline? The storyline provides connections among concepts and practices. A storyline also establishes a conceptual flow and the opportunity to develop a learning progression across the unit. • How are students developing knowledge and skills? Do students have opportunities to identify the STEM-related issues in the story; acquire and use STEM knowledge and practices; and apply STEM knowledge and skills while making sensible and reasoned decisions and conclusions? • What are the phenomena or problems under study? Does the storyline provide opportunities for students to make sense of natural phenomena, propose solutions to human problems, and apply mathematics? These opportunities should include experiences with the potential of identifying students’ current conceptions (i.e., misconceptions) and facilitating appropriate conceptual change. • What are the connections to standards? The units’ lessons should identify opportunities to address some state standards. • How is student progress monitored? The instructional sequence should include opportunities for the teacher to assess learning through student activities. • What is the conceptual and procedural flow of the proposed unit? Can integration of concepts, practices, activities, and assessments be represented in a diagram? (The learning outcomes should be central in this diagram.) • How are science, technology, engineering, and mathematics integrated across the units’ instructional sequence? Are all four disciplines evident in the design? What is the actual knowledge and what are the skills the students will learn?

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

53

CHAPTER 6 The questions in Figure 6.2 present opportunities to discuss important aspects of instructional units with your colleagues. Not all the questions may be appropriate to your situation, but some—for example, the questions related to goals, topics, timing, location of the unit in the curriculum, and connections to standards—will no doubt apply. I also recommend using a place-, project-, or problem-based approach for your unit. In general, the approaches shown in Figure 6.3 lend themselves to STEM.

Figure 6.3. Examples of Contexts for STEM Units

Contexts

Personal (Individuals, Families, Peers)/ Elementary School

Social (Community, State, Nation)/ Middle School

Global (Life Across Different Nations and the World)/High School

Career Awareness

Jobs and careers in STEM domains, such as science, engineering, technology, and teaching

Careers in science, medicine, engineering, information and communication technology, statistics, and math

World health, economic progress, national security, information communication and technologies

Energy Resources

Personal use of energy with emphasis on conservation and efficiency

Conservation of energy, transition to efficient use and reduced use of fossil fuels

Global consequences for use and conservation of energy

Environmental Quality

Environmentally friendly behavior, use and disposal of materials

Population distribution, disposal of waste, environmental impact of climate change, local weather

Biodiversity, ecological sustainability, technology and control of pollution, production and loss of soil

Hazard Mitigation

Natural and human-induced hazards, decisions about housing

Rapid changes (earthquakes, severe weather), slow and progressive changes (coastal erosion, sedimentation), risk assessment

Climate change, impact of modern warfare, engineered responses to hazards

Health Maintenance of health, Maintenance and accidents, nutrition, diet Disease Prevention

Control of disease, social transmission, food choices, community health

Epidemics, spread of infectious diseases

Natural Resources

Personal consumption of materials

Maintenance of human populations, quality of life, security, production and distribution of food

Renewable and nonrenewable resources, natural systems, population growth, sustainable use

Population Changes

Increase or decrease in size of a Overpopulation, relationships Limits to growth, factors population, population density between populations, resources, influencing population growth/ environments decline, carrying capacity

Research, Development, and Innovation

Scientific explanations of natural phenomena, sciencebased hobbies, sport and leisure, music and personal technology

54

Genetic modification, weapons technology, transportation, robotics, new materials, devices and processes

Extinction of species, exploration of space, origin and structure of the universe, new medicines, information technologies

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

AN INITIAL ENGAGEMENT: PREPARING A PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Though your choices may seem simple and obvious, making some concrete preliminary decisions about details such as your unit’s contexts will be very helpful as you progress to the next step—preparing an initial sketch of your unit. I also recommend reading sections of A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012), your state’s science standards, and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013) with reference to topics, content, practices, and learning progressions. This will help you locate your unit within the current curriculum program and understand where the unit has vertical alignment with your school curriculum.

Preparing a Preliminary Unit Design

Using a simple framework such as the one displayed in Figure 6.4 will help organize the student activities and teaching strategies in the initial design of your unit. Based on your decisions, you might identify unit topics, grades, and location within the suggested curriculum.

Figure 6.4. A Preliminary Design for a STEM Unit Stage of the Unit

Activities and Teaching Strategies

What the Students Do

Beginning

Middle

End

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

55

CHAPTER 6 Reflecting on Your Design and Making Your Ideas Public

After taking ample time to work on the preliminary designs and discuss issues with colleagues, use a meeting with your PLC and other peers to take the next step. Procure large sheets of poster board and label them as “Beginning,” “Middle,” and “End of Unit.” Then place sticky notes describing lessons and activities on the appropriate sheets. This is a means of making your ideas public and setting the stage for a presentation and discussion among your colleagues. The discussion should address questions such as the following: • What are the learning outcomes? • What is the conceptual flow of the unit? • How do the activities help students achieve learning outcomes? In addition, the presentation of preliminary designs for your units should make connections to state standards.

Answering Four Critical Questions About the Preliminary Design

The purpose of preparing a preliminary unit design is to explore your thinking about several critical and essential aspects of developing high-quality instructional materials. Now that you have read through the process of creating and presenting your preliminary designs, let’s return to some key elements you will need to focus on as you begin your work. Take the time to think about, discuss, and answer the following questions. Then read on for a detailed dissection of each. • What are the learning outcomes? • What would you consider as evidence of students attaining the learning outcomes? • Where are the connections to state standards? • What learning experiences and teaching strategies will enhance students’ learning?

What Are Your Desired Learning Outcomes?

One feature of effective designs for instructional materials is having clear learning outcomes. So, after you have worked on a preliminary design, consider this: How would you state the learning outcomes of your unit? Statements of learning outcomes should include specific STEM content and practices based on students’ experiences and your teaching strategies. For example, in the context of a STEM-related problem, you might say one of the following: • “Students should learn about the structure and properties of matter.” • “Students will understand cause and effect.” • “The unit uses an investigation to introduce students to the analysis and interpretation of data.”

56

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

AN INITIAL ENGAGEMENT: PREPARING A PRELIMINARY DESIGN

These outcomes are restatements of a disciplinary core idea, a crosscutting concept, and a science and engineering practice, respectively. What, specifically, do you want the students to learn? What knowledge and understandings within each of the three dimensions are made explicit in your lessons or units?

What Counts as Evidence of Students’ Learning?

At the conclusion of teaching the unit, what evidence would convince you that the students have attained the learning outcomes? To be specific, this question centers on assessment and the results of assessment tasks. Answers to this question about assessment should clearly and directly align with the learning outcomes.

What Are the Connections to State Standards?

As you review the activities and experiences in your preliminary unit, where are the connections to state standards? More important, what are the learning outcomes as related to the standards? Merely restating that “the activities and content in the state standards are both about STEM” is not an adequate answer. Be specific.

What About the Student Activities and Teaching Strategies? Here are questions that will help you improve the design:

• Could students complete the activities and not do well on a summative assessment? • Could students do well on the assessment and not have the understandings, concepts, and practices that were in the unit activities and teaching strategies?

Conclusion

This was an initial exploration. The outcome for this chapter is a general design for your STEM unit. The purpose is not to evaluate the lessons or total unit. Rather, it is to engage you in issues associated with the design and development of instructional units.

References National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

57

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 7 EXPLORING THE DESIGN OF A UNIT T

his chapter has you investigate a STEM unit in order to gain a deeper understanding of underlying principles of curriculum materials.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To analyze an instructional sequence and activities in order to understand basic structures and functions of a unit Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will realize • what they know about designing a STEM unit, • what they want to learn about designing a STEM unit, and • what they have learned about the design features of a STEM unit.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

59

CHAPTER 7 Evaluating an Instructional Sequence

Analyzing instructional materials is one experience that will help you develop a deeper understanding of the processes and products of curriculum development. Let’s begin with an initial exploration of an instructional sequence that was based on neither STEM disciplines nor contemporary standards. Figure 7.1 presents the beginning, middle, and end of the instructional sequence, and it includes details about materials, equipment, schedule, and teacher background. This unit is presented for your analysis. First, review the sample instructional sequence provided in Figure 7.1. Then answer the following questions: • What were the learning outcomes of the unit? • Was there a means of identifying evidence that students attained the learning outcomes? • What do you think counted as evidence of students’ learning? • What is your overall evaluation of the students’ learning experiences?

Figure 7.1. Understanding Scientific Investigations Beginning of the Unit

The teacher gives an explanation to the students. Introduction How do scientists investigate the world? They use telescopes, computers, and other instruments to make observations. All the instruments you can think of were invented by scientists and engineers to make better observations about the world and to store and analyze this information. Observations can be firsthand experiences of objects, organisms, or events in nature. Sometimes, however, things that happen in nature are too big, too small, too fast, or too slow for scientists to observe without technological assistance. Thus, scientists and engineers have invented instruments enabling them to extend their senses and make accurate observations. Then they take their observations and interpret the meaning of them as they try to answer questions about nature. Interpretations are judgments and explanations about observations of objects, organisms, or events. People make various observations about all sorts of nature-related phenomena. You may have observed, for example, that the Moon moves across the sky like the Sun, that plants and animals have life cycles, or that materials have different properties. Before the next science class, make your own investigations of something that changes, something that stays the same, something that is alive, and something that is not alive. What Is a Scientific Investigation? Now that you have completed your own investigation, you are better prepared to answer the question “What is a scientific investigation?” In your investigation, you attempted to judge, or interpret, the nature of certain objects or organisms. Your powers of observation were limited, and you had little evidence in making interpretations of what you observed. In spite of this, your interpretations may have been quite accurate.

60

Continued

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

EXPLORING THE DESIGN OF A UNIT

Figure 7.1. (continued ) Suppose that you wished to answer a more complicated question or solve a more complex problem. How would you begin? The best way to begin would be to decide exactly what the question is or what problem you wish to solve. Then you might want to test an interpretation of a situation or a hypothesis (an idea about why something happens). A hypothesis is based on observations, and it usually raises new questions or problems. The questions need to be tested and the additional information interpreted to determine whether or not the hypothesis is the best answer or proposed explanation. When you begin a scientific investigation, you may find you need information that requires accurate measurements. Measurements are methods of describing the characteristics of objects in numbers, and they usually require the use of instruments. For example, instruments such as thermometers enable you to express temperature as degrees; instruments such as metersticks allow you to show length in centimeters. Scientists and engineers have designed many instruments so that they can measure such properties as hardness, brightness, distance, location, acidity, loudness, and speed. Instruments can increase the accuracy of measurement in an investigation. Scientists also use instruments to observe things that unaided human senses cannot detect. The telescope extends, for example, the sense of sight. Similarly, the microscope opens up the world of very small organisms. An instrument called a gravity meter makes it possible to measure extremely small differences in the attraction of gravity on objects or organisms. A Geiger counter measures atomic radiation. In scientific investigations, the kind of observation scientists make depends on the nature of the question being investigated.

Middle of the Unit

The teacher conducts a demonstration and introduces the concept of density. This activity includes many of the actions taken during scientific investigations. You will use instruments, make measurements, complete calculations following a mathematical formula, and present your results. Observe the two beakers. Each beaker contains a liquid and a solid. In one beaker, the liquid is water and the solid is a piece of granite. The other beaker contains a piece of granite, but the liquid is mercury. What is the difference between the mercury and the water that explains what you observe? You can answer this question if you understand density—a property common to all matter. The density of a substance is its mass divided by its volume. The mass of a substance is the quantity of matter in it. The volume of a substance is the amount of space it occupies. Density is commonly expressed in terms of grams (mass) per cubic centimeter (volume). If you let the letter D stand for density, the letter M for mass, and the letter V for volume, density can be expressed by the following formula: D =

M V

This means that you can calculate the density (D) of an object by dividing its mass (M) by its volume (V). Suppose that an object has a mass of 100 grams and a volume of 20 cubic centimeters, what is its density in grams per cubic centimeter? The students now carry out the following investigation, which is divided into Parts A and B.

Continued

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

61

CHAPTER 7 Figure 7.1. (continued )

Part A – Determining Densities of Several Different Objects

Calculate the density of each of the objects given to your group. In order to do this, you must know both the mass and the volume of the objects. Use a balance to determine the mass. Volume can be determined in many ways. After a discussion, decide with your group what method or methods you will use to determine volume. Make a table to help you record and organize your data. Record the mass and volume you found for your objects in the table. Use the formula to calculate the densities of the objects. The teacher has the students answer the following questions: 1. How does the difference in the shape of the metal objects influence their density? 2. What effect does the difference in the amount of modeling clay have on its density? 3. What is the density of wood? 4. Can you arrange your materials in order of decreasing density? 5. What is your calculated density of water?

With the teacher’s direction, students conduct another investigation.

Part B – Determining the Density of an Ice Cube

Now that you are familiar with density, you are ready for a challenge. Using the materials at your station, determine the approximate density of an ice cube. 1. What is the approximate density of your ice cube? 2. Explain how you determined this value.

End of the Unit

The teacher provides directions for students to communicate their results through a written report. When scientists and engineers perform investigations, they make presentations and write reports similar to the one you will prepare for your investigations. If a scientist’s report is published, it becomes useful to other scientists. His or her results can be tested by others and used to discover more about the question being investigated. Similarly, writing reports will help you organize your information and allow you to share it with your classmates. When preparing reports, you should include the following: (1) the purpose—why you did the investigation, (2) the procedure—what you did for the investigation, and (3) the results—what you discovered. Prepare a report on the density of ice.

62

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

EXPLORING THE DESIGN OF A UNIT

Exploring the Design of a Unit

I provide the sample unit in Figure 7.1 as a means to explore some issues associated with the design of a STEM unit. You will now identify possible adaptations to the sample unit to increase the inclusion of STEM disciplines. Figure 7.2 provides a framework for this exploration. Note that the first column briefly characterizes the instructional sequence of the unit. The columns to the right provide opportunities for you to suggest changes to the unit. The first row has been filled out for you to show examples of possible adaptations that result in the inclusion of STEM disciplines and alignment with state standards.

Figure 7.2. Exploring the Design of the “Understanding Scientific Investigations” Instructional Sequence Instructional Sequence and Activities Introduction Read introduction and discuss observations and interpretation. Complete simple observational investigation.

Adaptations to Include STEM Disciplines • Role of technologies for observations are discussed. • Interpretation of observations may include analyzing and presenting data (math). • Engineering problems may be introduced.

Alignment With State Standards • Reading makes connections to the Common Core State Standards. • Observations could introduce practices and crosscutting concepts (e.g., cause and effect).

What is a scientific investigation? Read the section and discuss the role of hypothesis and measurement.

Investigating mass, volume, and density Read introduction and discuss definition of density.

Part A – Determining densities of several different objects Complete investigation and calculate the density of several objects using the formula.

Part B – Determining the density of an ice cube Use materials and equipment to determine the density of an ice cube.

Continued

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

63

CHAPTER 7 Figure 7.2. (continued )

Instructional Sequence and Activities

Adaptations to Include STEM Disciplines

Alignment With State Standards

Reporting scientific investigations Read and discuss the results of investigations on density and the practice of writing scientific reports.

Preparing a report on the density of ice Students prepare a report on their investigation. Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

Discussions with a colleague or within your PLC will be enhanced if participants take some time to ponder the following reflection questions: • What did you already know about the design of instructional units? • What would you like to learn about the design of instructional units? • What did you learn as a result of this preliminary experience? • What was the easiest part of the activity? • What was the most difficult issue you encountered? • If you had to do the preliminary design again, what would you do differently? You may recognize the first three questions in this list as KWLs. Figure 7.3 summarizes KWLs.

Figure 7.3. An Introduction to KWLs The letters KWL refer to the three strategies that ask, “What do I know? What do I want to know? What did I learn?” KWLs help students process and apply the information that they encounter in readings, investigations, and projects.

Conclusion

This chapter included the analysis of a sample unit. The analysis should help you recognize any issues associated with a current unit that you’re considering adapting. The reflection questions on this page are quite important as they begin organizing the next series of activities and the development of the unit.

64

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

BEGINNING THE DESIGN OF A STEM UNIT

PART III CONCLUSION

D

esigning a STEM unit involves making decisions about such things as the unit’s topic, learning outcomes, appropriate activities, and aligned assessments. As mentioned in the introduction to Part III, the time you take to think about and decide on your design is time well spent. Creating your design is like establishing the foundation for a house—it is essential and includes initial decisions about the structure and function of the end product. Keep in mind, though, that it is not the actual house. That remains to be built. Now it is time to move on and consider some ideas for high-quality STEM units before completing your design and developing a unit.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

65

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART IV CONTEMPORARY IDEAS FOR HIGHQUALITY STEM UNITS

T

he chapters in Part IV provide background knowledge for K–12 STEM teachers that will serve as resources during the design, development, and implementation of STEM units.

Chapter 8 includes information on the innovations proposed in A Framework for K–12 Science Education, the Next Generation Science Standards, and many new state standards for science. Chapter 9 summarizes contemporary research on how students learn STEM content. Chapter 10 focuses on 21st-century skills. STEM practices are addressed in Chapter 11. Finally, Chapter 12 has helpful information on student discourse in STEM classrooms.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

67

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 8 INNOVATIONS AND STEM EDUCATION A

high-quality STEM unit should incorporate innovative features of state standards, especially science standards. This chapter describes innovations based on A Framework for K–12 Science Education (the Framework; NRC 2012).

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To describe innovations for contemporary STEM education Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • fundamental innovations in contemporary science standards; • implications of the innovations for the design, development, and implementation of STEM units; and • changes in curriculum emphasis based on innovations in state standards.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

69

CHAPTER 8 The Framework presented three categories of learning outcomes: science and engineering practices (SEPs), crosscutting concepts (CCs), and disciplinary core ideas (DCIs). It recommended integrating these three categories into performance expectations (NRC 2012). The Framework’s recommendations became the basis for the Next Generations Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013). Both the Framework and the NGSS have had a significant influence on state science standards approved after 2013. The STEM education community is now responding by translating state standards into understandable and usable curriculum programs and classroom teaching practices. Central to this translation is providing STEM teachers with the knowledge and abilities they will need to implement STEM units.

Addressing the Innovations

Compared to older national and state standards, recently developed standards have new and different features and emphases. Therefore, using the term innovations is appropriate. I caution STEM educators against reviewing the state standards and saying, “We are already doing that,” because most instructional materials do not include the contemporary innovations. These contemporary innovations set a vision for the future of STEM education. They will not only cause a shift in instructional programs in classrooms but also affect and refocus the efforts to design STEM units. The innovations under discussion are located in the Framework and the NGSS. I recognize that many states have adopted the NGSS, and a number of states have variations in their standards. The following discussion uses the NGSS as an example. I suggest a review of your standards, especially if they are adaptations of the Framework and the NGSS. The implied curriculum emphasis of the NGSS differs significantly from prior standards for science education. In the NGSS, the three dimensions of SEPs, CCs, and DCIs are the basis for performance expectations that describe assessable learning outcomes. The NGSS performance expectations are therefore a measure of competency. The NGSS have boxes for each of the three dimensions. The boxes provide additional information and clarity for the design or redesign of curriculum materials, including STEM units. A high-quality STEM unit should provide opportunities for students to develop their understanding of DCIs through their engagement in SEPs and their application of CCs. This three-dimensional learning leads to eventual mastery of performance expectations. From this perspective, a high-quality unit should clearly describe or show how the cumulative experience works coherently with previous and following experiences, all contributing to learning outcomes.

70

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

INNOVATIONS AND STEM EDUCATION

Innovation: K–12 STEM Units Reflect Three-Dimensional Learning

General Summary. In the NGSS, science is described as having three distinct dimensions, each of which represents equally important learning outcomes: (1) SEPs, (2) DCIs, and (3) CCs (NGSS Lead States 2013). The NGSS expectations for students include making connections among all three dimensions. Students develop and apply the skills and abilities described in the SEPs and learn to make connections between different DCIs through the CCs to help gain a better understanding of the natural and designed world. Current research suggests that both knowledge (DCIs and CCs) and practice (SEPs) are necessary for a full understanding of science. Each NGSS standard integrates one specific SEP, CC, and DCI into a performance expectation that details what students should be proficient in by the end of instruction. In past standards, the separation of skills and knowledge often led to a curriculum emphasis on science concepts and an omission of inquiry and unifying concepts. The NGSS performance expectations do not specify or limit the intersection of the three dimensions in classroom instruction. Multiple SEPs, CCs, and DCIs that blend and work together in several contexts will be needed to help students build toward competency in the targeted performance expectations. One performance expectation should not be equated to one lesson. Performance expectations define the three-dimensional learning expectations for students, and it is unlikely that a single lesson would provide adequate opportunities for a student to demonstrate proficiency in every dimension of a performance expectation. A series of high-quality units in a school program is more likely to provide these opportunities. Implications for STEM Units. STEM units should provide learning experiences that blend multiple SEPs, CCs, and DCIs with the goal of actively engaging students in STEM processes in order to develop an understanding of each of the three dimensions. Include CCs explicitly so students learn to use them as tools to make sense of phenomena and make connections across disciplines. Assessments within the unit should reflect each of the distinct dimensions of STEM and their interconnectedness.

Innovation: Students Engage in Explaining Phenomena and Designing Solutions

General Summary. STEM content becomes meaningful to students when they see its usefulness—when they need it to answer a question or solve a problem. An important component of instruction is for STEM units to pique students’ curiosity to help them see a need for the content. Students should be able to explain phenomena and design solutions to problems using their understanding of the DCIs, CCs, and SEPs. Students also develop their understanding of the DCIs by engaging in the SEPs and applying CCs. These three dimensions are tools that students can acquire and use to answer questions about the world and solve design problems.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

71

CHAPTER 8 Implications for STEM Units. Implementing instructional materials and classroom teaching practices based on the NGSS requires an integration of STEM practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. These domains represent learning outcomes. The standards, presented as performance expectations, include these dimensions. Figure 8.1 presents an example of a middle school performance expectation.

Figure 8.1. Example of Middle School Performance Expectation “Develop and use a model to describe why adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may affect temperatures that can result in detrimental consequences for natural ecosystems.” This performance expectation first presents a science and engineering practice: develop and use a model to describe phenomena. Second, it presents a disciplinary core idea: adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may affect temperatures. Finally, the standard includes a crosscutting concept: cause and effect.

This innovation directs professional developers’ attention to the role of and strategies for instruction. It also brings into focus the need for examples of instructional sequences that exemplify three-dimensional teaching. In this example, teachers are asked to design an instructional sequence that gives students opportunities to create and use a model to show the results of changes to atmospheric composition of gases.

Innovation: STEM Units Incorporate Engineering Design and the Nature of Science

General Summary. The NGSS include engineering design and the nature of science as significant elements. Some of the unique aspects of engineering design (e.g., identifying and designing solutions for problems) and common aspects of both science and engineering (e.g., designing investigations and communicating information) are incorporated throughout the NGSS as expectations for students from kindergarten through high school. In addition, unique aspects of the nature of science (e.g., scientific investigations use a variety of methods; scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence; science is a way of knowing; science is a human endeavor) are included as SEPs and CCs throughout the grade bands. Implications for STEM Units. You will want to incorporate learning experiences that include the DCIs of engineering design and the SEPs and CCs of both engineering and the nature of science, covering both in assessments. Both engineering design and the nature of science are taught in an integrated manner with science disciplines (e.g., design projects require science knowledge in order to develop a good solution; the engineering process contributes to building science knowledge).

72

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

INNOVATIONS AND STEM EDUCATION

Innovation: STEM Content and Practices Build Coherent Learning Progressions in Grades K–12

General Summary. Because this innovation addresses learning progressions, you will provide opportunities from elementary through high school for students to engage in and develop a progressively deeper understanding of STEM content and practices. Students require coherent learning progressions both within a grade level and across grade levels so they can continually build on and revise their knowledge to expand their understanding. Implications for STEM Units. STEM units should provide learning experiences for students that develop a coherent progression of knowledge and skills from elementary through high school. The learning experiences focus on a small set of disciplinary concepts that build on what has been learned in previous grades and provide the foundation for learning at the next grade span.

Innovation: STEM Units Incorporate English Language Arts and Mathematics

General Summary. STEM units should not only provide for coherence in science teaching and learning but also unite science with these other relevant classroom subjects: mathematics and English language arts (ELA). This connection is deliberate because STEM literacy requires proficiency in mathematical computations and in communication skills. STEM units should ensure alignment to and identify some possible connections with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; NGAC and CCSSO 2010) for ELA/ literacy and mathematics. This meaningful and substantive overlapping of skills and knowledge helps provide all students with equitable access to the learning of STEM content and practices. Implications for STEM Units. Although the CCSS has come under political criticism, the need to improve mathematics and English language achievement remains a priority in American education. Activities in STEM present excellent opportunities to introduce math content in a meaningful context and provide students with opportunities to engage in meaningful nonfiction reading and writing.

Conclusion

The design of STEM units uses a set of innovations that expresses a curriculum emphasis differing from the traditional view of content. As students engage in problem-, place-, or project-based experiences, they apply STEM content and practices to increase their understanding and develop adequate explanations and solutions.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

73

CHAPTER 8 References National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards.

74

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 9 HOW STUDENTS LEARN STEM CONTENT D

esigning, developing, and implementing a STEM unit should be grounded in current knowledge of how students learn. This chapter reviews information on cognitive, social, and emotional perspectives on learning.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To understand and apply fundamental skills and competencies of students’ learning Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • cognitive perspectives, • sociocultural perspectives, and • the implications of these perspectives for STEM units.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

75

CHAPTER 9 Enhancing student achievement will rely on developing units based on research that has advanced educators’ understanding of how students learn. The National Research Council (NRC) has produced several reports with such research, including How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 1999), How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice (Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino 1999), How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom (Donovan and Bransford 2005) and How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures (NASEM 2018). All these were based on a synthesis of information on human learning. Linkage between the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives on learning are expressed in Science and Engineering for Grades 6–12: Investigation and Design at the Center (NASEM 2019) and From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope (NCSEAD 2019).

The Cognitive Perspective

Three findings from How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice (Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino 1999) have a solid research base and clear implications for developing STEM units. The first finding is as follows: Finding 1 Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information they are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom. —Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino 1999 (p. 10)

The curricular implications of this first finding point to the need for a structure and sequence of experiences that initially draw out students’ current understandings, bring about some sense of the inadequacy of their ideas, and provide opportunities and time to reconstruct their ideas so they are consistent with basic STEM concepts. A key idea in the excerpt revolves around what happens if students’ initial understanding is not engaged, the implication being that units must engage students’ ideas about phenomena, topics, or problems. By the time students enter school, they have had years of experiences and engaged many times in cognitive processes to make sense of their world. Sometimes their conceptions are scientifically accurate, but other times they are not. For example, students may have misconceptions about physical properties of matter because the basis for those properties cannot be easily observed. In life and Earth science, changes may be too small, too large, too slow, or too fast to see, or they may result from underlying causes that are not easily visible. One of the now-classic examples of students’ misconceptions is their persistent belief, even at the college level, that the cause for seasons is Earth’s distance from the Sun rather than the angle of incoming solar radiation due to the tilt of Earth’s axis. Likely, this misconception is based on students’ numerous actual experiences with

76

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

HOW STUDENTS LEARN STEM CONTENT

fires, stoves, and heating vents as they grow and develop. In time, these experiences contribute to the reasonable explanation that the closer one is to heat, the warmer it is—hence the misconception that when Earth is closer to the Sun, it is warmer (i.e., summer). Therefore, the challenges for the design of a unit are to draw out students’ current understanding, which may include misconceptions; help students realize the inadequacy of their current ideas; and provide activities and time for them to reconstruct their ideas so they are consistent with explanations based on the appropriate STEM disciplines. A second finding refers to the conceptual foundation of a curriculum: Finding 2 To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application. —Donovan, Bransford, and Pelliegrino 1999 (p. 12) STEM units should incorporate fundamental knowledge from, for example, state standards. They should also be based on and contribute to the students’ development of a strong conceptual framework. Research on comparing the performance of novices and experts and on learning and transfer both show that experts draw on a richly structured information base. Although factual information is necessary, it is not sufficient. Essential to expertise is the mastery of concepts that allows for deep understanding and a framework that organizes facts and information. With STEM instruction, students begin a unit of study as novices expressing varied informal and perhaps inadequate ideas about STEM-related experiences. The intention of designing a unit of instruction is to help students progress from novice explanations to higher levels of formal understanding (i.e., expertise). This implies a deepening of factual knowledge and the development of a conceptual framework for the appropriate disciplines of STEM. Finally, there is a finding related to students’ abilities of reflective thinking: Finding 3 Students can be taught strategies that help them monitor their progress in problem solving. —Donovan, Bransford, and Pelliegrino 1999 (p. 13) Research on the performance of experts suggests that they reflect on and monitor their understanding of science questions and design problems. They note any requirement for additional information, the alignment of new information with what is known, and the use of analogies that may provide insights and advance their understanding. Experts often have internal conversations grounded in the processes

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

77

CHAPTER 9 of scientific inquiry or engineering design. This finding has clear implications for the theme of teaching STEM using an integrated approach. In summation, designing a STEM unit should acknowledge the fact that students already have some ideas about objects, organisms, and phenomena in the natural world and about materials, structures, and problems in the designed world. Many of the ideas students express do not align with discipline-based or crosscutting concepts. The challenge for STEM teachers is not so much the fact that students have these misconceptions; rather, it is how to transform their current conceptions into understandings grounded in STEM disciplines. In contrast to many contemporary programs, research on learning indicates that instructional materials should include a clear conceptual framework, as well as facts and information. Finally, students can enhance their own learning through encouragement and opportunities for self-reflection and monitoring, and these can be taught in the context of STEM units.

The Sociocultural Perspective

The sociocultural perspective presents a complement to the traditional cognitive perspective. In the sociocultural perspective, the primary emphasis is on the context of the learner. Context can include the immediate settings of the learner—for example, the STEM classroom. Context also includes other factors that indirectly influence learners— for example, the learner’s relationship with other individuals and the environments in which the learning occurs. One feature of the learner’s context is that some factors may be quite distant and abstract relative to the immediate educational situation. Material resources and informal norms are examples of such factors (NASEM 2019). In considering the sociocultural perspective, STEM educators should be aware of the following: (1) what is learned and what enhances learning are culturally determined; (2) the determinations are socially mediated by both historical and current sociopolitical conditions; and (3) the internal processes of individual learners are influenced by the aforementioned factors (NASEM 2019). The sociocultural perspective has several implications for the design of STEM units. Here are a few of these implications, translated into design principles: Design Principle 1 The first design principle focuses on providing choice or autonomy. Allowing learners some autonomy in the selection of content and the direction of study influences their learning and future interests (NASEM 2019). To be clear, this does not imply unlimited choices and options. Such situations can be overwhelming to individuals with little knowledge and limited experiences. A reasonable implication would be for the unit design to initially engage students with phenomena or problems and then provide the opportunity for them to explore additional choices and directions for further study.

78

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

HOW STUDENTS LEARN STEM CONTENT

Design Principle 2 A second design principle involves educational experiences that have relevancy for the students (NASEM 2019). In this context, relevancy can mean physical participation in place-, project-, and problem-based activities that students can concretely and directly identify with and that are appropriate for STEM units. Design Principle 3 The third design principle is based on creating experiences that are appropriately challenging for learners (NASEM 2019). I suggest the phrase challenging but achievable. If the challenge is too complex and incomprehensible to the learners, there certainly may be detrimental effects. STEM teachers should be aware of students’ frustration and lack of perseverance related to a task. Scaffolding is clearly implied for teachers who encounter students for whom the challenge is too great. Design Principle 4 The final design principle is to include socially and culturally situated learning experiences (NASEM 2019). STEM activities that are sensitive to students’ social environments can enhance the students’ interest and motivation. Therefore, STEM units should be designed to engage students with a socially relevant topic, problem, or life situation. The units should also help students learn to apply knowledge and skills in meaningful and sensible ways. The goal of learning with understanding includes gaining factual knowledge as well as the disposition and abilities to apply that knowledge. I underscore the complementary nature of these two ideas because many contemporary programs and assessments place much greater emphasis on acquiring knowledge than on applying that knowledge.

Combining the Perspectives to Create STEM Units

This discussion continues with some direction for completing the design of a STEM unit, incorporating points made in prior sections. Figure 9.1 (p. 80) summarizes many of these points and extends them to practical issues for teaching and learning. The latter are addressed as what teachers need to know and do. This figure is an adaptation of an earlier work (Powell, Short, and Landes 2002).

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

79

CHAPTER 9 Figure 9.1. Designing a STEM Unit

80

What We Know About Student Learning

What to Consider in Designing a STEM Unit

What Content Teachers Need to Know

What Strategies Teachers Need to Use

Students have current conceptions about the natural and designed world. Some may be misconceptions.

• Unit should include an instructional sequence that elicits current conceptions and processes. • Unit should provide opportunities and time for conceptual change

• Students’ potential misconceptions • Processes of conceptual change

• Challenge current misconceptions. • Provide time and opportunities for conceptual change • Give suggestive “hints” as students try to figure out new concepts

Learning requires both a conceptual framework and facts.

• Unit should be based on contexts, competencies, and concepts fundamental to STEM disciplines • Instruction should connect facts to concepts in ways that facilitate retrieval and application

• Conceptual understanding of fundamental STEM disciplines • Abilities of STEM practices • Potential applications of STEM knowledge

• Make continual reference to competencies, concepts, skills, and abilities • Make connections that transfer knowledge and skills

Learning is facilitated by students’ reflective thinking and monitoring.

• Unit should make learning outcomes explicit • Unit should incorporate opportunities for selfreflection in curriculum experiences

• Strategies to enhance reflection on content questions and problems being studied • Content and processes that indicate a learning progression

• Include goal setting in class time • Facilitate reflective thinking through questions

Interest and motivation is enhanced when students have some choices in study topics.

• Unit should allow some choices in content and study

• Content that is understandable by students

• Engage students and then allow some freedom in the direction and study

Educational experiences should have content that has personal meaning.

• Unit should have place-, project-, and problembased investigations

• Teaching strategies for different investigations and activities

• Employ various strategies based on the topic and needs of students

Learning experiences should be challenging but achievable.

• Unit should feature topics that are within the students’ realm of interest and understanding

• General progressions of difficulty across grades

• Use scaffolding

Learning experiences should have social and cultural meaning for students.

• Units should include topics with social/cultural meaning for the students

• Content related to local, national, and/or global topics, depending on the grade level of the students

• Make connections to socially and culturally relevant topics at the local, national, or global level

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

HOW STUDENTS LEARN STEM CONTENT

Conclusion

One important element of designing and developing STEM units involves the application of contemporary learning theory to the form, function, and sequence of student experiences. This chapter briefly summarized historical and current research on student learning. Understanding and using this knowledge in STEM units is essential.

References Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking, eds. 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Donovan, M., and J. Bransford, eds. 2005. How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Donovan, M., J. Bransford, and J. Pellegrino, eds. 1999. How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2018. How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2019. Science and engineering for grades 6–12: Investigation and design at the center. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development (NCSEAD). 2019. From a nation at risk to a nation at hope. The Aspen Institute. http://nationathope.org. Powell, J., J. Short, and N. Landes. 2002. Curriculum reform, professional development, and powerful learning. In Learning science and the science of learning, ed. R. Bybee, 121–136. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

81

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 10 21ST-CENTURY SKILLS AND STEM UNITS T

his chapter includes information on a general set of skills that has been recognized as important for 21st-century workers and aligned with educational opportunities in STEM programs (NRC 2010). The skills and competencies also complement the sociocultural perspectives on learning described in Chapter 9.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To introduce skills and competencies aligned with 21stcentury requirements for college, careers, and citizenship Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • five important skills for the 21st century (adaptability, complex communication, nonroutine problem solving, self-management, and systems thinking); and • implications of those skills for STEM education.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

83

CHAPTER 10 STEM instruction presents contexts for teachers to encourage skills such as changing plans to meet new circumstances, communicating outcomes of work, solving unique problems, managing time for tasks, and thinking in terms of systems. In addition to cultivating the aforementioned skills through the content and practices of STEM disciplines, students can also develop them as they engage in activities, investigations, and problems. Five skills are discussed in this chapter. They are adaptability, complex communication, nonroutine problem solving, self-management/self-development, and systems thinking. These skills are described in the context of STEM education in general and STEM units in particular.

Adaptability

Individuals must be able to adapt. This ability includes the capacity and willingness to cope with uncertain, new, and rapidly changing conditions on the job. Adaptability skills include responding effectively to emergencies or crisis situations and learning new tasks, technologies, and procedures. Adaptability also includes handling work stress and responding appropriately to different personalities, communication styles, and cultures (Houston 2007; Pulakos et al. 2000). STEM units should help students develop adaptability skills by providing them with experiences that require coping with new approaches to investigations, using new tools and techniques to make observations, and collecting and analyzing data. STEM units should include opportunities to work individually and in groups on activities such as laboratories, field studies, and problem-based situations.

Complex Communication

Employers want to hire individuals who are skilled in processing and interpreting both verbal and nonverbal information and adept at responding to the information appropriately. A skilled communicator selects key pieces of a complex idea to express in words, sounds, and images in order to build shared understanding (Levy and Murnane 2004). Skilled communicators negotiate positive outcomes with others through social perceptiveness, persuasion, negotiation, and education. (Peterson et al. 1999). STEM units can introduce complex communications and social skills as a part of laboratories, investigations, and place-based activities. STEM activities should include group work that culminates with the use of evidence to formulate and communicate a conclusion or recommendation. Students can be required to process and interpret information and data from a variety of sources. Learners should have to select appropriate evidence and use it to communicate an explanation.

Nonroutine Problem Solving

A skilled problem solver uses expert thinking to examine a broad spectrum of information, recognize patterns, and narrow the information to diagnose a problem. Moving beyond diagnosis to a solution requires knowledge of how the information is

84

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

21ST-CENTURY SKILLS AND STEM UNITS

linked conceptually; it also involves reflection on whether a problem-solving strategy is working and the ability to switch to another strategy if the current one isn’t effective (Levy and Murnane 2004). Nonroutine problem solving demands creativity to generate new and innovative solutions, the capacity to integrate seemingly unrelated information, and the ability to entertain possibilities others may miss (Houston 2007). The implications are clear for STEM units with problem-based contexts. These units should help students develop the abilities of nonroutine problem solving by requiring learners to (1) apply knowledge to scientific questions and engineering problems, (2) identify the mathematical components of a contemporary issue, and (3) use reasoning to link evidence to an explanation. In the process of carrying out a problem-based investigation, learners should be required to reflect on the adequacy of an answer to a question or a solution to a problem. Students may be required to think of another investigation or another way to gather data and connect those data using the knowledge from STEM disciplines. As students engage in STEM-based activities, they have opportunities to sharpen their nonroutine problem-solving skills. Numerous studies (Boddy, Watson, and Aubusson 2003; Bybee et al. 2006; Taylor, Van Scotter, and Coulson 2007; and Wilson et al. 2010) also suggest positive support for the BSCS 5E Instructional Model and a linkage between scientific reasoning and problem solving.

Self-Management/Self-Development

Self-management skills include the ability to work remotely as part of virtual teams; to work autonomously; and to be self-motivating and self-monitoring. One aspect of self-management is the willingness and ability to acquire new information and skills related to work (Houston 2007). Your unit should include opportunities for students to work on STEM projects alone and in groups. These investigations should include full inquiries and may require learners to acquire new knowledge and develop new skills and competencies as they pursue answers to questions or solutions to problems. Such experiences would help students develop self-management and self-development abilities. The skills of self-management and self-development suggest the ability to work alone, acquire new information when needed, and persist at given tasks. Underlying these skills is an interest in a domain of study or work and the motivation to investigate within this domain. Research supporting the role of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model in developing interest can be found in studies by Von Secker (2002), Akar (2005), and Tinnin (2000). Varied structuring of STEM activities, including work at home, will contribute to the development of these abilities. In the classroom, STEM teachers can monitor individual work, encourage effective time management, and facilitate the pursuit of knowledge and development of new abilities.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

85

CHAPTER 10 Systems Thinking

Systems thinking includes the ability to understand how an entire system works and how an action, change, or malfunction in one part of the system affects the rest of the system; it also includes adapting a “big picture” perspective on work (Houston 2007). This type of thinking involves judgment and decision-making, systems analysis, and systems evaluation, as well as abstract reasoning about how the different elements of a work process interact (Peterson et al. 1999). An understanding of subsystems and the various elements of the structure and function of systems is also part of systems thinking. Systems thinking requires mastery of knowledge about systems and the application of that knowledge to practical laboratory work and life situations. The implications for STEM units are that (1) students are introduced to systems thinking so they learn basic concepts and (2) they have opportunities to apply systems thinking to problems in different contexts. One of the most helpful innovations in STEM education would be an emphasis on systems thinking. Even traditional STEM disciplines can be approached as living systems, Earth systems, physical systems, and technological systems. Learners should be required to realize the limits to investigations of systems. They should also be able to describe a system’s components, the flow of resources into and out of a system, changes in systems and subsystems, and reasoning about interactions at the interface between systems.

Conclusion

Addressing 21st-century workforce skills and competencies will require students to have experience with STEM-oriented individual and group work, activities, investigations, and design problems. A STEM unit needs to include such elements as appropriate. This viewpoint may seem obvious, but it must be emphasized. STEM education has an opportunity to make a substantial contribution to society’s pressing problems, most of which are systemic. STEM units provide the setting for helping students learn the skills of adaptability, complex communication, nonroutine problem solving, selfmanagement, and systems thinking. In order to accomplish this, I recommend that you provide opportunities for students to adapt to others’ work styles and ideas, solve problems, manage their own work, think in terms of systems, and communicate their results. Currently, 21st-century skills are not targeted for instruction to a great extent. However, arguments for emphasizing these skills in STEM programs are relatively new. It’s important to make teaching 21st-century skills through STEM units widespread, as it will greatly benefit both students and society at large.

86

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

21ST-CENTURY SKILLS AND STEM UNITS

References Akar, E. 2005. Effectiveness of 5E learning cycle model on students’ understanding of acid-base concepts. MS thesis, the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University. Boddy, M., K. Watson, and P. Aubusson. 2003. A trial of the five Es: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education 33 (1): 27–42. Bybee, R. W., J. A. Taylor, A. Gardner, P. Van Scotter, J. C. Powell, A. Westbrook, and N. Landes. 2006. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Houston, J. 2007. Future skill demands: From a corporate consultant perspective. Presentation at the Workshop on Research Evidence Related to Future Skill Demands. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Levy, F., and R. J. Murnane. 2004. The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Peterson, N., M. Mumford, W. Borman, P. Jeanneret, and E. Fleishmann. 1999. An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*Net. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pulakos, E. D., S. Arad, M. A. Donovan, and K. E. Plamondon. 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: Development of taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (4): 612–624. Taylor, J. A., P. Van Scotter, and D. Coulson. 2007. Bridging research on learning and student achievement: The role of instructional materials. The Science Educator 16 (2): 44–50. Tinnin, R. 2000. The effectiveness of a long-term professional development program on teachers’ self-efficacy, attitudes, skills, and knowledge using a thematic learning approach. Dissertation Abstracts International 61 (11): 4345. Von Secker, C. 2002. Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The Journal of Educational Research 95 (3): 151–160. Wilson, C., J. Taylor, S. Kowalski, and J. Carlson. 2010. The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation: A randomized control trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (3): 276–301.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

87

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 11 STEM PRACTICES T

his chapter presents science, technology, and engineering practices from A Framework for K–12 Science Education (the Framework; NRC 2012) and standards from the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics and English language arts (NGAC and CCSSO 2010).

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To describe STEM practices for use in instructional materials Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • practices for the STEM disciplines and • implications of the practices for STEM units.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

89

CHAPTER 11 The changes implied by the Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013) present new perspectives for the STEM education community. This is especially true for those designing STEM units and classroom teachers of STEM at all levels. What are the connections between STEM units and the CCSS? Science and engineering practices clearly complement the CCSS. The connections to mathematics standards in the CCSS do not need explanation. The English language arts standards in the CCSS feature various connections to STEM. For example, there are standards for “reading for literacy in science and technical subjects” and “writing for literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.” Thus, helping students develop science, technology, and engineering practices complements the aim of meeting portions of the CCSS. In Ready, Set, Science (Michaels, Shouse, and Schweingruber 2008), the authors present an answer to the question “Why practices?” I have paraphrased from that volume for STEM: Relative to STEM … practice involves doing something and learning something in such a way that the doing and learning cannot really be separated. Thus, “practice” … encompasses several of the different dictionary definitions of the term. It refers to doing something repeatedly in order to become proficient. It refers to learning something so thoroughly that it becomes second nature. And it refers to using one’s knowledge to meet an objective. (p. 34) When students engage in STEM practices, activities become the basis for (1) learning about investigations, data, and evidence; (2) engaging in civil discourse; (3) creating models and tools; and (4) applying mathematics. STEM practices also help students develop the ability to evaluate knowledge claims, conduct investigations, use engineering design and develop explanations, and propose solutions for meaningful issues and problems. The following discussion elaborates on the STEM practices and briefly describes what they require students to know and be able to do. It also indicates how the strategies might be used in STEM units. Figures 11.1 to 11.8 (pp. 91–99) are adapted from the Framework and the CCSS.

Asking Questions and Defining Problems in STEM Units

Elementary school children pose questions to one another and to adults. They often ask about things around them, including the natural and designed world. Helping students develop STEM practices can involve and improve students’ questions and define problems with increasing clarity and sophistication. For example, students should learn how to ask questions to one another; recognize the difference between

90

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM PRACTICES

scientific questions and technological or engineering problems; and evaluate scientific questions and engineering problems for other types of questions and problems (e.g., mathematical content). In mathematics, younger students might rely on using concrete objects or pictures to help conceptualize and solve a problem. Mathematically proficient students check their answers to problems using a different method, and they continually ask themselves, “Does this make sense?” They can understand the approaches of others to solving complex problems and identify correspondences between different approaches. In upper grades, the practices of asking scientific questions and defining engineering problems advance in subtle ways. Advancements could include, for example, changes in the form and function of data used in answering scientific questions and the criteria and constraints applied to solving engineering problems. Mathematics requires students to consider analogous problems and try special cases and simpler forms of the original problem in order to gain insight into its solution. Students monitor and evaluate their progress and change course if necessary. Depending on the context of the problem, older students might transform algebraic expressions or change the viewing window on their graphing calculator to get the information they need. Mathematically proficient students can explain correspondences between equations, verbal descriptions, tables, and graphs, or they can draw diagrams of important features and relationships, graph data, and search for regularity or trends. Figure 11.1 summarizes STEM practices for asking questions and defining problems.

Figure 11.1. Asking Questions and Defining Problems Science Scientific inquiry begins with a question about a phenomenon, such as “Why is the sky blue?” or “What causes cancer?” A basic practice of a scientist is the ability to formulate empirically answerable questions about phenomena to establish and confirm what is already known and to determine what questions have yet to be satisfactorily answered.

Technology/ Engineering Technological design and engineering design begin with a problem that needs to be solved, such as “How can we reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels?” or “What can be done to reduce the possibility of a particular disease?” or “How can we improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles?” A basic practice of engineers is to ask questions to clarify a problem, determine criteria for a successful solution, and identify constraints to possible technological products.

Mathematics Mathematical problem solving begins by making sense of problems and persevering in solving them. Questions may include the following: “What sense can I make of this problem?” “What are the entry points to the problem’s solution?” “What are the givens, constraints, relationships, and goals related to this problem?” After an initial analysis, problem solving may continue by making conjectures about the form and meaning of the solution and a pathway to solving the problem rather than a direct attempt.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

91

CHAPTER 11 Developing and Using Models in STEM Units

In the lower grades, the idea of models can be introduced using pictures, diagrams, drawings, and simple physical models of such things as airplanes or cars. Mathematically proficient students can apply the mathematics they know to solve problems arising in everyday life, society, and the workplace. In early grades, this application of mathematics might be as simple as writing an addition equation to describe a situation. In upper grades, more sophisticated models (e.g., conceptual or mathematical models, computational simulations) may be used to conduct investigations, explore changes in system components, and generate data that can be used in formulating scientific explanations or proposed solutions to engineering problems. In middle grades, a student might apply proportional reasoning to plan a school event or analyze a problem in the community. By high school, a student might use geometry to solve a design problem or a function to describe how one quantity of interest depends on another. Proficient students can analyze relationships mathematically to draw conclusions. They routinely interpret their mathematical results in the context of the situation and reflect on whether the results make sense, possibly improving the model if it has not served its purpose. Figure 11.2 summarizes the practice of developing and using models for STEM units.

Figure 11.2. Developing and Using Models Science Scientific inquiry involves the construction and use of models and simulations to help develop explanations about natural phenomena. Models make it possible to use observable data and go beyond to simulate future changes in a system. Models enable if/then/therefore predictions to be made in order to test proposed scientific explanations.

Technology/ Engineering Technological design and engineering design make use of models and simulations to analyze extant systems in order to identify changes that might occur or to test possible solutions to new problems. Engineers design and use models of various sorts to test proposed systems and recognize the strengths and limitations of their designs.

Mathematics Mathematical problem solving can be used to simplify complicated situations with the understanding that the solutions may need revision. Identifying important quantities in practical situations and mapping their relationships using such tools as diagrams, two-way tables, graphs, flowcharts, and formulas are all part of making and using models in mathematics.

Planning and Carrying Out Investigations in STEM Units

Planning and carrying out investigations should be standard experiences in K–12 STEM classrooms. Across the grades, students develop deeper and richer understandings and abilities as they conduct different types of investigations, use different

92

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM PRACTICES

technologies to collect data, give greater attention to types of variables, and clarify the scientific and/or engineering contexts for investigations. Investigations and projects are experiences that will naturally integrate the STEM practices. In elementary grades, students can investigate simple questions and problems. In doing so, they learn how to formulate questions and define problems, collect and analyze data, and communicate results. In upper grades, students can investigate more complex questions and problems. They can test predictions, identify correlations, learn the importance of controlling variables, and engage in arguments based on evidence. In mathematics, students become familiar enough with grade level–appropriate tools to make decisions about when each of these tools might be helpful. Moreover, they recognize the insight to be gained from these tools as well as their limitations. High school students, for example, analyze graphs of functions and solutions generated using a graphing calculator. They detect possible errors by strategically using estimation and other mathematical knowledge. Figure 11.3 summarizes the practice of planning and carrying out investigations for STEM units.

Figure 11.3. Planning and Carrying Out Investigations Science Scientific investigations may be conducted in the field or in a laboratory. A major practice of scientists involves planning and carrying out systematic investigations that require defining what counts as data, clarifying how to collect data, and, in experiments, identifying variables.

Technology/ Engineering Technological investigations and engineering investigations are conducted to gain data essential for specifying criteria or parameters and to test proposed designs. Like scientists, engineers must identify relevant variables, decide how they will be measured, and collect data for analysis. Their investigations help them identify the effectiveness, efficiency, and durability of designs under different conditions.

Mathematics Mathematical tools and resources are strategically used in the process of solving problems. These tools might include pencil and paper, concrete models, a ruler, a protractor, a calculator, a spreadsheet, a computer algebra system, a statistical package, or dynamic geometry software. Mathematical resources include digital content on websites and technologies used to visualize the results of varying assumptions, explore consequences, and compare predictions with data.

Analyzing and Interpreting Data in STEM Units

In lower grades, students simply record and share observations through drawings, writing, whole numbers, and oral reports. In middle and high school, students report relationships and patterns in data, distinguish between correlation and causation, and

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

93

CHAPTER 11 compare and contrast independent sets of data for consistence and confirmation of an explanation or solution. STEM disciplines involve the analysis and interpretation of data. This practice overlaps significantly with the next one, using mathematical and computational thinking. Although both can be completed with simulated data, it is beneficial for students to actually experience the practices of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data and, in the process, apply mathematical and computational thinking. Analyzing and interpreting data is a STEM practice that easily and appropriately incorporates mathematics. Young students, for example, might notice that 3 + 7 is the same as 7 + 3. Later, students will see 7 × 8 equals 7 × 5 + 7 × 3. In the expression x2 + 9x + 14, older students preparing to learn about the distributive property can see the 14 as 2 × 7 and the 9 as 2 + 7. They also can step back for an overview and shift perspective. The students can see complicated things, such as some algebraic expressions, as single objects or as being composed of several objects. Figure 11.4 summarizes the practice of analyzing and interpreting data for STEM units.

Figure 11.4. Analyzing and Interpreting Data Science Scientific investigations produce data that must be analyzed in order to derive meaning. Because data usually do not speak for themselves, scientists use a range of tools (e.g., tabulation, graphical interpretation, visualization, statistical analysis) to identify the significant features and patterns in the data. Sources of error are identified and the degree of certainty calculated. Modern technology makes the collection of large data sets much easier, thus providing secondary sources for analysis.

Technology/ Engineering Technological investigations and engineering investigations include analysis of data collected in the tests of designs. This allows comparison of different solutions and determines how well each meets specific design criteria—that is, which design best solves the problem within given constraints. Like scientists, engineers require a range of tools to identify major patterns and interpret results. Advances in science make analysis of proposed solutions more efficient and effective.

Mathematics In mathematics, individuals are required to look for and make use of patterns or structures.

Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking in STEM Units

In the early grades, students can learn to use appropriate instruments (e.g., rulers, thermometers), units of measurements, and quantitative results to compare proposed

94

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM PRACTICES

solutions to an engineering problem. In upper grades, students can use calculators and computers to analyze data sets and express the significance of data using statistics. Students can learn to use computers to record measurements, summarize and display data, and calculate relationships. As students progress from lower to higher grades, the understanding they gained from STEM experiences should enhance what they learn in math class. The practice of using mathematics and computational thinking complements a National Council of Teachers of Mathematics report, Catalyzing Change in High School Mathematics: Initiating Critical Conversations (NCTM 2018), which argues that the content and practices of high school math should be broadened to address math for civic participation. Much math includes practices such as identifying, interpreting, and criticizing math in social, scientific, and political contexts. The NCTM report recommendations certainly add civic life to college and career goals and help students make sense of math (Seeley 2016); they also support discussion of quantitative literacy (Steen 2001). Figure 11.5 summarizes using mathematics and computational thinking for STEM units.

Figure 11.5. Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking Science In science, mathematics and computation are fundamental tools for representing physical variables and their relationships. They are used for a range of tasks such as constructing simulations; statistically analyzing data; and recognizing, expressing, and applying quantitative relationships. Mathematical and computational approaches enable prediction of the behavior of physical systems along with the testing of such predictions. Moreover, statistical techniques are also invaluable for identifying significant patterns and establishing correlational relationships.

Technology/ Engineering In technology and engineering, mathematical and computational representations of established relationships and principles are integral to the design process. For example, structural engineers use mathematical analysis of designs to determine whether they can accommodate expected stresses of use and if designs can be completed within acceptable budgets.

Mathematics In mathematics, individuals must make sense of quantities and their relationships in problem situations. They bring two complementary abilities to bear on problems involving quantitative relationships: the ability to decontextualize (to abstract symbols without necessarily attending to their referents) and the ability to contextualize (to pause as needed during the manipulation process in order to probe into the referents for the symbols involved). Quantitative reasoning entails habits of creating a coherent representation of the problem at hand; considering the units involved; attending to the meaning of quantities; and knowing and flexibly using different properties of operations and objects.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

95

CHAPTER 11 Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions in STEM Units

STEM units should help students develop the skills to construct explanations for the causes of phenomena and evidence-based solutions to engineering problems. An explanation should provide an account of the most plausible mechanism for a phenomenon. It should be simple, logical, and consistent with existing data. In a word, the explanation is parsimonious. Students’ explanations of phenomena are based on evidence from core ideas, information from observations and/or investigations, and the application of crosscutting concepts. Students should be able to construct coherent explanations consistent with their evidence and accepted scientific knowledge. Designing solutions to engineering problems requires students to use systematic processes for considering the problem, determining constraints, and accommodating criteria. Solutions result from a process of balancing competing criteria of desired functions, technological feasibility, cost, safety, esthetics, and compliance with legal requirements (NRC 2012). Figure 11.6 summarizes constructing explanations and designing solutions for STEM units.

Figure 11.6. Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions Science The goal of science is the construction of evidence-based explanations of phenomena in the material world. Scientific explanations are strengthened by multiple independent lines of empirical evidence, resulting in greater explanatory power for a breadth of phenomena.

96

Technology/ Engineering The goal of technology and engineering design is to develop a systematic solution to problems. The solution should be based on scientific knowledge and models of the material world. Constructing proposed solutions result from a process of balancing competing criteria of desired functions, technical feasibility, cost, safety, aesthetics, and compliance with legal requirements. Usually, there is no one best solution but rather a range of solutions. The optimal choice depends on how well the proposed solution meets criteria and constraints.

Mathematics In mathematics, individuals look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM PRACTICES

Engaging in Argument From Evidence in STEM Units

The sophistication of argumentation in STEM units should build progressively across grades K–12. Argumentation in STEM is very different from argumentation in everyday life. In STEM, arguments express the reasoning connecting evidence to explanations for phenomena and solutions for problems. Simply put, STEM argumentation is the systematic line of evidence that supports the most logical (i.e., reasoned) explanation for the issue at hand. Argumentation is an essential tool for revealing the strengths and weaknesses in claims. Students proficient in argumentation produce statements defending their explanations; have the skills and disposition to offer reasoned and civic comments to others’ arguments; and remain focused on the claim, evidence, and reasoning rather than providing demeaning comments. Because argumentation is a two-way proposition, it should be done in a collaborative environment where everyone is seeking the best explanation based on the available evidence. In addition to clarifying explanations, argumentation also narrows down solutions to problems, taking into account criteria and constraints. In engineering, what counts is the best solution to a problem. Argumentation is one of the tools that can be used to systematically compare alternative solutions to a problem and support one solution over others. In elementary grades, students might listen to two explanations for an observation and decide which one is best supported with evidence. Students can also listen to a solution to an engineering problem proposed by classmates and ask for the evidence supporting the proposal. In upper grades, students should learn to identify claims, differentiate data and evidence, and use logical reasoning in oral and written presentations. The mathematical perspective would have students construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments should make sense based on the referents. Students at all grades should learn to listen to or read the arguments of others; decide whether they make sense; ask questions to clarify information; point out errors, contradictions, or places not supported by evidence; and suggest ways to improve the arguments. There are several excellent articles that you may wish to review for further background on argumentation. (See Ferlazzo and Hull-Sypnieski 2014; Llewellyn 2013; Llewellyn and Adams 2013; Marzano 2012; Reiser, Berland, and Kenyon 2012; and Sampson, Enderle, and Grooms 2013.) Figure 11.7 (p. 98) summarizes the STEM practices of engaging in argument from evidence for STEM units.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

97

CHAPTER 11 Figure 11.7. Engaging in Argument From Evidence Science In science, reasoning and argumentation are essential for clarifying strengths and weaknesses of a line of evidence and for identifying the best explanation for a natural phenomenon. Scientists must defend their explanations, present evidence based on a solid foundation of data, examine their understanding in light of the evidence and reviews by peers, and collaborate with other scientists in searching for the best explanation for the phenomena being investigated and explained.

Technology/ Engineering In technology and engineering, reasoning and argument are essential for finding the best solution to a problem. Engineers collaborate with their peers throughout the design process. The critical stage of the process is the selection of the most promising solution among a field of competing ideas. Engineers use systematic methods to compare alternatives, formulate evidence based on test data, make arguments to defend their conclusions, critically evaluate the ideas of others, and revise their designs in order to identify the best solution.

Mathematics In mathematics, individuals construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others. These practices include understanding and expressing stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. Conclusions are justified and communicated to others. The plausibility and flaws of arguments can be compared and the reasoning and errors explained.

Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information in STEM Units

In elementary grades, STEM practices entail sharing scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical information; mastering oral and written presentations; and appropriately using models, drawings, and numbers. As students progress, the practices become more complex and might include preparing reports of investigations, communicating using multiple formats, constructing arguments, and incorporating multiple lines of evidence, different models, and evaluative analysis. These practices are directly related to the Common Core State Standards, in particular reading, writing, and speaking relative to nonfiction science and technical subjects (NGAC and CCSSO 2010). Figure 11.8 summarizes obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information for STEM units.

98

National Science Teaching Association Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM PRACTICES

Figure 11.8. Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information Science Science cannot advance if scientists are unable to communicate their findings clearly and persuasively or learn about the findings of others. A major practice of science is thus to obtain, evaluate, and communicate ideas and results of inquiry. This can be done orally; in writing; with the use of evidence in tables, diagrams, graphs, and equations; and by engaging in extended discussions with peers. Science requires the ability to derive meaning from scientific texts such as papers, the internet, symposia, or lectures to evaluate the scientific validity of the information thus acquired and to integrate that information into proposed explanations.

Technology/ Engineering Technology and engineering cannot produce new or improved technologies if the advantages of their designs are not communicated clearly and persuasively. Engineers need to be able to express their ideas orally and in writing; with the use of tables, graphs, drawings, or models; and by engaging in extended discussions with peers. Moreover, as with scientists, engineers need to be able to derive meaning from colleagues’ texts, evaluate information, and apply the information usefully.

Mathematics In mathematics, individuals attend to precision. They use clear definitions in their reasoning and in communicating to others. Furthermore, they state the meaning of symbols, specify units of measure, and label ways to clarify the correspondence with quantities in a problem. An individual’s calculations must be accurate and express numerical answers with precision appropriate to the problems’ context.

Conclusion

This chapter presents STEM practices as they may be used in STEM units. The presentations are based on descriptions in A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013), and the Common Core State Standards (NGAC and CCSSO 2010). The relationship among STEM practices is complementary. The STEM practices complement one another and should be mutually reinforcing in instructional materials. The emphasis on practices reinforces the need for STEM programs to actively involve students through investigations and problems in the 21st century, digitally based programs, and activities. Hands-on and laboratory work should still contribute to the realization of practices in STEM classrooms. The chapter made a reasonable case that across the K–12 continuum, the abilities and understandings of STEM practices will progressively get deeper and broader. STEM practices should be thought of as both learning outcomes and instructional strategies. They represent both educational ends and instructional means. First, students should develop the abilities described in the practices, and they should understand how knowledge and products develop as a result of the practices. Second, as

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

99

CHAPTER 11 instructional strategies, the practices provide a means for mastering the connected learning outcomes and other valued outcomes, such as students’ understanding of disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and the application of knowledge to life situations. In brief, the practices represent one aspect of what students are to know, what they are able to do, and how they should be taught. Granted, attaining these learning outcomes is a large order. But throughout grades K–12, teachers will have 13 years to facilitate this achievement.

References Ferlazzo, L., and K. Hull-Sypnieski. 2014. Teaching argument writing to ELLs. Educational Leadership 71 (7): 46–52. Llewellyn, D. 2013. Making and defending scientific arguments. The Science Teacher 80 (5): 34–38. Llewellyn, D., and A. Adams. 2013. Turning the science classroom into a courtroom. Science Scope 10 (2): 14–20. Marzano, R. 2012. Teaching argument. Educational leadership 70 (1): 80–81. Michaels, S., A. Shouse, and H. Schweingruber. 2008. Ready, set, science: Putting research to work in K–8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2018. Catalyzing change in high school mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. Reston, VA: NCTM. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education; Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards. Reiser, B., L. Berland, and L. Kenyon. 2012. Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. The Science Teacher 79 (4): 34–39. Sampson, V., P. Enderle, and J. Grooms. 2013. Argumentation in science and science education. The Science Teacher 80 (5): 30–33. Seeley, C. 2016. Making sense of math. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Steen, L, ed. 2001. Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy. Princeton, NJ: The National Council on Education and the Disciplines.

100

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 12 CIVIL DISCOURSE IN STEM CLASSROOMS T

his chapter provides an introductory discussion of students’ civil discourse in the context of STEM activities.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To introduce basic features of civil discourse as it applies to STEM units Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand strategies for civil discourse in STEM units.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

101

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 12 Let’s begin with a classroom example: Students worked individually and then in groups of three to tackle a simulation requiring the distribution of resources. First, they had to support their individual recommendations for a problem’s solution. Each student described his or her recommendation and the reasoning behind the proposal. The others listened, asked questions, identified consequences, and proposed modifications to the proposal or offered alternative solutions. After the initial presentations, each group had to agree on one proposed solution that would be the basis for an oral presentation to the class. The students’ interactions and communication can be described in a word—polite. The students did not interrupt, call names, talk over one another, or ridicule their classmates. When they disagreed, they did so with courtesy and respect. Was this example ideal? Perhaps. But it is not unrealistic. The students exemplified a variety of behaviors that fit within the realm of civil discourse. Such skills can be taught and learned, and STEM classrooms provide excellent opportunities to develop such appropriate behaviors. The introductory example is based on the activity in Figure 12.1. By design, this activity is open and does not have “an answer.” The educational objective of the activity is to help students develop the skills of civil discourse. You may find other resources with helpful ideas about civil discourse (Doubet and Hockett 2017), teaching for civil engagement (Colley 2017), strategies to address controversial issues in science (and STEM) classrooms (Owens, Sadler, and Zeidler 2017), and argumentation in science and science education (Sampson, Enderle, and Grooms 2013). This chapter continues by addressing questions such as the following: What do we mean by civility? How does teaching uniquely contribute to civility and civil discourse? How can instructional materials and teaching strategies contribute to students’ understanding of civility and development of abilities and sensibilities of civil discourse? Why should civility and civil discourse be included in a STEM unit? Now more than ever these questions require a response.

Figure 12.1. A Simulation for Civil Discussion Distributing Limited Resources

This activity is designed as an introduction to critical decisions and difficult discussions that may be part of STEM projects and problems. The openness and ambiguity of the task is intentional. It provides ample opportunity for discussion about an issue that is not laden with prior information or controversy. Thus, you can concentrate on the elements of constructive interactions with team members. The following are helpful guidelines for the discussion on distributing limited resources.

Continued

102

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CIVIL DISCOURSE IN STEM CLASSROOMS Figure 12.1. (continued ) GUIDELINES FOR THE DISCUSSION 1. Decision. Individually review the problem (see below) and decide how you would distribute the limited resources. Your decision should include how you would distribute the resources and the reasoning behind your decision. 2. Listen. Carefully listen to the recommended distributions and reasons others give for these decisions. Can you identify statements of positive or negative consequences; individual knowledge and beliefs; or statements of who benefits and who suffers? 3. Clarification. Ask for details about and support for statements; evidence of consistency of the conclusions with the premises; and clarity of the reasoning behind the discussion. 4. Criticism. Respectfully indicate any decisions and reasons with which you disagree. 5. Concensus. With your group, make a decision and provide reasons for the distribution of resources. THE PROBLEM Your problem is to decide how to distribute resources among four groups who have requested your help. For this activity, the term resources includes many different things, such as food, minerals, fuels, and other items needed by people. Here is the only information you have to make your decisions: • You have 300 units of resources. • You presently use 200 units of resources. • You can survive on 100 units of resources. Four groups want some of the resources. Here are their situations: • Group 1 needs 250 units of resources to survive; wants 250 units of resources • Group 2 needs 100 units of resources to survive; wants 200 units for survival and improvement • Group 3 needs 50 units for survival; wants 100 units for survival and improvement • Group 4 needs no units for survival; wants 200 units for improvement First, decide how you would distribute the resources. Complete the chart below:

Individual Decisions Distribution of Resources Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Reasons for Decision

Now form a group of three or four individuals. Hold a discussion using a reasoning process to make a group decision about the allocation of resources.

Group Decisions Distribution of Resources

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Reasons for Decision

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

103

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 12 What Is Meant by Civility?

Two books are particularly insightful regarding the theme of civility: Civility by Stephen L. Carter (1998) and How Civility Works by Keith J. Bybee (2016). In the former, Carter first points out the essential virtue of integrity because it helps individuals understand what is the right thing to do. He goes on to point out that civility follows, as it is a tool for interacting with others. Carter argues that civility “is the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together” (Carter 1998, p. 11). Keith Bybee makes the point that “in this most general sense civility is a code of public conduct” (Bybee 2016, p. 7). He goes on to point out the close connections among politeness, courtesy, manners, and civility. From these general definitions, one can see the need for civility as it relates to social order in general and to this discussion of STEM units, routine, and regularity in classrooms and other teaching and learning settings in particular.

How Do the Discussions in the Activity Demonstrate Ideas About Civility in a STEM Classroom?

Civility requires individuals to recognize and accept norms and laws that limit their goals and aspirations—in short, they must adopt an understanding that freedom is essential but not limitless in a democracy. The values, abilities, and sensibilities of civility can develop through experiences in your STEM classroom, particularly those that include discussions, dialogue, and discourse or that require students to adapt their current ideas based on evidence, support their reasoning, and communicate their ideas. Extending civility to STEM units implies teaching students how to conduct themselves individually and in groups. This aim is not new; teachers implement it every day as they establish the norms and expectations of behavior for their students. Civil discourse has to do with sociocultural learning in general and the way students interact in groups in particular. It involves listening, responding to other students’ ideas, expressing one’s own ideas, disagreeing with others, explaining an idea that differs from those of another student, and not interrupting or “talking over” others.

Civility and STEM Education

What is the unique contribution of STEM education to civility? The contribution is found in the empirical basis for statements, conclusions, and decisions. The importance of facts and empirical data—combined with logic and reasoning in support of explanations and solutions—stand out as the answers to this question. STEM units offer opportunities to involve students in experiences that develop the abilities and sensibilities of civility and civil discourse. As the students engage in the unit activities, they hone their skills of identifying, acquiring, and applying science knowledge, values, and skills. This provides opportunities for teachers to establish

104

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CIVIL DISCOURSE IN STEM CLASSROOMS

norms of civil interactions and the rules of civil discourse. Teachers may find guidance for civil discourse in classrooms from sources such as Classroom Discussions: Using Math Talk to Help Students Learn (Chopin, O’Connor, and Anderson 2009) and “Teaching for Civic Engagement” (Colley 2017). A final question—why should civility and civil discourse be involved in STEM education? People often have to draw conclusions and make decisions in life based on information they read, hear, find on the internet, or are given. Often the information is a mixture of STEM-related facts and other proposals grounded in political or economic perspectives. People have to evaluate information presented by others and distinguish personal opinion and beliefs from evidence-based statements. Some of the STEM practices are cognitive abilities that will help people apply information to the decisions they must make. Because students will encounter situations that call for STEM knowledge, civility, and civil discourse in real-life situations, it makes sense to tie civility and civil discourse with STEM instruction.

Conclusion

This chapter serves as a reminder that group work and classroom discussions provide a context for developing civility in STEM teaching.

References Bybee, K. 2016. How civility works. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Carter, S. 1998. Civility: Manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. New York: Basic Books. Chopin, S., C. O’Connor, and N. Anderson. 2009. Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications. Colley, M. 2017. “Teaching for Civic Engagement.” Teachers Voice (blog), Teaching Channel, October 24. www.teachingchannel.com/blog/teaching-for-civic-engagement. Doubet, K., and J. Hockett. 2017. Classroom discourse as civil discourse. Educational Leadership 75 (3): 56–60. Owens, D., T. Sadler, and D. Zeidler. 2017. Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 99 (4): 45–49. Sampson, V., P. Enderle, and J. Grooms. 2013. Argumentation in science and science education. The Science Teacher 80 (5): 30–33.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

105

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART IV

PART IV CONCLUSION

T

he chapters in Part IV discuss innovations in standards and the implication of these innovations for STEM units; cognitive and sociocultural learning perspectives and what these perspectives mean for your unit; the relationship between 21st-century skills and STEM instruction; key STEM practices; and civil discourse as it applies to STEM units. These chapters serve as resources that may be used as needed for background and information as you progress toward completion of a STEM unit.

106

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART V PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLETING YOUR UNIT DESIGN

I

n Part V, I will describe in detail the following list of recommendations for completing your unit: Use backward design, use an instructional model, and complete your unit design.

Designing a STEM unit may seem like a long and complex process—and it does indeed take work. However, putting the effort into creating a good design will make developing and implementing the unit much more efficient. Ultimately, the students will benefit from your endeavor to create exciting and meaningful learning experiences for them. You will also see from this set of chapters that the processes involved in completing your unit are not only reasonable and doable—they will serve to enrich your own teaching experience.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

107

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 13 USING BACKWARD DESIGN T

his chapter summarizes backward design, a practical set of decisions and actions that will contribute to a high-quality unit.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To describe the recommended process of backward design Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand how to • describe learning outcomes for a unit, • determine acceptable evidence of student learning, • provide strategies to obtain evidence of student learning, and • sequence experiences to enhance learning.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

109

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 13 Use of Backward Design

The strategy I recommend for the design of your unit is called backward design. It is based on the original work of Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, which was published in their book Understanding by Design (2005). Using backward design provides unit designers with a particular way of thinking about the decisions one has to make in the construction of a unit or school program. The strategy brings together contemporary research on student learning and instructional activities, and it centers on the sequence for constructing instructional materials. Using backward design procedures first requires you to identify a unit’s learning outcomes. Second, you determine (1) what would count as acceptable evidence of students attaining the learning outcomes and (2) how you would get the evidence; in other words, Stage 2 includes two steps, both of which have to do with assessment. Finally, you determine the educational experiences that would best contribute to students’ learning. Instead of using backward design, many individuals begin with traditional lessons, favorite activities, or current investigations when faced with the task of designing a unit. The goals are assumed or fade into the background, and decisions are dominated by available materials. However, beginning with available lessons—which likely connect to outdated standards—may pose problems if you are adapting current programs to align with new state standards. Backward design, on the other hand, can help align current materials with new standards as the standards can and should be used at the start of the procedure to help define learning outcomes and provide ideas for modifications to lessons or the sequence of learning experiences. Backward design also eliminates the apparent need to “cover all the content.” This issue tends to emerge at the middle and high school levels. In covering all the content, the critical concepts and practices may be mentioned but not learned in the rush to get through everything in the program or course. Furthermore, the assessments in this situation are likely to be developed late in the process and emphasize reciting facts more than understanding concepts and using practices. Figure 13.1 illustrates the practice of backward design and engages you in the process of planning a coherent instructional sequence. It uses a performance expectation from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013) as the identified learning outcome.

Assessment of Learning Outcomes: An Extended Example of Stage 2

The following discussion is an extended examination of Stage 2, which is the stage focused on assessment. After this discussion, I will return to discussing the development of an instructional sequence based on the 5E Instructional Model. In this section, I provide an example of an assessment designed for fourth-grade learning outcomes on energy (Figure 13.2, pp. 112–115). The assessment is performance-based and includes

110

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING BACKWARD DESIGN

Figure 13.1. An Example of Backward Design Phases for a Fourth-Grade Unit Stage 1

Identify Learning Outcomes (Stated as “Performance Expectations” in the NGSS) 4-PS3-2. Make observations to provide evidence that energy can be transferred from place to place by sound, light, heat, and electric currents. (Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include quantitative measurements of energy)

Stage 2

Determine Evidence of Students’ Learning • Students should be able to plan and carry out a simple investigation of transfer of heat. • Students should be able to make observations that will serve as data for an explanation of heat transfer. Students understand that energy is present when there is heat and that energy can be transferred from one object to another object.

Stage 3

Design Activities Design activities that would best contribute to students’ learning.

four questions, each scored separately. Based on the four questions, the achievement levels may be described as advanced, proficient, basic, or below basic. • At the advanced level, students demonstrate a deep understanding of all dimensions of the performance expectation(s) you identified in Stage 1. Students who get full credit on all four questions are advanced. • Students at the proficient level demonstrate an understanding of the science and engineering practice(s), disciplinary core idea(s), and crosscutting concept(s) related to the performance expectation(s) at a level appropriate to fourth grade. They score three out of four questions correctly. • Students at the basic level demonstrate a partial or beginner’s understanding of the three dimensions. Students at the basic level score two out of four questions correctly. • Students scoring only one or no questions correctly are below the basic level.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

111

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 13 Figure 13.2. A Performance-Based Assessment Evaluating Students’ Understandings and Abilities to Conduct an Investigation on the Transfer of Energy

Students use simple materials to test their ideas and observations from their tests to provide evidence that energy is transferred from one place to another or from one object to another by sound, light, heat, or electric current (disciplinary core idea). Students use their observations as evidence for an explanation (science and engineering practice) that energy can be transferred in various ways between objects (crosscutting concept). Each student should have a small kit that includes the following: • Sheets of paper • Paper clips • Battery • Small flashlight • Small portable mirror • Plastic straw • Sheet of aluminum foil • Tape • Light bulb and short piece of copper wire • Balloons • Spoons • Rubber bands • Pencil • String • Ruler • Marbles • Resealable sandwich bags Tell the students the following: Scientists ask questions about the world around them and search for evidence to support answers to their questions. Use the materials in your kit to investigate a question about the transfer of energy from one place to another or one object to another. Students will refer to these questions during the activity.

Continued

112

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING BACKWARD DESIGN

Figure 13.2. (continued )

Question 1

Can you demonstrate that heat is evidence that energy can be transferred from one place to another or from one object to another? Describe your investigation and the evidence that energy was transferred. In my investigation, I did the following: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ In my investigation, I observed the following: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ The evidence that energy was transferred is as follows: ___________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

Scoring for Question 1

Full Credit: Student describes the materials and actions that produce heat and states that heat is the evidence that energy was transferred between the objects (e.g., student rubbed two objects that resulted in heat as the evidence of energy transfer). Partial Credit: Student describes an activity (e.g., rubbing two objects together that results in heat) but does not make a logical statement based on observations and evidence to support the transfer of energy. No Credit: Student does something with materials but makes no connection to observations, evidence, or transfer of energy.

Continued

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

113

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 13 Figure 13.2. (continued )

Question 2

Some individuals think that there is a connection between energy and sound. Can you provide evidence of the connection? Describe your investigation to determine if energy can be transferred into sound. What is the evidence that energy was transferred? My investigation involved _______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ My evidence of the interaction is __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

Scoring for Question 2

Full Credit: Student uses materials to create a sound (e.g., snaps a rubber band) and explains that vibrating objects produced sound as evidence of the transfer of energy. Partial Credit: Student describes an appropriate activity and states that sound was created but does not make the connection to the transfer of energy. No Credit: Student does not describe a relevant activity and/or uses incorrect terms.

Continued

114

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING BACKWARD DESIGN

Figure 13.2. (continued )

Question 3

Can lighting a bulb provide evidence of energy transfer? Use the materials in your kit to answer the question. Describe your investigation and the evidence you found of energy transfer through lighting a bulb. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

Scoring for Question 3

Full Credit: Student uses the battery, bulb, and wire to indicate that lighting a bulb is evidence that energy was transferred from the battery to the bulb. Partial Credit: Student indicates that lighting a bulb is evidence of energy transfer but does not explain how observation or evidence led to this conclusion. No Credit: Student presents other findings about light (e.g., that it travels in a straight line or reflects off objects) but does not indicate an understanding that energy is transferred or that observations produce data that serve as the basis for an explanation.

Question 4

Use the bulb, as well as the battery, wire, and any other materials that light the bulb, for an investigation. Read the statements that follow and circle “yes” or “no” for each. This investigation is an example showing that • energy can be transferred in different ways between objects. YES/NO • electric currents from batteries can transfer energy. YES/NO • holding the wire to the bulb is an observation that gives evidence of the transfer of energy. YES/NO (Answers: YES, YES, NO, in that order)

Scoring for Question 4

Full Credit: Student answers all the questions correctly. Partial Credit: Student gets two answers correct and one wrong. No Credit: Student gets all three answers wrong.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

115

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 13 Connecting Backward Design and the BSCS 5E Instructional Model for Developing a STEM Unit

As previously mentioned, Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe 2005) describes the backward design process, which will enhance STEM teachers’ abilities to attain higher levels of student learning. The process is simple, conceptually. You begin by identifying your desired learning outcomes—for example, the performance expectations from the NGSS. Next, you determine what would count as acceptable evidence of student learning. You should formulate strategies that set forth what counts as evidence of learning for the instructional sequence. This should be followed by actually designing assessments that will provide the evidence that students have learned the competencies described in the learning outcomes. Then, and only then, you begin developing the activities that will provide students with opportunities to learn the concepts and practices described in the learning outcomes. The science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas described in A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012) and the performance expectations and foundation boxes in the NGSS describe learning outcomes. They are the basis for using backward design for the development or adaptation of STEM units. Learning outcomes also are the basis for assessments. Simply stated, the learning outcomes (e.g., performance expectations) can and should be the starting point for backward design. An integrated instructional sequence such as the BSCS 5E Instructional Model— engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate (see Chapter 14)—provides practical ways to apply the backward design process. Let’s say you identified a unit and outcomes related to recycling in the classroom. You would first describe concepts and practices students would need to master in order to determine the acceptable evidence of learning. For instance, students might need to use evidence to construct an explanation that clarifies and identifies aspects of recycling. They might also need to describe the components of the process. Using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, you could first design an evaluate activity. Then you would design the engage, explore, explain, and elaborate experiences. As necessary, the process would be iterative between the evaluate phase and other activities as the development process progresses. Figure 13.3 presents the backward design process and the 5E Instructional Model.

Recognize Opportunities to Emphasize Different Outcomes

Be aware of opportunities to emphasize science or engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas within the instructional sequence. This is an issue of foreground/background recognition, when one of the three dimensions can be explicitly emphasized—or moved from the background to foreground—in instruction.

116

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING BACKWARD DESIGN

Figure 13.3. Backward Design Process and the 5E Instructional Model STAGE 1

Identify desired results— Standards and learning outcomes STAGE 2

Determine acceptable evidence of student learning Design evaluate activities for 5E model

STAGE 3

Develop learning experiences for the engage, explore, explain, and elaborate phases of the 5E model Source: Adapted from Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe 2005).

Remember to Include Engineering and the Nature of Science

The state standards describe the learning outcomes and are best placed in the first stage when applying backward design. The performance expectations and the content described in standards represent acceptable evidence of learning. They belong in the second stage of backward design. (One caution should be noted: Sometimes the combination of science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas is interpreted as a learning activity that would be included in Stage 3. My recommendation is to include such activities in Stage 2.) Stage 3 involves the development or adaptation of activities that will help students attain the learning outcomes.

Conclusion

This chapter introduced information about students’ learning, the process of backward design, and the 5E Instructional Model. The discussions and activities are meant to broaden and deepen your understanding of and ability to design a STEM unit, especially the assessment portion. I hope the chapter confirmed some knowledge you already had, established some things you needed to understand, and identified some things you learned for designing a high-quality STEM unit.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

117

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 13 References National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards. Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

118

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 14 USING AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL T

his chapter includes an introduction to the phases of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To introduce an instructional model that can be used as the foundational sequence of learning experiences for a STEM unit Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will understand • the sequence and function of the 5E Instructional Model, • how to use the model for designing a STEM unit, and • variations of the model for the introduction and integration of STEM disciplines.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

119

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 14 “Design a STEM unit.” Teachers are commonly tasked with variations of this statement. This chapter proposes an understandable approach that will facilitate the process of designing and developing a unit of instruction. Namely, the chapter suggests using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model as a foundation for your STEM unit (Bybee 2014; 2015) and as a means to facilitate the integration of STEM disciplines (Honey, Pearson, and Schweingruber 2014). You may also find helpful articles on math (Seeley 2017) and the role of formative assessments as they relate to the 5E model (Keeley 2017). The 5E model includes the following components: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. Read on for a description of each phase and how it relates to the design of STEM units.

Engaging Learners With Questions or Problems

The goal of the engagement phase is to capture the students’ attention and interest. Get the students focused on a situation, event, demonstration, or problem that involves the content and abilities encapsulated by your STEM unit. Asking a question or posing a problem are examples of strategies to engage learners in STEM-oriented situations. If students look puzzled and ask, “How did that happen?” or say that they have wondered about this topic or want to know more, they likely are engaged in a potential learning situation. Students may have some ideas about the subject, but their expression of concepts and use of their abilities may be limited. I point out two things about the engagement phase. First, the phase is usually a full lesson due to the need to surface and assess students’ current knowledge and skills. However, it need not be that long. You might, for example, provide a brief description of a phenomenon or problem and ask students how they would explain the situation or solve the problem. No matter how much time you take, the important thing is that the students are puzzled and thinking about STEM content. The second point I’d like to make is that you can informally determine misconceptions expressed by the students in this phase.

Exploring Phenomena and Problems

In the exploration phase, students have activities that provide time and opportunities to resolve the disequilibrium created from them not knowing the answer or solution to the question or problem presented in the engagement experience. The exploration lesson or lessons provide concrete, hands-on experiences where students express their current conceptions and demonstrate their abilities as they try to clarify puzzling elements of the engage phase. Exploration experiences should be designed to prepare students for later introduction and description of the concepts, practices, and skills of the instructional sequence. Students should have experiences and the occasion to formulate explanations, investigate phenomena, observe patterns, propose solutions to problems, and develop their cognitive and physical abilities.

120

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL

Your role in the exploration phase is to initiate the activity, describe appropriate background, provide adequate materials and equipment, and begin countering misconceptions. After this, you should become a coach by listening, observing, and guiding students as they clarify their understanding and begin formulating knowledge and practices associated with STEM disciplines.

Explaining Scientific Phenomena and Engineering Problems

The explanations for phenomena or solutions to problems become the central feature of this phase. The STEM concepts and practices, with which students were originally engaged and subsequently explored, now are made clear and comprehensible. It is best if you direct students’ attention to key aspects of the prior phases and first ask students for their explanations or solutions. Using students’ explanations and experiences, you can then briefly and explicitly introduce scientific, technological, engineering, or math concepts,. For example, in the case of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013), all relevant disciplinary core ideas (including vocabulary), science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts would be clearly and simply presented at this point. Prior experiences should be used as contexts of the explanation.

Elaborating STEM Concepts and Practices

In this phase, the students are involved in learning experiences that extend, expand, and enrich the STEM concepts and practices developed in the prior phases. The intention is to facilitate the transfer of concepts and practices to related but new situations. Note a key point for this phase—you should use activities that are a challenge but achievable by the students. In the elaboration phase, you challenge students with a new situation and encourage interactions among students and with other sources, such as written materials, databases, simulations, and web-based searches.

Evaluating Learners

At some point, students should receive feedback on the adequacy of their explanations and solutions. Clearly, informal, formative evaluations will occur from the initial phase of the instructional sequence (Keeley 2017). As a practical matter, you must assess and report on educational outcomes—hence, the evaluate phase, which addresses a summative assessment. In the evaluate phase, you should involve students in experiences that are understandable and consistent with those of prior phases and congruent with the proposed explanations and solutions. As part of the evaluate phase, you should determine the evidence of student learning and a means of obtaining that evidence.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

121

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 14 Organizing Student Experiences

Figure 14.1 includes a flow diagram featuring one way of organizing student experiences with STEM disciplines in an integrated instructional sequence. The diagram is based on the 5E Instructional Model. The flow diagram is adapted from a model proposed by the San Diego County Office of Education (Spiegel et al. 2016)

Figure 14.1. A Model for Designing a STEM Unit That Introduces STEM Disciplines PHASES OF THE 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL ENGAGE

EXPLORE

EXPLAIN

ELABORATE

EVALUATE

INTRODUCTION TO STEM DISCIPLINES

Introduce a Problem-Based Situation

Explore Knowledge and Understanding of STEM Disciplines

Explain the Similarities and Differences Among STEM Disciplines

Initial Ideas

Science

Proposed Solutions

Technology

Construct an Explanation

Engineering

Create Technology

Mathematics

Design a Solution

Apply the STEM Concepts and Practices to the Problem-Based Situation

Evaluate Ideas and Solutions Summative Assessment

Revise and Restate Initial Ideas About STEM and Solutions to the Problem

Solve a Math Problem

Although the 5E model works well for designing an entire unit, I do not recommend using it as the sequence to a single lesson. Trying to fit all five phases into one lesson reduces opportunities for students’ learning to occur. Note that phases can be repeated as needed. Development of lessons for the instructional sequence should use the learning outcomes and evaluate phase (i.e., assessment) as a reference. Furthermore, lessons and assessments should be modified during lesson development to better align with learning outcomes.

122

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

USING AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL

Uses of the 5E Model to Design a STEM Unit

Before using the 5E model to describe lessons for an instructional sequence, you should identify a place-, project-, or problem-based topic and clarify the learning outcomes as they may align with the NGSS or the Common Core State Standards. Begin using the 5E model by using the learning outcomes to design the evaluate phase, or summative assessment, for the unit. Next, use the sequence of phases (i.e., engage, explore, explain, elaborate) to outline lessons—that is, learning experiences that build students’ understanding of the disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts, as appropriate. Keep in mind that, based on research, it is best not to omit phases or change their position in the instructional sequence. For example, the explore phase should always come before the explain phase.

Conclusion

This discussion answers common questions asked by teachers, including “How do I introduce STEM to my students?” and “Where can I begin?” These questions are not only reasonable but also practical. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model is used as the basis for designing a STEM unit that provides opportunities to integrate STEM disciplines and establishes an appropriate alignment for aspects of contemporary state standards.

References Bybee, R. 2014. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children 51 (8): 20–13. Bybee, R. 2015. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Honey, M., G. Pearson, and H. Schweingruber, eds. 2014. STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Keeley, P. 2017. Embedding formative assessment into the 5E instructional model. Science and Children 55 (4): 28–31. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards. Seeley, C. 2017. Turning teaching upside down. Educational Leadership 75 (2): 32–36. Spiegel, J., J. McCluan, C. Cochrane, C. Howe, and M. Goodbody. 2016. A model for planning phenomena-based learning strategies using the 5E model of instruction and the NGSS science and engineering practices. San Diego, CA: San Diego County Office of Education.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

123

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 15 COMPLETING YOUR UNIT DESIGN T

his chapter brings together the principles of unit design as you prepare a “blueprint” for your unit. The end product is a plan for actual development of your STEM unit.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To finalize a design for your STEM unit Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will • modify their initial designs based on their understanding of students’ learning, an instructional model, and backward design; • pay special attention to the alignment of goals, assessments, and instructional activities; and • give special consideration to an understanding of their students and school.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

125

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 15 This chapter provides guidance for the development of a final design for a STEM unit. Significant emphasis is placed on the evaluate phase of the instructional model as this is a step that many curriculum developers complete after preparing their unit. The use of backward design changes this sequence and adds significant quality to the unit.

Preliminary Planning Identifying a Place-, Project-, or Problem-Based Situation as the Basis for the STEM Unit

It is best to begin designing an integrated STEM unit by identifying an authentic sociocultural situation. Addressing the issue or solving the problem in the unit will help facilitate students’ use of cross-disciplinary approaches when addressing problems they might encounter in life. Problem-based situations may include local, regional, or global issues; inquiry-oriented questions; and project-based learning situations. Central to the topic should be an authentic problem that students recognize—one with potential connections to STEM disciplines and no immediately clear solution.

Identifying a Coherent Set of Learning Outcomes for Your STEM Unit

Now let’s turn our focus to identifying a coherent set of learning outcomes. The process of translating learning outcomes to instructional activities is much more efficient if one employs a set of learning outcomes that makes sense, given the problem-based situation students will address and the STEM disciplines. Begin by identifying the unit goals based on a topic that may be appropriate for two to three weeks of study. My primary recommendation is to move beyond using separate aims (i.e., learning outcomes) as the basis for separate lessons; instead, try to identify content and practices that would be the basis for a unit of study. The learning outcomes will be the basis for your assessment of student learning.

Thinking Beyond a Lesson to an Integrated Instructional Sequence

Expanding conceptions about instruction from a lesson to an integrated instructional sequence will be very helpful when translating learning outcomes to classroom activities and instructional strategies for the STEM unit. The following is a metaphor that clarifies this idea. Life sciences recognize the cell as the basic unit of life. There also are levels at which cells are organized—tissues, organs, organ systems, and organisms. The lesson remains the basic unit of instruction. However, in translating learning outcomes to classroom instruction, it is essential to expand one’s perception to other levels of organization, such as a coherent, integrated sequence of instructional activities. Although the idea of instructional units has a long history, an analysis of research on laboratory experience in school science programs (Singer, Hilton, and Schweingruber 2006) presents a perspective of integrated instructional units that connect laboratory

126

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

COMPLETING YOUR UNIT DESIGN

experience with other types of learning activities, including reading, discussions, investigations, and projects. To conclude this preliminary discussion, begin by considering the situation and how the multiple disciplines of STEM might be integrated in a carefully designed sequence of activities. Taken together, the learning experiences should contribute to students’ development of an initial understanding of content and practices aligned with STEM disciplines and their application to the problem-based situation. Next is a discussion of the instructional model and its specific use in planning a STEM unit. I will begin with the evaluate phase and progress to the engage, explore, explain, and elaborate phases.

Designing an Initial Evaluation

What are the learning outcomes for your unit? Be sure to note the understanding and abilities as appropriate. Next, based on your goals, what would count as evidence of students’ learning? Once these questions have been answered, we come to the critical step of designing an initial evaluation for your unit. Use the following framework to design an initial evaluation (i.e., summative assessment). This evaluation should be based on your learning outcomes. Use the format in Figure 15.1. (Note: I have included descriptions of the evaluate phase from the 5E Instructional Model).

Figure 15.1. Evaluating the Concepts and Practices of Learning Outcomes Evaluate: General Description

Detailed Description of Instruction

Students assess their understanding of the concepts, This phase emphasizes students assessing their and teachers have the opportunity to assess student understanding and skills and provides opportunities learning. for teachers to evaluate both the students’ understanding of concepts and the development of goals identified in the learning outcomes. Learning Outcome What are the learning outcomes? Evidence of Students’ Learning What would count as evidence that the students attained these outcomes? Briefly describe the activities used as the basis for evaluating the learning outcomes.

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

127

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 15 Designing an Integrated Instructional Sequence

Based on the summative assessment (i.e., the evaluate phase of the 5E model), you should have a clear idea of what students who demonstrate understandings of the learning outcomes can and cannot do. Next, the challenge is to use those outcomes to design an instructional sequence that provides students with opportunities to learn the valued outcomes. Expanding conceptions about instruction from a lesson to an integrated instructional sequence will help you translate learning outcomes into classroom activities and instructional strategies for the STEM unit. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model (Bybee 2015) is a helpful way to think about an integrated instructional unit. Figure 15.2 presents a framework for you to use in developing an integrated instructional sequence. The framework incorporates the 5E Instructional Model. The model’s phases are summarized as descriptions prior to your proposed activities.

Evaluating Your Instructional Sequence

First use the framework in Figure 15.2 to complete your instructional sequence. Then answer the questions that follow.

Figure 15.2. The 5E Instructional Model and an Integrated Instructional Sequence AN ENGAGE LESSON

EXPLORATION LESSON(S)

EXPLANATION LESSON(S)

ELABORATION LESSON(S)

EVALUATION LESSON(S)

Engaging the Learner ENGAGE General Description

Detailed Description of Instruction

Activities capture the students’ attention, connect This sequence of lessons initiates the learning their thinking to the situation, and help them access tasks. The activities should (1) activate prior current knowledge. knowledge and make connections between past and present learning experiences and (2) anticipate activities and focus students’ thinking on the learning outcomes of current activities. The learner should become mentally engaged in the concepts, practices, abilities, and skills of the curriculum unit. ENGAGE Lesson(s)

Continued

128

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

COMPLETING YOUR UNIT DESIGN

Figure 15.2 (continued ) Exploring the Concepts and Practices EXPLORATION General Description Students investigate initial ideas and solutions in meaningful contexts.

Detailed Description of Instruction This phase provides students with a common base of experiences within which they identify and begin developing concepts, practices, abilities, and skills. Students actively explore the contextual situation through investigations, reading, web searches, and discourse with peers.

EXPLORATION Lesson(s)

Explaining the Concepts and Practices EXPLANATION General Description Based on an analysis of the exploration, students develop an explanation for the concept and practices. Their understanding is clarified and modified through the teacher’s descriptions and definitions.

Detailed Description of Instruction This phase focuses on developing an explanation for the activities and situations students have been exploring. They verbalize their understanding of the concepts and practices. The teacher introduces formal labels, definitions, and explanations for concepts, practices, skills, and abilities.

EXPLANATION Lesson(s)

Elaborating on the Concepts and Practices ELABORATION General Description Students have opportunities to expand and apply their understanding of the concepts within new contexts and situations.

Detailed Description of Instruction These lessons extend students’ conceptual understanding through opportunities to apply knowledge, skills, and abilities. Through new experiences, the learners are able to transfer what they have learned, develop broader and deeper understanding of concepts about the contextual situation, and refine their skills and abilities.

ELABORATION Lesson(s)

Continued

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

129

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 15 Figure 15.2 (continued ) Evaluating the Concepts and Practices EVALUATION General Description

Detailed Description of Instruction

Students assess their understanding of the concepts, This phase emphasizes students assessing and teachers have the opportunity to assess student their understanding and abilities and provides learning. opportunities for teachers to evaluate both the students’ understanding of concepts and the development of goals identified in the learning outcomes. Describe any modifications or additions to the evaluation used as the basis for the instructional sequence.

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

Review the instructional sequence you created, then answer the following questions: • Do students have adequate and appropriate time and opportunities to develop understandings and abilities of the learning outcomes? • What is the evidence of students’ learning? • Is instruction aligned with the assessment? • Did you make any connections to your state standards (e.g., A Framework for K–12 Science Education [NRC 2012], the Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS Lead States 2013], or the Common Core Standards for English language arts or mathematics [NGAC and CCSSO 2010])?

Conclusion

In this chapter, you began by considering a placed-, project-, or problem-based situation and how the concepts and practices of STEM disciplines might be integrated in a carefully designed sequence of activities. Taken together, the learning experiences should contribute to students’ attainment of learning outcomes and their application of knowledge to the situation presented in the unit.

References Bybee, R. 2015. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO.

130

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

COMPLETING YOUR UNIT DESIGN

National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Singer, S., M. Hilton, and H. Schweingruber, eds. 2006. America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

131

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART V

PART V CONCLUSION

T

o conclude Part V and prepare for the development of your unit, you should be able to explain the modifications to your initial design with particular emphasis on learning theory, the instructional sequence, and use of backward design. The summative assessment and the evidence of student learning should be included in your explanation. The difference between teachers’ daily monitoring of student progress and the information gained from the summative assessment should be clear. Your current and improved design sets the stage for an introduction to ideas that will help with the actual development of the STEM unit.

132

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART VI DEVELOPING A STEM UNIT

I

n the conclusion of Part III, I used the blueprint for a house as an analogy for designing a unit. In this part, I extend the analogy to actually constructing the house. Chapter 16 reviews some basic knowledge about science and engineering that is in many state standards. In Chapter 17, I combine two practices—planning and carrying out investigations and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating investigations—as an example for high-quality STEM units. Chapter 18 introduces helpful ideas about curriculum development. Chapter 19 is an example of an actual STEM unit as it was designed, developed, and taught. Chapter 20 provides guidelines for the actual development of your unit.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

133

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 16 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN STANDARDS AND THE CURRICULUM T

his chapter reviews concepts from science and engineering, central disciplines of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013) and a majority of states’ science standards.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To provide background on the unique features of science and engineering and describe qualities that differentiate these disciplines from others Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will gain knowledge about • the role of empirical evidence and engineering solutions, • the characteristics of scientific explanations, and • the defining characteristics of science and engineering.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

135

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 16 We are in the early decades of the 21st century, and at this time, we need a citizenry with greater understanding of science and engineering. Now more than ever, the STEM community must implement educational experiences that result in students with knowledge about STEM disciplines, especially science and engineering as these are in the standards. For example, providing instruction on the interactions of science and technology in society, the nature and practice of scientific inquiry, and engineering design would be included in this goal. Connections to math would be incorporated as practices and as part of the Common Core State Standards (NGAC and CCSSO 2010). Science education has a long history of stating the need to teach about the nature of science and an equally long history of not fulfilling this need. The serious omission of knowledge about science must not be continued. STEM units should introduce and emphasize ideas that are essential, including those about the role of evidence in scientific explanations and engineering solutions. This section presents background information for teachers and should be viewed as a complement to information in A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012) and the NGSS.

Scientific Evidence and Explanations

Development of scientific explanations begins with a question about a natural phenomenon. In particular, the question may center on an explanation as the cause of an effect. For students, the scientific question can emerge from curiosity about objects, organisms, or events in their world. For scientists, questions can extend from current investigations and experiments. Once the question is asked, a process of scientific inquiry begins, and eventually an answer may be proposed in the form of an evidence-based explanation. Concepts that characterize scientific inquiry and the activities of scientists include defining the system under study, development of models to assist in the explanation, and recognizing the scale, proportion, and quantity of phenomena under study. The inquiry process includes planning and conducting investigations, constructing models, and using mathematics. In addition, inquiry includes systematically collecting, analyzing and interpreting data; identifying appropriate variables in investigations; and taking precise, accurate, and reproducible measurements. Science includes more than the aforementioned practices. Scientists also engage in important processes, such as constructing explanations, elaborating models, and engaging in reasoned arguments, all based on evidence. These processes extend, clarify, and unite the observations and data and, very importantly, develop deeper and broader scientific explanations. The knowledge gained from these processes is exemplified by our understanding of the natural and designed world, emerging disease, antibiotic resistance, the causes and consequences of changing Earth’s atmosphere, and much more. In this introductory discussion, I have incorporated several practices of inquiry (e.g., questions, investigations, evidence-based explanations) and crosscutting concepts

136

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN STANDARDS AND THE CURRICULUM

(e.g., cause and effect, scale, systems) as they are described in the NGSS. Figure 16.1 presents the NGSS science and engineering practices, and Figure 16.2 presents crosscutting concepts.

Figure 16.1. NGSS Science and Engineering Practices

Figure 16.2. NGSS Crosscutting Concepts

1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)

1. Patterns

2. Developing and using models

2. Cause and effect

3. Planning and carrying out investigations

3. Scale, proportion, and quantity

4. Analyzing and interpreting data

4. Systems and system models

5. Using mathematics and computational thinking

5. Energy and matter

6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)

6. Structure and function 7. Stability and change

7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Characteristics of Scientific Explanations

What makes an explanation scientific? The following ideas differentiate scientific explanations from other types of explanations. • Scientific explanations are based on empirical evidence. The appeal to authority or simply stating a belief or making a claim without evidence does not meet the criteria of being scientific. Evidence is based on sense experiences or on an extension of the senses through technology. • Scientific explanations are public. Scientists make presentations at scientific meetings or publish in professional journals, making knowledge public and available to other scientists. • Scientific explanations are tentative. Explanations can and do change. Science does not “prove” something for all time. Scientists do not assume there are absolute truths. • Scientific explanations are cumulative. Science builds on past explanations to develop current explanations, which are in turn the basis for future explanations. In this sense, scientific explanations are historical and cumulative.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

137

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 16 • Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena. • Scientific explanations assume cause-and-effect relationships. Much of science is directed toward determining causal relationships and developing explanations for interactions and linkages between and among phenomena. Distinctions among causality, correlation, coincidence, and contingency separate science from other ways of explaining observations. • Scientific explanations are often linked to technologies. Scientific explanations are sometimes limited by available technology. New technologies can result in new fields of inquiry or extend current lines of inquiry. Examples of this include the interactions between technology and advances in molecular biology and the role of technology in planetary explorations. • Scientific explanations are replicable. In principle, an explanation based on investigations or experiments may be repeated by other investigators. Scientific explanations represent one way of understanding phenomena in the natural world. There are other ways of explaining phenomena, but science is unique in its knowledge, procedures, and emphasis on empirical evidence as the basis of hypotheses, theories, and laws. You likely noticed that several crosscutting concepts of the NGSS appeared in the previous discussions. One of the reasons crosscutting concepts are included in contemporary standards is because they help identify and clarify the unique characteristics of scientific explanation. Figure 16.2 is a summary of the crosscutting concepts. For further details about the nature of science, I refer you to the NGSS, in particular Appendix H in Volume II (NGSS Lead States 2013). A portion of this appendix is included in Figure 16.3 for your review.

138

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Scientific Investigations Use a Variety of Methods

Categories

• Science investigations use a variety of methods, tools, and techniques.

• Scientist use different ways to study the world

3–5 • Science methods are determined by questions.

• Science investigations begin with a question.

K–2

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Continued

• Scientific investigations use a variety of methods, tools, and techniques to revise and produce new knowledge.

• Scientific inquiry is characterized by a common set of values that include: logical thinking, precision, • Science depends on evaluating open-mindedness, objectivity, proposed explanations. skepticism, replicability of • Scientific values function results, and honest and ethical as criteria in distinguishing reporting of findings. between science and • The discourse practices of non-science. science are organized around disciplinary domains that share exemplars for making decisions regarding the values, instruments, methods, models, and evidence to adopt and use.

• New technologies advance scientific knowledge.

• Science investigations are guided by a set of values to ensure accuracy of measurements, observations, and objectivity of findings.

High School • Science investigations use diverse methods and do not always use the same set of procedures to obtain data.

• Science investigations use a variety of methods and tools to make measurements and observations.

Middle School

(understandings most closely associated with practices)

Understandings About the Nature of Science

One goal of science education is to help students understand the nature of scientific knowledge. This matrix presents eight major themes and grade level understandings about the nature of science. Four themes extend the scientific and engineering practices and four themes extend the crosscutting concepts. These eight themes are presented in the left column. The matrix describes learning outcomes for the themes at grade bands for K–2, 3–5, middle school, and high school. Appropriate learning outcomes are expressed in selected performance expectations and presented in the foundation boxes throughout the standards.

Overview

Figure 16.3. The Nature of Science Matrix and Understandings From NGSS

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN STANDARDS AND THE CURRICULUM

139

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

140 • Scientists use tools and technologies to make accurate measurements and observations.

• Science knowledge can • Science explanations can change when new information change based on new is found. evidence.

3–5 • Science findings are based on recognizing patterns.

Scientific Knowledge Is Open to Revision in Light of New Evidence

K–2 • Scientists look for patterns and order when making observations about the world.

Scientific Knowledge Is Based on Empirical Evidence

Categories

Figure 16.3 (continued ) Middle School

High School

• Scientific explanations can be probabilistic.

Continued

• Most scientific knowledge is quite durable but is, in • The certainty and durability of principle, subject to change science findings varies. based on new evidence and/ or reinterpretation of existing • Science findings are frequently evidence. revised and/or reinterpreted based on new evidence. • Scientific argumentation is a mode of logical discourse used to clarify the strength of relationships between ideas and evidence that may result in revision of an explanation

• Scientific explanations are subject to revision and improvement in light of new evidence.

• Science arguments are strengthened by multiple lines of evidence supporting a single explanation.

evidence with current theory.

• Science knowledge is based • Science knowledge is based on empirical evidence. upon logical and conceptual connections between evidence • Science disciplines share and explanations. common rules of evidence used to evaluate explanations • Science disciplines share about natural systems. common rules of obtaining and evaluating empirical • Science includes the process evidence. of coordinating patterns of

CHAPTER 16

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Science Models, Laws, Mechanisms, and Theories Explain Natural Phenomena

Categories

Figure 16.3 (continued ) 3–5

• Scientists search for cause and • Science explanations describe effect relationships to explain the mechanisms for natural natural events. events.

• Scientists use drawings, • Science theories are based on a body of evidence and many sketches, and models as a way to communicate ideas. tests.

K–2

• The term “theory” as used in science is very different from the common use outside of science.

• A hypothesis is used by scientists as an idea that may contribute important new knowledge for the evaluation of a scientific theory.

• Laws are regularities or mathematical descriptions of natural phenomena.

• Science theories are based on a body of evidence developed over time.

• Theories are explanations for observable phenomena.

Middle School

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units Continued

• Scientists often use hypotheses to develop and test theories and explanations.

• Laws are statements or descriptions of the relationships among observable phenomena.

• Models, mechanisms, and explanations collectively serve as tools in the development of a scientific theory.

• A scientific theory is a substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, and the science community validates each theory before it is accepted. If new evidence is discovered that the theory does not accommodate, the theory is generally modified in light of this new evidence.

• Theories and laws provide explanations in science, but theories do not with time become laws or facts.

High School

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN STANDARDS AND THE CURRICULUM

141

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

142

Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems

Science Is a Way of Knowing

Categories

K–2

• Many events are repeated.

• Science assumes natural events happen today as they happened in the past.

Middle School

• Basic laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe.

• Science assumes consistent patterns in natural systems.

that is used by many people.

High School

• Science assumes the universe is a vast single system in which basic laws are consistent. • Science carefully considers and evaluates anomalies in data and evidence.

Continued

• Scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that natural laws operate today as they did in the past and they will continue to do so in the future.

• Science knowledge has a history that includes the refinement of, and changes to, theories, ideas, and beliefs over time

• Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing through use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and skeptical review.

• Science is a unique way of knowing and there are other ways of knowing.

• Science is both a body of knowledge that represents a current understanding of natural systems and the processes used to refine, elaborate, revise, and extend this knowledge.

• Science assumes that objects and events in natural systems occur in consistent patterns that are understandable through measurement and observation.

• Science is a way of knowing used by many people, not just scientists

• Science knowledge is cumulative and many people, from many generations and nations, have contributed to science knowledge.

• Science is both a body of • Science is both a body of knowledge and processes that knowledge and the processes add new knowledge. and practices used to add to that body of knowledge. • Science is a way of knowing

3–5

Understandings about the Nature of Science (understandings most closely associated with crosscutting concepts) • Science knowledge helps us know about the world.

Figure 16.3 (continued )

CHAPTER 16

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Science Addresses Questions About the Natural and Material World.

Science Is a Human Endeavor

Categories

K–2

• Scientists study the natural and material world.

• Men and women of diverse backgrounds are scientists and engineers.

• People have practiced science for a long time.

Figure 16.3 (continued )

• Science findings are limited to what can be answered with empirical evidence.

• Creativity and imagination are important to science.

• Science affects everyday life.

High School

• Not all questions can be answered by science.

• Science and engineering are influenced by society and society is influenced by science and engineering.

• Technological advances have influenced the progress of science and science has influenced advances in technology.

• Scientists’ backgrounds, theoretical commitments, and fields of endeavor influence the nature of their findings.

• Individuals and teams from many nations and cultures have contributed to science and to advances in engineering.

• Scientific knowledge is a result of human endeavor, imagination, and creativity.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units • Science knowledge can describe consequences of actions but is not responsible for society’s decisions.

• Many decisions are not made using science alone, but rely on social and cultural contexts to resolve issues.

what can happen in natural systems—not what should happen. The latter involves ethics, values, and human decisions about the use of knowledge.

• Science and technology may raise ethical issues for which science, by itself, does • Science limits its explanations not provide answers and to systems that lend solutions. themselves to observation and empirical evidence. • Science knowledge indicates

• Scientific knowledge is constrained by human capacity, technology, and materials.

• Advances in technology influence the progress of science and science has influenced advances in technology.

• Scientists and engineers are guided by habits of mind such as intellectual honesty, tolerance of ambiguity, skepticism and openness to new ideas.

• Scientists and engineers rely on human qualities such as persistence, precision, reasoning, logic, imagination and creativity.

• Most scientists and engineers work in teams.

Middle School • Men and women from different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds work as scientists and engineers.

3–5 • Men and women from all cultures and backgrounds choose careers as scientists and engineers.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN STANDARDS AND THE CURRICULUM

143

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 16 Engineering Design and Technological Solutions

One need not look far for a technology that has a direct influence on society. Computers and related electronic devices used for communicating and calculating are obvious contemporary examples. In its various forms, technology has a rich and varied history, some of which is expressed by terms such as Industrial Revolution and Information Age. Engineering has an enduring history because humans have long had to design and produce the products that accommodate the needs and desires of individuals and societies. Engineering as a profession, however, moved from individualized crafts (or trades) that did not require formal educational training to a career in which skills were developed through recognized professional programs after the U.S. Civil War (NAE 2009). Before diving deeper into the discussion, let’s look at definitions of key terms taken from the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s Framework for Technology and Engineering Literacy (NAEP 2014). Figure 16.4 states the definitions.

Figure 16.4. Definitions for Technology, Engineering, and Technology and Engineering Literacy Technology is any modification of the natural or designed world done to fulfill human needs or desires. Engineering is a systematic and often iterative approach to designing objects, processes, and systems to meet human needs and wants. Technology and engineering literacy is the capacity to use, understand, and evaluate technology as well as to understand technological principles and strategies needed to develop solutions and achieve goals. For purposes of this framework, it is composed of three areas: technology and society, design and systems, and information and communication technology.

In most cases, the process of engineering design that results in technological products begins with a problem and specifications of human needs or wants. Typically, engineers clarify criteria, identify constraints, and make plans for possible solutions to the problem. As engineers evaluate possible solutions, they engage in processes that require testing and revision of proposed solutions. Like science, the processes of engineering design are not formulaic or some set number of steps. Rather, they are iterations of processes that include defining the problem; considering criteria and constraints; brainstorming and planning possible solutions; creating, testing, and improving solutions; and finally communicating and implementing the process and product, often in the form of a technology (Truesdell 2014).

144

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN STANDARDS AND THE CURRICULUM

Characteristics of Technology and Engineering

The characteristics of technology and engineering can be summarized by the core ideas, design processes, and habits of mind that are unique to engineering. In 2009, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) published Engineering in K–12 Education, which defined core ideas and fundamental processes in K–12 engineering education. The following descriptions are from that report: • Design. A purposeful, iterative process with an explicit goal governed by specifications and constraints. • Analysis. A systematic, detailed examination intended to (1) define or clarify problems, (2) inform design decisions, (3) predict or assess performance, (4) determine economic feasibility, (5) evaluate alternatives, or (6) investigate failures. • Constraints. The physical, economical, legal, political, social, ethical, aesthetic, and time limitations inherent to or imposed upon the design of a solution to a technical problem. • Modeling. Any graphical, physical, or mathematical representation of the essential features of a system or process that facilitates engineering design. • Optimization. The pursuit of the best possible solution to a technical problem in which trade-offs are necessary to balance competing or conflicting constraints. • System. Any organized collection of discrete elements (e.g., parts, processes, people) designed to work together in interdependent ways to fulfill one or more functions. • Trade-offs. Decisions made to relinquish or reduce one attribute of a design in order to maximize another attribute. The NAE report recommended an emphasis on engineering design and the incorporation of developmentally appropriate mathematics, science, and technology knowledge and skills. The NAE committee also identified engineering habits of mind, including the following: (1) systems thinking, (2) creativity, (3) optimism, (4) collaboration, (5) communication, and (6) attention to ethical considerations. In educational terms, the NAE report answered the question of what students should know, value, and be able to do as a result of K–12 engineering education. Several things about this answer should be noted for STEM education. First, the collective priority is on engineering design, clarifying a problem, and applying knowledge from other disciplines, data, and reasoning to propose the best solution. Second, the implication of emphasizing design is that STEM programs use the context of problem solving as a means to introduce and “teach” the core ideas, processes, and habits of mind. Third, there is a need for those teaching K–12 engineering to recognize that the core ideas and design processes are both content and processes outcomes. That is, students should know, for example, about constraints and be able to recognize and address them as they pursue a solution to an engineering problem. Finally, the shared values,

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

145

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 16 attitudes, and skills of engineering (i.e., habits of mind) can also be developed within the context of engineering design.

Technology and Engineering in State Standards

One important innovation in contemporary standards is the incorporation of engineering design, and by extension technology, into science education. Engineering design should be implemented in conjunction with scientific inquiry. To this end, the NGSS includes the science and engineering practices, which are listed in Figure 16.1 (p. 137). One should note that science and engineering have different purposes and products. Furthermore, even though most of the practices wholly apply to both science and engineering, there are two practices that differentiate between the two disciplines. The first is the initial practice where science begins with a question about natural phenomena, and engineering design begins with a problem of human needs and wants. The second is the sixth practice, and the differentiation that appears here is a logical extension of what appears in the first practice. In science, the question is answered with an evidence-based scientific explanation. In engineering, there is an optimized solution that meets the given criteria and constraints. A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012) summarized the use of technology and engineering as follows: 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 technology to include all types of human-made systems and processes—not in the limited sense often used in schools that equates technology with modern computational 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. (NRC 2012, pp. 11–12) Inclusion of technology and engineering in state science standards provides explicit direction for teachers to involve students in the practices of engineering design to solve problems. In many state standards, the practices of engineering design center on three critical features: • Defining and clarifying human problems. This feature includes stating the problem to be solved in terms of criteria for success and constraints or limits. • Developing solutions to problems. This begins with generating a number of different possible solutions, then evaluating potential solutions to determine which ones best meet the criteria and constraints. • Optimizing the design solution. This feature involves a process in which possible solutions are systematically tested and refined and the final solution

146

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN STANDARDS AND THE CURRICULUM

is improved by making trade-offs among the costs, risks, and benefits of the solutions. The three critical features of engineering design can be extended to the science and engineering practices in the NGSS.

Conclusion

In conclusion, here we are at a time in history when teaching about the nature of science is more than important; it is an imperative. Our students need to understand what science is, what it does, and why it is important for society. The same can be said for technology and engineering.

References National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 2009. Engineering in K–12 education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 2014. Framework for technology and engineering literacy. Washington, DC: NAEP. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards. Truesdell, P. 2014. Engineering essentials for STEM instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

147

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 17 PLANNING, CONDUCTING, AND COMMUNICATING INVESTIGATIONS T

his chapter uses the practices of planning and carrying out an investigation and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information as an efficient way to incorporate several additional practices into a STEM unit.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To provide the knowledge and abilities involved in planning, conducting, and communicating an investigation as a way to incorporate a set of STEM practices in a unit Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will • understand the role of STEM practices in the context of planning and carrying out investigations; • experience the “struggles” involved in completing a STEM investigation; • learn about the critical elements of measurement, observation, and data in explanations and solutions; and • understand the process of formulating a reasoned scientific explanation or engineering solution.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

149

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 17 Introduction and Background

In an article published in the International Journal of STEM Education in 2014, Richard Duschl and I suggested reframing the planning and carrying out of investigations as a suite of component practices to be unpacked, as doing so will help reveal to students the scientific struggles involved with building knowledge about the natural world. Unpacking the suite of practices embedded in a STEM investigation will also aide and challenge teachers as they engage in the monitoring and mediation of students’ reasoning and knowledge building. Through measurements and observations of the natural and designed worlds, scientists and engineers test claims, questions, conjectures, hypotheses, and models about such things as nature, life on Earth, and the material composition and structure of matter and energy. Good science and engineering investigations test theories, explanations, designs, and solutions. Such tests are the goal of planning and carrying out investigations. The knowledge and skills discussed in this chapter are included in contemporary discussions of ambitious teaching practices. (See, for example, Windschitl, Thompson, and Braaten 2018.) A critical step forward for high-quality STEM units and traditional content involves engaging learners in doing science and engineering and in examining the relationships between evidence and explanation. In classrooms, such opportunities typically occur when planning and carrying out investigations that are designed to engage learners in the nuanced decision-making steps of moving from questions or problems to measures, data, evidence, and explanations or solutions. The process of planning and carrying out an investigation is complex and iterative. For example, it takes time during the process to sort out the measuring and organizing of data. On the other hand, if students and teachers only encounter preplanned confirmatory investigations based on tried-and-true, step-by-step procedures that ensure the anticipated outcomes(s), then students fail to realize the cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral struggles of STEM investigations. The learning sciences inform us that the structure of knowledge and the processes of knowing and learning are much more nuanced (Sawyer 2014). That is, context and content matter. We now understand how the cognitive, social, and cultural dynamics of learning are intertwined and mutually supportive of one another. “You cannot strip learning of its content, nor study it in a ‘neutral’ context. It is always situated, always related to some ongoing enterprise” (Bruner 2004, p. 20). Thus, learning goals do not merely involve knowing about things but also using knowledge to build and refine knowledge claims. In the STEM disciplines, knowledge use is situated in or coupled with disciplinary practices that focus on building and refining designs, solutions, models, and theories. A Framework for K–12 Science Education (the Framework; NRC 2012) recommends that students’ engagement with planning and carrying out investigations should increasingly lead them to broaden and deepen their understanding of investigations, both in terms of the questions and problems being posed and the measures and methods

150

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PLANNING, CONDUCTING, AND COMMUNICATING INVESTIGATIONS

being employed. The Framework’s stance is to avoid students only doing investigations that present science knowledge and scientific inquiry in ways that are viewed as nonproblematic. In other words, the Framework does not want science to be seen as a straightforward path to answers and explanations in which there is no struggle. By design, traditional approaches to investigations in STEM programs always result in students taking the correct measurements, using the best tools and procedures, collecting supportive data, and getting the “right” answer. Several lines of research (e.g., Carey et al. 1989; Carey and Smith 1993; Driver et al. 1996; Grosslight et al. 1991; Smith and Wenk 2006) support the idea that students’ continued experience with activities such as those just described leave them with the impression that STEM-related investigations are almost always successful and result in the “correct” answers. A National Research Council (NRC) study, America’s Lab Report (NRC 2006), provides one explanation for the results described in these studies. The NRC report found that the sequence of instruction and the role of laboratory activities often are experienced as separate. The study recommended greater use of integrated instructional units. Integrated instructional units have two key features. First, laboratory experiences and other educational experiences are carefully designed to help students attain learning goals. Second, the laboratory experience is explicitly connected to and integrated with other learning experiences. The proposal of a 5D framework, which I refer to as the 5D model, is intended to address the need for an integrated instructional approach to the process of planning and carrying out investigations (Duschl and Bybee 2014). The 5D framework—which includes deciding, developing, documenting, devising, and determining—will be described in more detail in the next section.

A Framework for Planning and Carrying Out STEM Investigations

Planning and carrying out STEM investigations includes proposing an explanation or solution, identifying what would count as evidence to support the proposal, and then collecting, organizing, and presenting a reasoned explanation. These components involve a suite of practices that can be emphasized in instructional materials, such as a unit. Including such an explicit emphasis in the unit will certainly contribute to its quality. So, consider a framework that features the fundamentals of measurement, observation, and the organization and use of data as evidence. The 5D model mentioned in the previous section uses a suite of practices that captures the struggle of doing STEM by emphasizing component elements of measurement and observation. Once problems have been posed, questions asked, or hypotheses stated, scientists and engineers turn to the set of component elements, displayed in Figure 17.1 (p. 152).

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

151

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 17 Figure 17.1. A 5D Framework for Planning and Carrying Out STEM Investigations The 5D framework includes the following practices: 1. Deciding what and how to measure, observe, and sample 2. Developing or selecting procedures/tools to measure and collect data 3. Documenting and systematically recording results and observations 4. Devising representations for structuring data and patterns of observations 5. Determining (1) if the data are good (valid and reliable) and can be used as evidence, (2) if additional or new data are needed, or (3) if a new investigation design or set of measurements are needed

The component elements of deciding, developing, documenting, devising, and determining in the 5D framework provide struggle-type experiences for students that will lead to (1) acquiring conceptual, procedural, and epistemic knowledge and (2) attaining some understanding and images of the nature of science. The proposed 5D model has general connections to the BSCS 5E Instructional Model (Bybee 2015). The 5D model is specific to the challenge of planning and conducting investigations, whereas the BSCS 5E model has wider or more general applicability. A distinction between scientific and engineering investigations described in the Framework (NRC 2012, p. 50) reveals the complexities of planning and conducting investigations and provides background for use of STEM investigations in a unit. The distinction is as follows: • Scientific investigation may be conducted in the field or the laboratory. A major practice of scientists is planning and carrying out a systematic investigation, which requires the identification of what is to be recorded and, if applicable, what are to be treated as the dependent and independent variables (control of variables). Observations and data collected from such work are used to test existing theories and explanations or to revise and develop new ones. • Engineers use investigation both to gain data essential for specifying design criteria of parameters and to test their designs. Like scientists, engineers must identify relevant variables, decide how the variables will be measured, and collect data for analysis. Their investigations help them to identify how effective, efficient, and durable their designs may be under a range of conditions. The 5D model component elements—deciding, developing, documenting, devising, and determining—frame the type of processes that K–12 students might consider or encounter when engaging in planning and carrying out STEM investigations. The

152

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PLANNING, CONDUCTING, AND COMMUNICATING INVESTIGATIONS

intent is to allow such experiences to unfold and enable rich opportunities for discussions and engagements to take place. The basic idea is to suggest issues and challenges that clarify the data and evidence generated in an investigation and get students to represent and justify this data and evidence. Hence, the recommendation is to unpack in terms of problems of measurement and measuring. What measurements should be taken? What is the sample and size of sample for taking the measures? What counts as data and how can we observe, measure, and collect the data? What instruments or tools can be used to make the observations and measurements?

Communicating Explanations and Solutions

Another fundamental practice of STEM disciplines is communicating in written or spoken forms (NRC 2012). This practice complements planning and conducting an investigation. Scientists and engineers have to describe their investigations and communicate their explanations and solutions in evidence-based, reasoned statements. In the past, students were asked to state a conclusion as a result of an investigation. Science practices described in the Framework (NRC 2012) advance and elaborate on what may be included in a conclusion. Planning and carrying out an investigation clearly is one means of obtaining and evaluating information (i.e., data). The addition of persuasively communicating an explanation or solution addresses two other practices: constructing explanations and designing solutions and engaging in argument from evidence. With careful and thoughtful use of investigations in your unit, you can address several practices and fundamental concepts.

Planning, Conducting, and Communicating a STEM Investigation

To further examine the role of practices in STEM units, I’ve provided an activity. The activity is designed for individual teachers, PLC teams, and professional developers to carry out. It can be used in presentations, workshops, and institutes with the aim of focusing on the suite of practices that may be experienced in a STEM investigation. Two practices are at the core of the activity: (1) planning and carrying out an investigation and (2) obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Other practices such as asking questions, defining problems, developing and using models, and using mathematics and computational thinking can certainly be incorporated, depending on the content and context of the investigation. The crosscutting concepts and disciplinebased concepts will inevitably be addressed in the investigation.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

153

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 17 The Role of Practices in a STEM Activity Investigation 1. How to Work. Work individually or in groups of two or three. 2. Identifying a Question. Identify a question or problem-, place-, or project-based situation. This situation should be authentic and may be based on school grounds or in local, regional, or national contexts. The situation should be one that is understandable, doable, and identifiable with STEM disciplines. What follows are suggestions for STEM investigations to help you complete Step 2. These suggestions give primary emphasis to the practices of planning, carrying out the plan, and communicating. A lot can be learned about the STEM disciplines by having these practices in the foreground. The questions and problems described here can be modified based on your needs. Possible Scientific Questions for STEM Investigations • What influences sugar cubes “dissolving”? • Can you predict how high a ball will bounce? • How does the floor affect the bounce of a ball? • What causes the apparent changing phases of the Moon? • What factors affect the temperature in different parts of the room? • What areas warm the fastest on the playground? • Which area of the yard has the greatest biodiversity? Possible Engineering Problems • How can you design an insect for pollinating plants? • How can you reduce the disposal of plastic in your school? • How can you design a cup that slows the evaporation of water? • How can you help people remember to bring shopping bags into the grocery store? • How can you design a room to optimize heat in the winter and cooling in the summer? 3. Planning the Investigation. Once you have identified a question or problem to investigate, discuss the following questions: • What would you propose as a preliminary answer or solution? • How would you justify this preliminary answer/solution? • What would be the data that support your tentative explanation or solution? • What procedures or tools will you need to observe, measure, and collect these data? • How will you organize, summarize, and display the data? 4. Carrying Out the Investigation. At this point, gather the ideas you have generated and the materials and tools needed, and then conduct the investigation. After you have completed the investigation, do the following: • Organize your observations in a graph, diagram, or chart.

154

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PLANNING, CONDUCTING, AND COMMUNICATING INVESTIGATIONS

• Determine if you have enough data that can be used as evidence to formulate either (1) support for the preliminary explanation/solution or (2) a new proposal. 5. Organizing the Results of Your Investigation. Prepare a written or oral summary of your investigation. The summary should include your preliminary explanation, the data you collected, and a statement that uses the data in support of the original or revised conclusions. In more formal terms, you should formulate a scientific argument for your hypothesis. The statement should include a claim (i.e., the proposed explanation/ solution), evidence (i.e., the supporting data), and your reasoning (i.e., logical connections that propose how and why the evidence supports the claim). Figure 17.2 illustrates the components of a claim-evidence-reasoning argument. This material is based on publications by Victor Sampson and his colleagues (See Sampson, Enderle, and Grooms 2013). For more detailed discussions, see Argument-Driven Inquiry in Earth and Space Science (Sampson et al. 2018) and Argument-Driven Inquiry in Third-Grade Science (Sampson and Murphy 2019).

Figure 17.2. Components of Scientific Argument A Scientific Argument The Claim

A conjecture, conclusion, explanation, generalizable principle, or some other answer to a research question Fits with … Supports …

The Evidence

Measurements, observations, or even findings from other studies (i.e., data) that have been collected, analyzed, and then interpreted by the researchers Justified with…

Explains…

A Rationale

Statements that explain how the evidence supports the claim and why the evidence should count as support for the claim

The quality of an argument is evaluated by

Empirical Criteria • • • •

The claim fits with the available evidence. The amount of evidence is sufficient. The evidence used is relevant. The method used to collect the data was appropriate and rigorous. • The method used to collect the data was appropriate.

Theoretical Criteria • The claim is sufficient. • The claim has predictive power or is useful in some way. • The claim is consistent with accepted theories or laws.

Analytical Criteria

• The method used to analyze data was appropriate. • The interpretation of the data is sound. • The rationale is adequate.

This practice is influenced by discipline-based norms that include the following: • • • •

Important models, theories, and laws in the discipline Accepted methods for inquiry within the discipline Standards of evidence within a discipline The way scientists within the discipline share ideas

Source: Sampson, Enderle, and Grooms (2013).



6. Concluding Statement. Using the format in Figure 17.3 (p. 156), complete a statement of your investigation.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

155

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 17 Figure 17.3. Communicating the Results of a STEM Investigation Does the evidence support your original answer or solution?

Based on the evidence, what would you now propose as an answer or solution?

Write an explanation or propose a solution that includes the following: • The scientific question or engineering problem • Your claim • Relevant evidence and science or engineering concepts • The reasoning that connects the claim, evidence, and concepts

Conclusion

The recognition of science and engineering practices in the Framework (NRC 2012) signals an innovation in the design of instructional materials and in the professional learning of STEM teachers. This chapter presented a discussion of two practices— planning and carrying out investigations and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information—as an efficient way to address a suite of practices in the design and development of STEM units. The inclusion of these two practices and others associated with the actual STEM investigation adds value and quality to STEM units. By emphasizing certain issues (e.g., decisions about measurement and observations, the collection and presentation of data, and the communication of claims, evidence, and reasoning), the process recognizes and involves students in the struggles and problems of doing science and engineering investigations. The chapter introduces a 5D model for planning and conducting investigations (see Figure 17.1, p. 152). It also uses the claim-evidence-reasoning model from the Argument-Driven Inquiry series as the basis for communicating the results of STEM investigations. Finally, the chapter includes a procedure that will engage professionals in a simple scientific or engineering investigation that emphasizes the practices of planning, conducting, and communicating about the investigation.

156

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PLANNING, CONDUCTING, AND COMMUNICATING INVESTIGATIONS

References Bruner, J. 2004. A short history of psychological theories of learning. Daedalus 133 (1): 13–20. Bybee, R. 2015. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Carey, S., and C. Smith. 1993. On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist 28 (3): 235–251. Carey, S., R. Evans, M. Honda, E. Jay, and C. Unger. 1989. An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education 11 (5): 514–529. Driver, R., J. Leach, R. Miller, and P. Scott. 1996. Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Duschl, R., and R. Bybee. 2014. Planning and carrying out investigations: An entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education 12 (12): 1–10. Grosslight, L., C. Unger, E. Jay, and C. Smith. 1991. Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28 (9): 799–822. National Research Council (NRC). 2006. America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A Framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Sampson, V., P. Enderle, and J. Grooms. 2013. Argumentation in science and science education. The Science Teacher 80 (5): 30–33. Sampson, V., and A. Murphy. 2019. Argument-driven inquiry in third-grade science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Sampson, V., A. Murphy, K. Kipsome, and T. Hunter. 2018. Argument-driven inquiry in Earth and space science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Sawyer, K., ed. 2014. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press. Smith, C., and L. Wenk. 2006. Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43: 747–785. Windschitl, M., J. Thompson, and M. Braaten. 2018. Ambitious science teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

157

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 18 PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT T

his chapter builds on the design specifications for your high-quality unit, providing some principles and processes for the unit’s actual development.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To launch the process of unit development using the knowledge, understandings, abilities, and designs from this and prior chapters Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will • broaden and deepen their knowledge of basic principles for curriculum development; • identify potential activities, lessons, and other resources for use in a STEM unit; and • evaluate the alignment and coherence of instructional experiences with the learning outcomes and assessments. .

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

159

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 18 The transition from your prior work on the design of STEM units to the actual development of the units is like the difference between developing a new recipe and then using that recipe to prepare dinner. Challenges may arise in the process of cooking that may not be a function of the recipe. That said, it is quite helpful to have a good set of instructions to follow. The same is true of using your design to create your unit. I’ll now begin our deep dive into the unit development process with a brief discussion of curriculum and units of instruction.

Perspectives on STEM Units and the School Curriculum

How one uses the term curriculum signals an individual’s perspective. For example, teachers often use the term to mean what they teach, whereas administrators may associate the term with textbooks and other instructional materials for elementary, middle, and high school programs. Examining historical definitions of curriculum provides some help. Caswell and Campbell noted that “curriculum is all of the experiences children have under the guidance of teachers” (1935). Saylor and Alexander wrote that “curriculum encompasses all learning opportunities provided by the school” (1974). And Oliva defined curriculum as “a plan or program for all experiences which the learner encounters under direction of the school” (1982). Taking the time to analyze the difference between these definitions may be an insightful academic activity. However, it is not very helpful when one is pressed for time and must develop a particular unit of instruction according to a set of criteria and constraints and within a budget and limited time. This perspective is Joseph Schwab’s “practical” view of curriculum making (1970). Questions and challenges regarding the definition of the term curriculum extend to STEM instruction. What does STEM curriculum mean? Although a STEM curriculum includes a complex combination of science content, materials, teaching strategies, and interactions with learners, one can identify an idea that unifies the intricate interactions of these components: The curriculum represents a group of interdependent relationships among concepts, practices of STEM inquiry, and contextual factors. In short, STEM curriculum features concepts, practices, and topics that are organized into programs based on the emphasis given to them by textbook writers, curriculum developers, teachers, and assessment specialists. This definition varies from the common view of curriculum as an operational plan that guides learning, courses of study, and the experiences of learners. I recommend a more dynamic and systemic view of curriculum, one that includes content, the actions and strategies of teachers and learners, and the various technologies of teaching. In this perspective, the teacher’s strategies introduce dynamic qualities to the organized relationships between concepts, practices, and topics, resulting in effective teaching and student learning. A systems perspective of curriculum also applies to your STEM unit. A STEM unit should have structure, function, and feedback. Structure consists of the relationships among STEM concepts identified in materials such as A Framework for K–12 Science

160

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Education (NRC 2012), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013), and your state standards. In general, structure is usually thought of as instructional materials. It sometimes is referred to as the intended curriculum (Glatthorn 1987; Murnane and Raizen 1988; Posner 1992). Instructional materials have been planned and likely express a particular emphasis (Roberts 1982; 1995), scope, sequence, and organization. Function consists of the many ways teachers introduce dynamic qualities through adapting, modifying, adjusting, and changing the instructional materials to accommodate classroom situations involving a diversity of individuals and groups of learners. Function includes actions, strategies, and behaviors of teachers and learners (e.g., questions, teacher-directed discussions, inquiry-oriented investigations, project-based activities, and use of educational technologies). This discussion elaborates on the idea of enacted or taught dimensions of the curriculum. Feedback involves assessment of teaching and learning experiences and student attainment of the learning outcomes. Taking the end-of-lesson or end-of-course perspective, this is the achieved, attained, or learned curriculum. But I use the term feedback in the systemic sense. The feedback should serve to modify the structural and functional aspects of the curriculum. It should also serve to identify the degree to which learners have achieved STEM knowledge, abilities, and understandings identified in, for example, state standards or the NGSS.

Basic Principles for Developing Instructional Materials

With your design completed, we turn to the development of your unit. I begin with classic advice described seven decades ago in Ralph Tyler’s Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949). This short book acquired and maintained its classic status due to the clarity and simplicity of the following four fundamental questions: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to obtain? This is one of the critically important questions to ask in the initial phase of developing your STEM unit. Several sources should inform the discussion: national and state standards, studies of students’ needs and interests, STEMrelated issues in contemporary society, research on learning, recommendations from specialists outside the STEM education community, and—very importantly—your understanding and professional judgment. 2. How can we select learning experiences that are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives? The term learning experiences refers to interactions between the learner and situations in the environment—natural phenomena in science and design problems in engineering, for example. The assumption is that learning takes place through active mental and physical engagement by the student. Consider, for instance, the type of activities required for different objectives: developing the

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

161

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 18 practices of STEM investigations, developing the conceptual foundations of STEM disciplines, acquiring STEM vocabulary, and maintaining and expanding attitudes and interests. 3. How can these education experiences be organized effectively? Although some content may be recalled immediately, learning STEM concepts, developing habits of mind, and cultivating interests and attitudes take more time and different educational experiences. Criteria for the organization of experience in a STEM unit include coherence, sequence, and a clear progression in horizontal and vertical dimensions of the school curriculum. 4. How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated? Evaluation is essential for determining the extent to which education aims and objectives have been attained. Both formative and summative assessments should be included in the STEM unit. Some evaluations may inform teachers about students’ progress, but it also is important to consider evaluation results as feedback for program improvement. In the seven decades since Tyler published his principles, we have learned more about how change occurs in school and the essential role of professional development in curriculum reform (Hall and Hord 2001). With all due respect for Tyler’s original questions, I would add the following to his original list of basic principles: How can the learning experiences of a new curriculum be effectively implemented in schools? First, change in school programs takes at least three to five years. Second, effective implementation of innovative instructional materials (i.e., your unit) requires people—teachers and administrators—to change. Third, implementation requires leadership. Fourth, change in instructional programs is best achieved by PLCs. Finally, if teachers have adequate and appropriate professional development and the support of colleagues, change in programs is highly probable and, on balance, much easier than not working with a PLC and professional developer. Whether designed by curriculum developers or constructed by teachers, instructional materials answer this general question: “What should students know and be able to do?” They also answer the following two specific questions, which echo those posed by Tyler: “What learning experiences can be selected that are likely to be useful in attaining these learning outcomes?” and “How can the learning experiences be organized for effective instruction?” Based on research, the general answer to the first question seems clear. Students should learn both facts and concepts. Just as important, the STEM unit should be structured using a conceptual framework. This is because the goal of learning with understanding includes factual knowledge placed in a conceptual framework. I underscore the complementary nature of these two ideas because many contemporary programs and assessments give much greater emphasis to facts without attention to the

162

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

underlying concepts. Therefore, rather than emphasizing either “big ideas” or “many facts,” you should appropriately balance both. A STEM unit should be structured using a framework that integrates ideas central to the STEM disciplines, and students should learn about the disciplines. In other words, ideas fundamental to the practices of STEM disciplines should be part of the unit. The content of your unit should include inquiry, the nature of science, and fundamental ideas such as the empirical nature of science and engineering and the role of evidence in explanations and solutions. You likely have noted that this discussion only answers part of the first question, providing information on what students should know but not tackling what they should be able to do. The issues of abilities, procedures, and practices of inquiry that should be developed in a unit are based on contemporary, national, and state standards. The following list generally addresses the question of what students should be able to do: • Identify questions or problems that guide STEM-based investigations. • Think critically and logically to establish the relationships between evidence and explanations or solutions. • Formulate and revise explanations and models using logic and evidence. • Recognize and analyze alternative explanations, solutions, and predictions. • Communicate and defend arguments using evidence and reasoning for basic claims. Of course, these abilities will have to be developed through investigations, experiments, studies of natural phenomena, and design problems. By this point in the chapter, you should understand that developing a STEM unit is a challenge but achievable. This discussion only scratches the surface of the interrelated issues that must be addressed. The next sections note other important elements of developing units, such as coherence, alignment of activities with learning outcomes, scaffolding for learning progressions, and multiple varied experiences for students to learn the valued content (i.e., STEM concepts and practices).

Coherence

Near the beginning of his essay “Coherence in High School Science,” F. James Rutherford (2000) defines the term coherence: In general, the notion of coherence itself is simple enough. It has to do with relationships. Things are coherent if their constituent parts connect to one another logically, historically, geographically, physically, mathematically, or in some other way to form a unified whole. Coherence calls for the whole of something to make good sense in the light of its parts, and the parts in light of the whole. (p. 21)

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

163

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 18 To further clarify coherence, Roseman, Linn, and Koppal (2008) describe instructional materials as “presenting a complete set of interrelated ideas and making connections among those explicit” (p. 14). How, one might ask, should I make connections as described in both of these quotations? The answer is through a storyline (Roth and Garnier 2006/2007) and conceptual flow (DiRanna et al. 2008), which tie important concepts and processes together. If you would like to use a process for analyzing the coherence of instructional materials, you can find one in the Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue article “Analyzing the Coherence of Science Curriculum Materials” (Gardner et al. 2014). Although the need for coherence in curriculum programs has wide support in the science education community (Bybee 2003; Newman et al. 2001; Schmidt 2003; Schmidt and McKnight 1998), the evidence indicates that most materials lack coherence; they are, in a word, fragmented (Kesidou and Roseman 2002).

Alignment of Activities With Learning Outcomes

Related to coherence, development requires clear links between stated goals and among learning activities such as investigations, simulations, and readings. For example, many materials have interesting videos and simulations, but the connection to learning goals is marginal (Roth and Garnier 2006/2007; Seidel, Rimmele, and Prenzel 2005). Selection of content and sequencing activities should be done with the aim of developing student understanding and abilities that may be applied to new situations (Edelson 2001).

Scaffolding for Learning Progressions

The sequence of activities within a STEM unit and across grades should scaffold learning progressions for appropriate STEM concepts and processes. Various goals such as developing evidence-based scientific explanations (McNeill and Krajcik 2012) and formative assessments (Black and Wiliam 1998; 2009) and applying engineering practices (NGSS Lead States 2013) are all important elements of developing a STEM unit.

Multiple and Varied Opportunities to Learn

Students need different activities and varied contexts to develop their knowledge and skills. The recommendation to include assorted activities and contexts in STEM units is closely tied to several of the other features mentioned in the previous section (NRC 2006), so it becomes a specification for the selection of activities and the development of the unit. Many of the aforementioned specifications are related to materials and instructional practices.

Equitable Opportunities for Learning in STEM Units

The NGSS offers a vision of teaching and learning that presents both opportunities and demands for all students. The NGSS highlights issues related to equity and diversity

164

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

and offers specific guidance for fostering learning for diverse groups. Opportunities to learn only occur with adequate resources, including instructional time, equipment, materials, and well-prepared teachers. In addition, instructional resources include the degree to which instruction is designed to meet the needs of diverse students and to identify, draw on, and connect with the advantages their diverse experiences give them for learning science (Pellegrino et al. 2014). The convergence of core ideas, practices, and crosscutting concepts offers multiple entry points to build and deepen understanding for all students. The STEM practices offer rich opportunities for language learning while they support learning for all students. Issues related to equity and diversity become even more important when standards are translated into curricular and instructional materials and assessments (NRC 2012). All students bring along their own knowledge and understanding about the world when they come to school. Their knowledge and understanding is based on their experiences, culture, and language (NRC 2007). Their science learning will be most successful if curriculum, instruction, and assessments draw on and connect with these experiences and are accessible to students linguistically and culturally (Rosebery et al. 2010; Rosebery and Warren 2008; Warren et al. 2001). Researchers who study English language learners also stress the importance of a number of strategies for engaging those students, and they note that these strategies can be beneficial for all students. For example, techniques used in literacy instruction can be used in the context of STEM units. These strategies promote comprehension and help students build vocabulary so they can learn content at high levels while their language skills are developing (Lee 2018; Lee, Quinn, and Valdes 2013). Here are some key points regarding the development of instructional materials that support equitable opportunities for learning: • The text recognizes the needs of English language learners and helps them to both access challenging content and develop grade-level language. For example, materials might include annotations to help with comprehension of words, sentences, and paragraphs and to give examples of the use of words in other situations. Modifications to language should neither sacrifice the STEM content nor avoid necessary language development. • The language used to present STEM information and assessments is carefully considered and should change with the grade level and across content. • The materials provide appropriate reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking modifications (e.g., translations, front-loaded vocabulary word lists, picture support, graphic organizers) for students who are English language learners, have special needs, or read below grade level. • The materials include extra support for students who are struggling to meet the performance expectations.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

165

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 18 STEM Units and State Standards

Developing high-quality STEM units involves incorporating appropriate aspects of contemporary state standards for STEM disciplines, in particular those standards for science that include engineering as a content area and the application of mathematics as a practice. The discussions in this chapter have touched on the need to recognize standards, particularly the NGSS. Here, I briefly provide background related to the standards and their effect on your STEM unit. Publication of the Next Generation Science Standards signaled a new era of reform in STEM education. Almost immediately, the new standards exhibited the power to influence changes in assessments, teacher education, curriculum, and instruction. Instructional materials, including STEM units, are affected as well. In the two decades of work on first- and second-generation standards, the education community has come to recognize the long-term positive influence of national standards. First, national standards can influence all the fundamental components of the educational system. Second, they clarify the most basic goals—the learning outcomes—for all students. Third, standards at the national level are necessary for equality of educational opportunity. Fourth, they have the potential to reduce variations among national, state, and local standards. Finally, they can bring coherence among curriculum, instruction, and assessments. How should one think about the implementation of the NGSS in STEM units? The fundamental idea underlying standards is to describe clear, consistent, and challenging goals. Then, based on the standards, we can reform school programs and classroom practices to enhance student learning. An adequate implementation of standards as a basis for reform rests on the effects that the standards have on three channels of influence: curriculum, teacher development, and assessment and accountability. These in turn influence teachers and teaching practices and ultimately student learning (NRC 2002). STEM units can address concepts and practices of the NGSS and state standards with modifications. In addition, as STEM units use place-, problem-, or project-based approaches, they can also incorporate the integration of those practices and concepts as exemplified in the NGSS.

Leadership by Unit Developers

Developers have a responsibility to the general citizenry and specific groups, including students, teachers, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and parents. The responsibility is to provide all students with the best possible opportunities to learn. On the surface, this idea may seem simple enough; it involves producing developmentally appropriate activities aligned with learning goals, often standards. On further analysis, however, one may recognize more elusive ideas—for example, the idea of incorporating engaging and meaningful experiences for learners, as well as activities that encourage those who often do not achieve in STEM disciplines.

166

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Developers should design materials that optimize teachers’ knowledge and abilities. To state simple truths, STEM units should be understandable, manageable, and usable in the classroom. Additional teacher resources can assist continuing professional development through background readings in STEM content and pedagogy and through suggestions for additional experiences. You may also make suggestions and recommend resources for teachers who wish to improve the unit through adaptation based on their unique qualities and their understanding of the students they teach. The availability and thoroughness of teacher resource materials is a critical test of locally developed units. Clearly, developers have an obligation to represent STEM concepts and practices accurately and thoroughly. For example, the unit should adequately represent the domains of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Developers also have a responsibility to accurately represent science as a way of knowing based on empirical evidence, logical argument, and skeptical review. When necessary, unit developers may have to defend against those who would introduce non-STEM content or positions that deny legitimate and accepted scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical findings. Although teachers who engage in the development of STEM units may have limited time, budget, and expertise, I highly recommend leadership from the professional development community.

Conclusion

This concluding discussion summarizes key principles, processes, and responsibilities for engaging in the development of STEM units. It focuses on three different components, including • learning outcomes, • content and contexts, and • enhanced student learning. Several of the principles for these components have been adapted from an original statement by Rutherford and Ahlgren (1988).

Learning Outcomes 1. Learning outcomes should first and foremost be for all students. 2. Consideration of learning outcomes for different populations (college and careers) and students with varied interests and abilities should build on the foundations of goals for all students. 3. Learning outcomes should be presented in conceptual and procedural terms from the STEM disciplines rather than as a list of topics.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

167

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 18 4. Learning outcomes should include teaching strategies that complement and contribute to the attainment of the outcomes.

Content and Contexts 5. The content should represent the basic realms of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 6. The STEM unit should incorporate the content and practices of physical, life, Earth, and space sciences when that content is conceptually and procedurally linked to the STEM content and represented in national and/or state standards. 7. The STEM unit should include an appropriate integration of content. 8. The STEM unit should use contexts that represent STEM as ways of knowing, ways of solving problems, and ways of expressing relationships in meaningful social and cultural issues.

Enhanced Student Learning 9. The STEM unit should be based on best understandings of how students learn, both individually and in groups. 10. The STEM unit should use integrated instructional sequences (i.e., coordinated lessons with varied activities coherently organized). 11. The instructional sequence should provide adequate time and varied opportunities for students’ learning. 12. The STEM unit should be developed using the process of backward design.

References Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2): 139–148. Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21 (1): 5–31. Bybee, R. W. 2003. The teaching of science: Content, coherence, and congruence. Journal of Science Education and Technology 12 (4): 343–358. Caswell, H., and D. Campbell. 1935. Curriculum development. New York: American Book. DiRanna, K., E. Osmundson, J. Topps, L. Barakos, M. Gearhart, K. Cerwin, D. Carnahan, and C. Strang. 2008. Assessment-centered teaching: A reflective practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Edelson, D. 2001. Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching 38 (3): 355–385.

168

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Gardner, A., R. Bybee, L. Enshan, and J. Taylor. 2014. Analyzing the coherence of science curriculum materials. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 16 (1 and 2): 65–85. Glatthorn, A. 1987. Curriculum renewal. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Hall, G. E., and S. M. Hord. 2001. Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kesidou, S., and J. E. Roseman. 2002. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (6): 522–549. Lee, O. 2018. English language proficiency standards aligned with content standards. Educational Researcher 47 (5): 317–327. Lee, O., H. Quinn, and G. Valdes. 2013. Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher 42 (4): 223–233. McNeill, K. L., and J. Krajcik. 2012. Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson. Murnane, R., and S. Raizen, eds. 1988. Improving indictors of the quality of science and mathematics education in grades K–12. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2006. America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Taking science to school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Newman, F. M., B. A. Smith, E. Allensworth, and A. S. Bryk. 2001. Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23 (4): 297–321. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards. Oliva, P. 1982. Developing the curriculum. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

169

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 18 Pelligrino, J., M. Wilson, J. Koenig, and A. Beattly, eds. 2014. Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Posner, G. J. 1992. Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw Hill. Roberts, D. 1982. Developing the concept of “curriculum emphasis” in science education. Science Education 66 (2): 243–260. Roberts, D. 1995. Scientific literacy: The importance of multiple curriculum emphases. In Redesigning the science curriculum: A report on the implications of standards and benchmarks for science education, ed. R. W. Bybee and J. D. McInerney, 75–80. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Rosebery, A., M. Ogonowski, M. DiSchino, and B. Warrant. 2010. The coat traps all your body heat: Heterogeneity as fundamental for learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 19 (3): 322–357. Rosebery, A., and B. Warren, eds. 2008. Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students’ strengths. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Roseman, J. E., M. C. Linn, and M. Koppal. 2008. Characterizing curriculum coherence. In Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum instruction, and policy, ed. Y. Kali, M. Linn, and J. E. Roseman, pp. 13–36. New York: Teachers College Press. Roth, K. J., and H. E. Garnier. 2006/2007. What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership 64 (4): 16–23. Rutherford, F. J. 2000. Coherence in high school science. In Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Rutherford, F. J., and A. Ahlgren. 1988. Rethinking the science curriculum. In Content of the curriculum: 1988 ASCD yearbook, ed. R. S. Brandt, 75–90. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Saylor, G., and W. Alexander. 1974. Planning curriculum for schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Schmidt, W. 2003. The quest for a coherent school science curriculum: The need for an organizing principle. Review of Policy Research 20 (4): 569–584. Schmidt, W., and C. McKnight. 1998. What can we really learn from TIMSS? Science 282 (5395): 1830–1831. Schwab, J. 1970. The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Seidel, T., R. Rimmele, and M. Prenzel. 2005. Clarity and coherence of lesson goals as a scaffold for student learning. Learning and Instruction 15 (6): 539–556. Tyler, R. W. 1949. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

170

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Warren, B., C. Ballenger, M. Ogonowski, A. Roseberry, and J. Hudicourt-Barnes. 2001. Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (5): 529–552.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

171

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 19 WHAT DOES A HIGH-QUALITY STEM UNIT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE? T

his chapter provides an example of a STEM unit. The unit was developed for an upper elementary classroom. Students were guided through the four STEM disciplines with a series of personalized learning experiences about the general theme of human impacts on our Earth and with a specific place-based project on the use and disposal of plastic water bottles in the school.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To provide an example of a STEM unit developed and implemented by a classroom teacher Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will recognize • the effectiveness of using the 5E Instructional Model to introduce STEM disciplines, • the importance of using a place-based project to plan and carry out an investigation, and • the connections from the unit to the Next Generation Science Standards.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

173

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 19 A Successful STEM Unit

The unit featured in this chapter was developed and taught by Cassie Bess, a sixthgrade teacher from California. She described her experience in a Science and Children journal article entitled “Unpacking the STEM Disciplines” (Bess 2019). A slightly edited version of this piece is the basis for the chapter. I have maintained Ms. Bess’s voice and perspective throughout. I have also added in commentary to highlight important aspects of the unit implementation process. The Science and Children article begins with a description of Ms. Bess’s interest and motivation for the unit.

Introduction

My love for teaching and learning, the need to align curriculum with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013), recently adopted state standards, and my interest in STEM motivated me to combine all of these into a unit using the 5E model (Bybee 2009). I realized that the unit would help students gain a deeper understanding of both the STEM disciplines and humans’ impact on the environment. An article titled Plastic Pollution to Solution (Kitagawa, Pombo, and Davis 2018) provided many of the ideas I used in developing this unit. Like most elementary teachers, Ms. Bess had multiple and varied lessons to choose from during the preparation of the following STEM unit.

Engaging the Students

Our Earth is changing, and my upper elementary students are aware of this. I first posed the following question to my class of 27 students in a diversely populated school in San Diego: “How do we know that humans have an impact on the Earth?” I was not sure what the responses would be. Students eagerly chatted in table groups and came up with ideas, such as the drought and fires in California, rising ocean temperatures, opening a new dump near their neighborhood, increased trash at the beach, polluted air from cars … the list continued. Next, I showed them a video of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. I thought their discussion was rich prior to this video, but I was blown away by the deliberation after the video! Even the students who had been previously exposed to pictures or videos of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch were very engaged in discussing the amount of trash in our oceans. Continued

174

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

WHAT DOES A HIGH-QUALITY STEM UNIT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?

(continued )

I asked them to form small groups and discuss the following question: “What are current problems with our Earth today that humans have an impact on?” They discussed the question and utilized their electronic tablets to look for hard evidence of these problems, including statistics, graphs, or numbers that proved that humans are affecting the Earth. The groups’ chosen representatives (scribes) presented the class with the initial findings to the class. I concluded the lesson by asking them to think about today’s discussions, as well as the role of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, with their families. Although the students’ interest was certainly engaged by the larger context of human impacts on Earth systems (see ESS3.C from the NGSS), one should also note the introduction to STEM disciplines.

Exploring STEM and Human Impact

The next day, students’ energy was high and multiple students approached me first thing, asking if they could do a school project to help begin a positive change. That was exactly what I was planning for upcoming lessons! However, we needed to investigate their initial ideas about STEM to build a solid foundation before we approached solutions about the human impact in a meaningful context. Ms. Bess used the explore phase of instruction to establish a balance between students’ interest and enthusiasm and the unit’s learning outcomes relative to STEM disciplines.

Exploring STEM and Human Impact, Continued

I provided each student with a STEM template (see Figure 19.1, p. 176) and asked them to converse with their table group about what components of studying the Great Pacific Garbage Patch might be under the lens of science, what might be technology, what is considered engineering, and what could be mathematics. Their answers varied, to say the least. As I worked with table groups and individual students, I was able to utilize their first responses as a brief formative assessment to determine their level of understanding of the four STEM disciplines. I had to help them with questions such as “What do scientists do?” and “What do engineers do?” Many of their ideas were very general, such as scientists do experiments, technologists improve electronics, engineers build things, and mathematicians work with numbers. This student feedback was the perfect place to begin, and it allowed me to decipher their level of current knowledge and therefore where our conversation would begin in the explain phase. Continued

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

175

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 19 (continued )

Figure 19.1. STEM Template Driving Question: How many plastic water bottles are used per day at our school? Where do they go once people use them? Science: As a scientist, I would want to make a hypothesis of how many are used, then collect data from the school and form a conclusion. Technology: I would use my electronic tablet to make a data table to record information from my investigation. Engineering: Engineers come up with new solutions. Since plastic water bottles are the problem, I would brainstorm better solutions. Mathematics: After we came up with a solution and shared it, I would collect new data on the number of water bottles used at school. I could make a graph to compare the “before solution” data to the “after solution” data and see if it helped.

To refresh the students’ memories, we rewatched the video from the day before but now with a new lens on STEM. Then they pulled out ideas. Like any classroom, their replies varied on the spectrum of understanding. The following list includes some of the best ideas. (Some students were not to this level of understanding yet!) • Science: the ocean currents, sampling of the plastic to see what was there • Technology: the motor behind the trash puller, computer monitors that are dropped off shipping container boats • Engineering: the plastic contraption to pull the trash and the container to hold it • Mathematics: number of pounds of trash, relationship of the space the plastic island takes up to the size of Texas, percent of size of Pacific Ocean We added these ideas to a class chart, had table group discussions to expand upon them, and then referred to them to begin the next lesson. Here, Ms. Bess built on students’ experience and motivation to clarify their ideas about STEM disciplines. She did this using the context of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Note that she did not, at this point, present characteristics of the STEM disciplines. She did learn about students’ conceptions and understanding of the disciplines.

176

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

WHAT DOES A HIGH-QUALITY STEM UNIT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?

Explaining the STEM Disciplines

There was no doubt that students were hooked on finding a way to make a positive impact by starting at our school. I polled the class and asked them to add ideas of problems in our school that we could investigate and change to a Padlet, an online word wall for collaboration. Most of their ideas were incredible: leaky drink fountains, producing a lot of waste, air conditioning temperatures are too low and thus wasteful, using too many paper towels in the bathrooms, using too many plastic water bottles, wasting food, and so on. We took a vote to determine one issue that we could investigate as a class and decided our class project would be based on plastic water bottle usage. Although not an explicit learning outcome, note the fact that the practice of planning and carrying out an investigation was introduced. The instructional sequence continued with an introduction to the way STEM disciplines related to the chosen problem.

Explaining the STEM Disciplines, Continued

Our first step was to refer back to the STEM disciplines from the prior lesson and discuss how a professional in each discipline would approach this problem. They began by determining the wording of our driving questions, “How many plastic water bottles are used per day at our school?” and “What happens to the plastic water bottles?” I asked the following questions: • If you were a scientist, what would you need to know about our school’s plastic bottle use? • What if you were a technologist and wanted to find a solution, how might you think about this problem? • How would you think about the problem if you were an engineer? • As a mathematician, what would you analyze so you know when positive changes occurred? They used a clean copy of the same Google Doc from the day before (see Figure 19.1) and began completing. For example: Science: Collecting data to know how many plastic water bottles are brought to school. Here, they discussed what counts as a plastic water bottle, what if it was reused, what about the ones used in the school kitchen? Technology: Electronic tablet to record data Engineering: Designing a solution to help reduce the number of plastic water bottles used at our school each day Mathematics: Graphs to display the data about the number of plastic water bottles and to create comparisons of “before solution” numbers compared with “after solution” numbers

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

177

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 19 Ms. Bess expanded and clarified definitions of the STEM disciplines. Again, notice that she used contexts the students understood. She clarified the problem and introduced examples of STEM.

Clarifying Definitions

I paused the class and pulled them back together to clarify definitions of the four STEM disciplines based on definitions from Honey, Pearson, and Schweingruber (2014). I projected the definition of science: “a body of knowledge about the natural world that is based on evidence.” I gave them an example of a scientist investigating the growth of flowers. The scientist had a question: “How can I grow the tallest flower in two weeks by varying the amount of sunlight?” She experimented by giving each plant the same amount of water daily, but one plant got three hours of sunlight, one got five hours of sunlight, and one got zero. By the end of two weeks, the flower with five hours of sunlight a day was the tallest. This experiment about a naturally growing plant showed a possible cause-and-effect relationship and a likely answer to the question of the investigation. Next, I added a definition of technology: “human-made tools and ideas to meet needs and wants, not just computers and communication devices.” In our flower scenario, the technology used to measure plant growth was a ruler. Then I added a definition of engineering: “the process of solving a problem by designing a solution under constraints.” The engineering in our scenario was designing an environment to provide plants with specific amounts of sunlight. Last, mathematics was defined as “the understanding of numbers, relationships, and patterns and how they represent things in the real world.” The mathematician in this scenario would create a graph to show the relationship between time passed and the height of the flowers. These definitions would guide us to add more ideas to the STEM disciplines sheet. Together, the students added the following: Science: Utilize our gathered data to improve our knowledge about our school’s usage of plastic water bottles and later use the data as a baseline to know if our solution is successful Technology: Plastic water bottle (This was a huge “light bulb” moment for many as we discussed that water bottles are artificially made to meet a human need because it would not be efficient to carry around water in your hands or a pot.) Engineering: The steps in the process of creating a solution or multiple solutions as well as how we would communicate our solutions to the school Continued

178

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

WHAT DOES A HIGH-QUALITY STEM UNIT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?

(continued )

Mathematics: Creating relationships of beginning data in comparison to data after the solutions are put into place This process allowed students to continue to develop knowledge of the STEM disciplines and an explanation for why the investigational practice we were about to begin would help create positive change. Finally, it was time to develop and carry out our investigation. In this explanation phase of the 5E model, Ms. Bess used students’ prior experiences and her knowledge of STEM disciplines gained from sources such as the National Research Council (NRC 2014; see Figure 19.2) to construct definitions of the STEM disciplines.

Figure 19.2. Definitions for the STEM Disciplines Science is the study of phenomena in the natural world, including the laws of nature associated with physics, chemistry, biology, and the Earth and space sciences. Science includes the treatment or application of facts, principles, concepts, or conventions associated with these disciplines. Science is both a body of knowledge and a process—scientific inquiry—that generates new knowledge. Knowledge from science informs the engineering design process. Technology is composed of the system of people and organizations, knowledge, processes, and devices that go into creating and operating technological artifacts, as well as the artifacts themselves. Throughout history, humans have created technology to satisfy their wants and needs. Much of modern technology is a product of science and engineering, and technological tools are used in both fields. Engineering is both a body of knowledge (about the design and creation of human-made products) and a process for solving problems. This process is characterized as “design under constraint.” One constraint in engineering design is the laws of nature, or science. Other constraints include time, money, available materials, ergonomics, environmental regulations, manufacturability, and reparability. Engineering utilizes concepts in science and mathematics as well as technological tools. Mathematics is the study of patterns and relationships among quantities, numbers, and space. Unlike science, where empirical evidence is used to support or change claims, claims in mathematics are warranted through logical arguments based on foundational assumptions. The logical arguments themselves are part of mathematics along with the claims. As in science, knowledge in mathematics continues to grow, but unlike in science, knowledge in mathematics is not overturned, unless the foundational assumptions are transformed. Specific conceptual categories of K–12 mathematics include numbers and arithmetic, algebra, functions, geometry, and statistics and probability. Mathematics is used in science, engineering, and technology. Source: Adapted from the National Research Council (2014).

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

179

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 19 Elaborating on STEM and the Project for Our School

In this next phase, I familiarized students with the NGSS engineering design process (see Figure 19.3) and defined each step. I said, “We want to apply what we know about the four STEM disciplines and use them to design a solution that we can present to our school to make a positive change.” We defined the problem, but how would we gather evidence and synthesize it? What ideas did students already have to make improvements, how would they design and create possible solutions, what constraints did we have, and how would we test outcomes of the different solutions and determine which is best? We used these ideas as a springboard into our investigation. Together, we sketched out the stats of the design process: define, develop solutions, optimize (NGSS Lead States 2013, Appendix I).

Figure 19.3. Engineering Design Process

Define the problem: Too many plastic water bottles come into our school and go into the trash daily. Develop solutions: We wanted to reduce the number of plastic water bottles coming into our school and being used daily and increase the amount that are recycled instead of put in the trash. Optimize: Help students understand the benefit of using reusable water bottles and find the best places to put recycling bins at school in order to increase recycling.

180

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

WHAT DOES A HIGH-QUALITY STEM UNIT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?

Please note the connections to two practices—planning and carrying out an investigation and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. (See Chapter 17 in this book and Duschl and Bybee 2014 for a detailed discussion.) In a subsequent review and revision of this unit, Ms. Bess increased the emphasis on the two practices.

Elaborating on STEM and the Project for Our School, Continued

In the next week, different groups of students put their solutions in place and presented their findings to one another. We discussed how the plant-growing scientist from our previous class discussion set up an experiment with a claim that the Sun would be a major factor in the growth of plants. She was experimenting with one factor to confirm at outcome; whereas in our investigation, we were beginning with a problem that needed to be solved. This led to a discussion about evidence and how we would know which solution was successful. The students’ passion spread to our school community, and other students truly embraced their efforts. Their understanding of the disciplines and how the engineering design process worked was a success, and their continued interest led to new investigations, each personalized to their own driving question.

Evaluating Students’ Understanding of STEM and a Proposed Solution

Evaluation proves to be critical in teaching and learning not only because it drives daily instruction but also because it allows teachers to truly determine their students’ level of mastery and how to meet them where they are in order to take them to the next level. Evaluation in this unit came in the form of individual/small-group projects. Utilizing the theme of human impacts on Earth, students applied their current understandings to create their own driving question, unpack it into the STEM disciplines as we had done together, and sketch out their investigation through the NGSS engineering design process. I used the STEM template and the design process write-up to assess students’ mastery of the learning goal (to be able to differentiate the four STEM disciplines) and NGSS standard 5-ESS3. A rubric was used to track each student’s level of mastery (Figure 19.4, p. 182).

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

181

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 19 Figure 19.4. Rubric: Connecting to the Next Generation Science Standards

182

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

WHAT DOES A HIGH-QUALITY STEM UNIT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?

Ms. Bess’s Conclusion

This investigation took students through lessons to unpack the four STEM disciplines while engaging their desire to make positive changes for our Earth at a local, school-based level. It provided them with opportunities to observe the school, investigate the natural world, manage constraints, and act on driving questions that motivated them individually to promote positive change. STEM is becoming more prominent in schools across the world. Making sure students understand the disciplines is the first step to having a successful STEM education program. Not only did this investigation open students’ eyes to the need for positive change, but they also shared their devotion to Earth with the rest of the school, their families, friends, teammates, coaches, and more. An inner drive to become STEM professionals and Earth advocates was ignited!

Conclusion

This chapter provides an excellent example of a STEM unit in action. The featured unit was based on the 5E Instructional Model, made connections to the NGSS, used a placebased context, and introduced the four STEM disciplines.

References Bess, C. 2019. Unpacking the STEM disciplines: A project on human impacts on the environment provides opportunities to explore the disciplines of STEM. Science and Children 56 (6): 52–57. Bybee, R. 2009. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model and 21st-century skills. Paper prepared for workshop on exploring the intersection of science education and the development of 21st-century skills at the National Academies. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/ groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_073327.pdf. Duschl, R., and R. Bybee. 2014. Planning and carrying out investigations: An entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education 1 (12): 1–9. Honey, M., G. Pearson, and H. Schweingruber, eds. 2014. STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Kitagawa, L., E. Pombo, and T. Davis. 2018. Plastic pollution to solution. Science and Children 55 (7): 38. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards. National Research Council (NRC). 2014. STEM integration in K–12 education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

183

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 20 DEVELOPING YOUR STEM UNIT I

n this chapter, you will begin work on the specific details of your STEM unit and progress from plans to actual instructional lessons by applying your knowledge and abilities to create the unit. You will use the general designs from prior chapters and the 5E Instructional Model, clarify the learning outcomes, align lessons with standards, review the conceptual flow, and identify appropriate activities for the unit.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To develop a STEM unit for your use Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will • reexamine use of backward design and the 5E model, • review a general process for developing a STEM unit, • summarize details for lessons within the unit, and • begin developing the STEM unit.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

185

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 20 Depending on your situation, you may not currently have enough time to fully develop your entire unit. However, given the length of the process, you should have enough time to adequately draft most of the specifics for the unit. If you are unable to finish now, you can plan for additional time, opportunities, and resources to actually complete initial drafts. This is where PLCs become an essential part of the process. Teams from schools and school districts can support one another’s work through the development phase, the goal of which is to develop a first draft of your unit.

Using Backward Design and the 5E: A Review

Four principles of instructional design will contribute to attaining the learning outcomes you have identified. First, instructional materials are developed with clear goals in mind. Second, students’ experiences are thoughtfully sequenced into the flow of classroom instruction. Third, the learning experiences are designed to integrate learning of concepts and practices. Finally, students have opportunities for ongoing reflection, discussion, discourse, and constructive argumentation. Use the 5E model as the basis for the instructional sequence. Lessons serve as daily activities; design the sequence of lessons using a variety of experiences (e.g., internet searches, group investigations, reading, discussion, computer simulations, videos, direct instruction) that contribute to your students attaining the learning outcomes. Discussions about the emphasis and placement of activities will be greatly enhanced by the use of backward design. Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe 2005) and The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High-Quality Units (Wiggins and McTighe 2011) describe a process of backward design that will enhance your ability to attain higher levels of student learning. Conceptually, the process is simple. Begin by identifying your desired learning outcomes. Then determine what would count as acceptable evidence of student learning. You should formulate strategies that set forth what counts as evidence of learning for the STEM unit. Follow this by actually designing summative assessments that provide the evidence that students have learned the competencies described in the learning outcomes for your unit. Then, and only then, begin identifying and developing the activities that will provide students with opportunities to learn the concepts and practices described in the learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are the basis for using backward design for the development or adaptation of curriculum and instruction. Learning outcomes are also the basis for assessments. Simply stated, the learning outcomes can and should be the starting point for backward design and development of the STEM unit. Using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, one could first design an evaluate activity. Then one would proceed to design the engage, explore, explain, and elaborate experiences. As necessary, the process would be iterative between the evaluate activities and other activities as the development process progresses.

186

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

DEVELOPING YOUR STEM UNIT

A Suggested Process for Developing Your Unit

In the following list, I describe a process for developing your STEM unit. As I cannot anticipate the many decisions you will make, the recommendations are general. 1. Review the initial designs and background information you may need to support the context, topic, and background of your STEM unit. In addition, it will help to review the STEM concepts and processes and new state standards. 2. Clarify the place-, project-, or problem-based context and the issues that align with the theme or storyline of your unit. 3. Review the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, especially the emphasis on the model’s different phases. Using the 5E model will help with the process of integrating the concepts and processes of your unit. 4. Use the 5E Instructional Model and backward design to begin developing, adapting, or identifying the activities, investigations, and other learning experiences of the unit. • Step 1: Clarify the learning outcomes. • Step 2: Determine acceptable evidence of learning and design the evaluate assessment activities for your STEM unit. • Step 3: Identify or modify lessons to accommodate the learning goals of the unit, the storyline, and the other four phases of the 5E model’s integrated instructional sequence (engage, explore, explain, and elaborate). 5. Using the 5E Instructional Model, begin sequencing learning experiences that complement the phases of the model. (For example, what would be a good initial activity to engage students?) The instructional sequence should a. provide for different forms of interaction among your students and between you and your students; b. integrate the STEM disciplines as students pursue knowledge and skills that will help answer questions or solve problems; c. incorporate a variety of teaching strategies such as projects, cooperative learning, investigations, and use of technology; and d. allow time and opportunities for students to develop the competencies and knowledge required for achieving the learning outcomes. 6. As you identify different activities for the instructional sequence, the integration process will be facilitated by the identification of associated STEM disciplines and related concepts and processes. The content and practices that students apply in the unit will be from documents such as state and national standards. Figure 20.1 (p. 188) illustrates the process of identifying these ele-

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

187

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 20 ments. There is a central emphasis on contextual situations and possible connections among STEM disciplines. 7. Plan the process for continued development and implementation of the unit (the who, what, when, where, how, and how much). The process will likely take some time. If possible, the plan should include meetings with your PLC team and learning about the lesson study process (see Chapter 21). Plan at least one round of developing, teaching, meeting with the proposed lesson study group, getting feedback, and revising your unit. Figure 20.1 identifies concepts and processes for your STEM unit. 8. Use the forms in Figures 20.2–20.6 (pp. 189–193) to summarize the details of the lessons within your unit.

Figure 20.1. Identifying Concepts and Processes for Your STEM Unit SCIENCE

TECHNOLOGY • ITEEA Standards • NAEP 2012 Framework for Technological Literacy • State standards for technology

NAEP 2009 Framework A Framework for K–12 Science Education Next Generation Science Standards State standards for science

Contexts Place-based or project-based situations that involve STEM (e.g., environment, resources, health, hazards, research frontiers)

MATHEMATICS Common Core State Standards NCTM standards NGSS Practices

188

ENGINEERING • Next Generation Science Standards • NAEP reports • State standards

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

DEVELOPING YOUR STEM UNIT

You should note that Figures 20.2–20.6 are organized using backward design and the 5E Instructional Model. Therefore, the first step asks you to identify the learning outcomes and use those as the basis for a summative assessment of your unit. (Note: Figures 20.2–20.6 are also available on the book’s Extra’s page at www.nsta.org/ stem-standards-strategies.)

Figure 20.2. A Framework for Developing a STEM Unit Using Backward Design and the 5E Instructional Model: Evaluate Evaluating Students’ Learning Instructional Materials: Specifications

Teaching Strategies: Basics

Lessons in this phase use the learning outcomes as the basis for assessments.

Teachers may observe students and assess their understanding of concepts and practices and determine the degree to which they meet learning outcomes.

Evaluation Rubric

Class Period(s)

Details of the Lessons

Proposed Outcome(s)

Resources, Materials, Preparation

Teachers’ Background Information

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

189

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 20 Figure 20.3. A Framework for Developing a STEM Unit Using Backward Design and the 5E Instructional Model: Engage Engaging the Students Instructional Materials: Specifications

190

Teaching Strategies: Basics

The lesson should focus students’ interest and thinking on the learning task. Instructional materials should (1) activate current knowledge and make connections between past and present experiences, (2) anticipate activities of future lessons, and (3) physically and mentally engage students in the concepts, practices, and applications of the unit.

The teacher assesses learners’ current knowledge and facilitates their interest and attention in new concepts and practices by posing questions, presenting discrepant events, showing a video, giving a demonstration, etc.

Formative Evaluation

Class Period(s)

Details of the Lesson(s)

Proposed Student Outcome(s)

Resources, Materials, Preparation

Teachers’ Background Information

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

DEVELOPING YOUR STEM UNIT

Figure 20.4. A Framework for Developing a STEM Unit Using Backward Design and the 5E Instructional Model: Explore Exploring STEM Concepts and Processes Instructional Materials: Specifications

Teaching Strategies: Basics

Instructional materials include activities that help students use current knowledge to generate ideas, explore questions and problems, consider possibilities, design investigations, obtain information, conduct internet searches, and engage in discourse about their ideas. The lessons should establish a common base of experiences that students use to begin developing science and engineering practices and core concepts of STEM disciplines. (Note: The explore phase may require several lessons to accommodate the exploration of multiple STEM disciplines.)

The teacher encourages the examination of current concepts and exploration of practices as students encounter scientific questions and engineering problems. Instruction centers on using practices to challenge current ideas and abilities and begin formulating new concepts, abilities, and behaviors.

Formative Evaluation

Class Period(s)

Details of the Lesson(s)

Proposed Student Outcome(s)

Resources, Materials, Preparation

Teachers’ Background Information

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

191

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 20 Figure 20.5. A Framework for Developing a STEM Unit Using Backward Design and the 5E Instructional Model: Explain Explaining STEM Concepts and Processes Instructional Materials: Specifications

192

Teaching Strategies: Basics

Instructional materials provide clear and succinct explanations for STEM concepts and practices. Materials provide opportunities for group work where students explain their ideas to peers, review current explanations, read, listen to videos, search the internet, and listen to the teacher’s explanations.

Teachers directly explain concepts and practices and guide learners toward in-depth understanding. Instruction includes asking for clarification, providing definitions, and using students’ current explanations as the basis for more accurate STEM explanations and definitions.

Formative Evaluation

Class Period(s)

Details of the Lesson(s)

Proposed Student Outcome(s)

Resources, Materials, Preparation

Teachers’ Background Information

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

DEVELOPING YOUR STEM UNIT

Figure 20.6. A Framework for Developing a STEM Unit Using Backward Design and the 5E Instructional Model: Elaborate Elaborating on STEM Concepts and Processes Instructional Materials: Specifications

Teaching Strategies: Basics

Lessons in this phase have students apply the STEM concepts and practices to new situations. Instructional materials require the transfer of prior learning within reasonable range for students.

Teachers encourage the use of formal labels, definitions, and STEM explanations, providing these if they are not expressed. Instruction has students use evidence for explanations and requires use of logic in formulation of arguments.

Formative Evaluation

Class Period(s)

Details of the Lesson(s)

Proposed Student Outcome(s)

Resources, Materials, Preparation

Teachers’ Background Information

Conclusion

This chapter introduced a strategy for the development of a STEM unit. I described the strategy for state and local leaders and provided critical connections between the development of instructional materials and the professional learning of STEM teachers.

References Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 2011. The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

193

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART VI

PART VI CONCLUSION

B

y this point, you have developed your unit or have completed a portion of the unit. This is a significant accomplishment. Congratulations! Take a moment to reflect on your achievement. Ponder the following questions:

• What was the most satisfying part of formulating the unit? • What was the most challenging part? • What have you learned as a result of this accomplishment? • Is there anything you would like to do differently in the future? • What advice would you give to other teachers who have yet to begin their unit development?

During the process of unit development, I am sure you have advanced your understanding of instructional materials and your ability to provide leadership in your classroom, school, and community. Now it is time to move on to implementing and improving your unit.

194

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART VII IMPLEMENTING YOUR STEM UNIT

W

hether you selected, adapted, or created your unit, implementing and improving the unit now become important aspects of the process. The next step is to “fine tune” the unit and make it better. The chapters in Part VII will engage you and colleagues in a method known as lesson study, which will allow you to study and improve your unit. In formulating this set of chapters, I have tried to maintain the central goals presented in this book while modifying the lesson study process to accommodate the unit and lessons you designed and developed.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

195

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 21 PLANNING LESSON STUDY FOR YOUR STEM UNIT T

his chapter introduces a variation of lesson study as a process for evaluating and improving your STEM unit.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To introduce lesson study and the role of a professional learning community (PLC) as a continuing aspect of developing and implementing a high-quality STEM unit Outcomes: Individual teachers, PLC teams, and professional developers will • learn about variations in the process of lesson study for the evaluation and improvement of their unit and • recognize the importance of a professional learning community as a structure for facilitating lesson study on a STEM unit.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

197

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 21 Assuming you have completed an initial draft of your STEM unit and you plan to teach that unit during the academic year, I recommend a variation on lesson study as a part of a PLC’s program. The feedback and support of peers in the PLC will be quite valuable as you implement your unit and continue to improve the lessons and unit.

The Lesson Study Process and Your STEM Unit

An essential set of activities for the implementation of your STEM unit resides with appropriate variations of lesson study. The idea of lesson study originated in Japan as a system of study and incremental improvements in teaching. In this model, teams of teachers work collaboratively on the improvement of classroom practice, and lessons (or sequences of lessons) become central to the process. Catherine Lewis, a leader in lesson study for the United States, concisely describes the processes. “Lesson study is a cycle of instructional improvement focused on planning, observing, and discussing research lessons and drawing out their implications for teaching and learning” (Lewis 2008, p. 175).

A Brief Summary

The following paragraphs summarize the lesson study process. I have slightly adapted the summary based on this book’s themes and discussions on the development of STEM units. Further information on lesson study can be found elsewhere (Lewis 2002, 2003, 2008; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010; Stigler and Hiebert 1999). As preparation for the lesson study observations, I also recommend reviewing Instructional Rounds in Education (City et al. 2009). This discussion assumes that you have developed enough of your STEM unit to identify several lessons that can be used for lesson study; that you used the 5E Instructional Model; and that you have established and are part of a PLC with colleagues (or at least one colleague) who can participate in the lesson study. This discussion is, out of necessity, a general and modified presentation of the lesson study process. • Define lesson study outcomes. The first step is defining and clarifying the goals that will direct the work of lesson study. Designing a series of lessons that enhance STEM knowledge and processes and align with state standards is an example of a goal. This step should be addressed in the introduction to your unit and lessons to be studied. • Plan and develop the lesson(s). Based on the learning outcomes, describe the process you have used for developing your unit. You also should describe the integrated instructional sequence of lessons (i.e., your unit). • Teach the lesson(s)/unit. Teaching the STEM unit will be a “field test.” Peers will observe one or more lessons of the unit. If several peers observe on different days, they should be aware of which phase of the 5E Instructional Model they observed.

198

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PLANNING LESSON STUDY FOR YOUR STEM UNIT

• Evaluate the lesson(s)/unit. The group of peers meets after the lesson at a designated time and location. The teacher who taught the lesson reviews the results, discussing the lesson’s effectiveness, students’ responses, and any assessment results. Then the teacher’s peers discuss their observations and present issues they observed. Recommendations for revision of the unit should be part of the discussion. It is strongly recommended that this process be led by a skilled leader in the lesson study process. • Revise the lesson(s)/unit. Based on the group’s observations, review, and recommendations, you should consider and make critical revisions to the lesson(s) and adjustments within the unit. • Teach the revised lesson(s)/unit. If possible, the revised lesson/unit is taught again to a different class. • Evaluate the lesson(s)/unit again. This evaluation may include other participants (e.g., other faculty, a professional developer, administrators). Those involved with this second evaluation meet at a designated time and location. The teacher with primary responsibility for the STEM unit speaks first, followed by the other participants who present observations, reflections, and questions about the students, resources, and what they understand and recommend. • Present the final lesson(s)/unit. The teacher responsible for the unit shares the final version of the unit during the follow-up meetings of the PLC. Lesson study is more than teaching a lesson and getting some informal feedback. As you likely noted in the discussion, it involves formal observations of teaching, student responses, and feedback from critical peers. The process includes review of goals, standards, and other factors unique to your instruction and students. I have attempted to provide some guidance for the general processes of lesson study in the context of your STEM unit; this discussion is not a strict and rigid set of procedures. You will learn more about the effectiveness of lesson study by engaging in the process. The discussion now turns to views of lesson study that serve as a rationale for its inclusion as part of implementing your unit. I will also discuss how lesson study will contribute to the unit being high quality.

A Rationale

Lesson study is more than a process to improve the activities and strategies of a lesson within your STEM unit. I recommend lesson study because the activities address important issues regarding teaching practices and highlight connections to professional learning. Lesson study will help with your unit implementation, but a more accurate perspective is that it plays an important role in improving instructional practices. Here are outcomes that serve as justifications for incorporating lesson study into your implementation plans. I acknowledge the work of Catherine Lewis (2002, 2003) in the following discussion of these justifications.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

199

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 21 As a result of lesson study, you will gain the following: • Deeper knowledge of STEM concepts and practices • Increased understanding of student learning • Stronger support from peers in your PLC • Better connections to state standards • Enhanced capacity as a classroom teacher and school leader Deeper knowledge of STEM concepts and disciplines. The study of lessons directly connects to STEM concepts and practices and, by extension, to learning outcomes identified in your state standards. As one seeks to improve a lesson (i.e., one of the phases of the 5E model), one cannot avoid or omit the content and pedagogy. Identifying and using resources from the team of peers, providers of professional development, and other resources will increase knowledge that is directly useful in your teaching. Increased understanding of student learning. Lesson study includes the close monitoring of students’ verbal and behavioral responses to activities, questions, and problems. Their responses are evidence of their current knowledge and skills and, from your point of view, their learning. At a deeper educational level, lesson study will help you gain insight into activities and experiences that did or did not facilitate student learning. Further, the study of a lesson can lead to the improvement of that (and other) lessons. One can use evidence of students’ engagement, persistence, and interaction among peers as the basis to make changes to your STEM lessons. More important, you will increase your knowledge of the various factors that enhance student learning. Stronger support from peers in your PLC. There is a vital role for a professional learning community in the process of lesson study. By experiencing the collegial attitude of peers and learning their perspectives, teachers are able see and hear how others have implemented the standards, achieved the integration of different dimensions, and responded to the unique needs of students. Then there is the added complement of lesson study allowing for improvement on your lesson (and sequence of lessons). Without a doubt, you will learn from your colleagues about their teaching strategies, their openness to reviewing and revising lessons, and their willingness to be open to constructive critique. Better connections to state standards. Review of a target lesson from your STEM unit will, by necessity, involve a close study of the lesson’s alignment with selected state standards. Indeed, the review of connections to state standards will have increased meaning and practical value—the study of standards will make connections to your unit. Lesson study should include the integrity of the translation of standards into the materials and strategies of your classroom teaching. Enhanced capacity as a classroom and school leader. I believe that most teachers strive to improve their effectiveness as professionals, beginning with their teaching. This motivation to improve is a clear indicator of leadership. Lesson study presents

200

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PLANNING LESSON STUDY FOR YOUR STEM UNIT

opportunities to develop your capacity as a leader. Consider the following question: What does it take to be a classroom, school, district, state, or national leader in STEM education? Now go back and review the central themes in the outcomes of lesson study. A very reasonable answer to the question would be that it takes knowledge of STEM concepts and practices, knowledge and application of how students learn, work with peers in PLCs, and understanding of state standards. Yes, there may be other things to consider as capacities of leadership, but those just listed are an excellent initial list.

Conclusion

This chapter addressed the connection of lesson study to development and implementation of STEM units. The plan centers on teachers’ developing, field-testing, implementing, and revising the units, all with professional guidance and support from peers and a professional learning community.

References City, E., R. Elmore, S. Fairman, and L. Teitel. 2009. Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lewis, C. 2002. Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools. Lewis, C. 2003. Lesson study: Crafting learning together: The essential elements of lesson study. Northwest Teacher. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Lewis, C. 2008. Lesson study. In Powerful designs for professional learning. 2nd edition. ed. L. Brown Easton, 170–180. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Loucks-Horsley, S., K. Stiles, S. Mundry, N. Love, and P. Hewson. 2010. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Stigler, J., and J. Hiebert. 1999. The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

201

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 22 LESSON STUDY Teaching, Reviewing, and Improving Your STEM Unit

T

his chapter presents a pathway through lesson study as a component of implementing and improving your STEM unit and as an essential element of professional learning.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW Purpose: To describe details for the structural process of lesson study in the specific context of your STEM unit Outcomes: Individual teachers, professional learning community (PLC) teams, and professional developers will • understand the processes of lesson study as modified for a STEM unit; • become acquainted with tools that may be used for the process of lesson study; and • recognize the problems of lesson study (e.g., time, support).

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

203

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 22 Our discussion in Chapter 21 focused on some key elements of lesson study, including the collaboration of teachers on the development and refinement of lessons; the use of critical feedback of a lesson’s structure and function; a formal process for observing, gathering data, and providing the feedback; and revision of the lesson. Your design and development of a STEM unit and the use of this book suggests the completion of the initial elements of lesson study. Some of the discussion and suggestions in this chapter may seem repetitious as tools and frameworks recommended in prior chapters will provide most, if not all, of the information you need for the process of lesson study. Still, the information here will be helpful. In this chapter, I have adapted prior work on lesson study (see City et al. 2009; Chokski et al. 2001; Lewis 2002, 2003, 2008; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010; Stigler and Hiebert 1999). The idea underlying lesson study is clear: The ideal, most effective, and most practical place to begin improving teaching is with a lesson. Lessons are a fundamental component of classroom teaching and hence student learning. Just as cells are fundamental units of life, lessons can be fundamental to classroom teaching. With this metaphor in mind, I have emphasized an integrated instructional sequence (i.e., a unit) as a fundamental discussion in this book. It is like moving beyond the cell to the system level in organisms in an attempt to understand the nervous system. In my support of lesson study as professional learning, I assume that most if not all of the fundamentals of improving teaching practice (e.g., adding STEM content, assessing student learning, drawing from state standards, and fostering peer support) can be addressed with this method. At this point, I assume you have developed a unit (or have a significant amount of your STEM unit developed). I also hope you have at least one colleague from your professional learning community who can observe you teaching a lesson or lessons from the unit. Of course, two or three colleagues would be even better. In addition, I imagine you have scheduled time for the post-teaching review. Now it is time to plan your process of lesson study. A lesson study structure that is adapted for use in the development of STEM units involves the following activities: • Preparing for the lesson • Teaching the lesson • Observing the lesson • Reviewing the lesson • Revising the lesson • Reteaching the lesson I will go into detail about each activity in the following section.

204

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

LESSON STUDY: TEACHING, REVIEWING, AND IMPROVING YOUR STEM UNIT

A Modified Process for Lesson Study Preparing for the Lesson

Before teaching the lessons to students, it may be helpful to teach them to your peers. This could entail, for example, going through one or more of the unit lessons (i.e., the engage, explore, explain, elaborate, or evaluate lessons) as part of a workshop with peers. Background information will be useful for the lesson study and for those observing the lesson you teach. Figure 22.1 presents a template you can fill out with information describing the context and lessons to be studied. For your meeting with colleagues prior to teaching the lessons under study, I recommend including your lesson plan and preparing a summary of the information in Figure 22.1 as a complement to your lesson plan. Figure 22.2 (p. 206) uses the general format of Figure 22.1 and incorporates lessons from the example STEM unit described in Chapter 19.

Figure 22.1. Template for Lesson Study Description Name of Unit: Goals of Unit: Integrated Instructional Sequence of the Unit (Describe what each phase in the sequence entails.) • Engage: • Explore: • Explain: • Elaborate: • Evaluate:

Number of Lessons in Each Phase (Indicate which lesson is under study.) • # of Lessons: • # of Lessons: • # of Lessons: • # of Lessons: • # of Lessons:

Name of the Lesson(s) Under Study: Plan of the Lesson(s) Under Study • Goal(s) of the Lesson(s) Under Study: • Components of the Lesson(s) Under Study: What the Students Do and Sequence of Learning Activities Expected Outcomes

What the Teacher Does and Student Responses

Goals and Methods of Formative Assessment

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

205

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 22 Figure 22.2. Descriptions of a Lesson Under Study Name of the Unit: Unpacking the STEM Principles Goals of the Unit: The unit has two goals: (1) introduce students to the STEM disciplines and (2) plan and carry out a place-based project investigating human impacts on the environment. Integrated Instructional Sequence of the Unit Engage Lesson – Students view a video on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and think about the role of STEM disciplines. (1 lesson) Explore Lesson – Students use a template to identify a place-based problem (plastic water bottles in the school) and connections to STEM disciplines. (2 lessons) Explain Lesson – Students discuss their ideas about STEM disciplines and the teacher provides an explanation of STEM disciplines. (1 lesson) Elaborate Lesson – The teacher introduces an engineering design process and students plan a project. The lessons continue as students conduct the plastic water bottle project for their school. (3 lessons) Evaluate Lesson – Student teams prepare written and oral reports using engineering design practices. The teacher uses the write-ups and a Google Doc to assess students’ attainment of the learning outcomes. (2 lessons) Name of the Lesson Under Study: Exploring STEM and Human Impacts Plan of the Lesson Under Study Goal(s) of the Lesson Under Study: • Explore students’ knowledge of STEM disciplines • Use the context of human impacts to introduce the place-based problem of the use and disposal of plastic water bottles in school Components of the Lesson Under Study: • Use of template for review of STEM disciplines • Review of Great Pacific Garbage Patch to identify STEM disciplines Sequence of Learning Activities

What the Students Do and Expected Outcomes

What the Teacher Does and Student Responses

Explore ideas of STEM disciplines; complete STEM template

Students express initial ideas of STEM disciplines with partners.

Teacher facilitates students’ discussions and distributes STEM template.

Goals and Methods of Formative Assessment Monitor student progress and adjust strategies based on responses during table discussions, questions, and examination of STEM template.

206

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

LESSON STUDY: TEACHING, REVIEWING, AND IMPROVING YOUR STEM UNIT

Teaching the Lesson

You and your colleagues should meet the day before you teach a lesson under study to students. In addition to preparing materials, this is a time to review the lesson and the summary created from the template in Figure 22.1. During this meeting, you will introduce the lesson and distribute information and materials to the colleagues who will observe the lesson. You can discuss the larger context of the lesson as well as details and strategies. The next day, you will introduce students to the visiting teachers and explain that they are observing the lesson and may ask the students questions. Then you will teach the lesson.

Observing the lesson

As you teach students, your peers should take notes on the lesson. The lesson plan and summary created from Figure 22.1 that you previously provided to observers will be helpful guides for them at this time. Your peers’ observations are not meant to be an evaluation of your teaching, although they will out of necessity include notes on your directions and strategies. The observers will also take notes on what the students do and say, materials used, and the lesson plan. The critical aspect of the observation is that data are collected that serve as the basis for reviewing and revising the lesson. I have prepared a framework that you and your colleagues may find useful in orienting observations and data for feedback on the lesson (Figure 22.3, p. 208).

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

207

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 22 Figure 22.3. Framework for Making Observations and Collecting Data on a STEM Lesson How does this lesson contribute to the students’ attainment of the STEM unit’s learning outcomes? Responding to this question is the aim of your lesson observation. Here’s an additional question to answer: Based on your observations, what change could be made to improve the lesson? The following questions and clarifying comments will help in your observations and collection of data. Remember that this lesson is from an integrated instructional sequence (the 5E Instructional Model). Some of these questions and comments may apply to a different lesson in the sequence rather than the one you are viewing. Therefore, you may not be able to address all the questions and comments. • Storyline. Was there evidence of a storyline or theme? The storyline provides connections among concepts and practices of the STEM disciplines. In addition, the storyline provides a meaningful progression of concepts and practices across the unit. Evidence of the Storyline or Theme

Suggested Improvements

• Phenomena/Problems. Clear work on explaining phenomena or solving problems extends the storyline. Activities and experiences within the lesson should contribute to students’ knowledge and abilities to investigate phenomena and solve problems. Evidence of Students’ Work on Phenomena or Problems

Suggested Improvements

• STEM Content. Content related to STEM should be evident within the lesson. Even though the lesson may not explicitly introduce or define concepts and practices relative to STEM disciplines, the lesson’s context, themes, and activities should demonstrate connections to STEM. Evidence of STEM Content

Suggested Improvements

• Integration of STEM disciplines. Is there evidence of connections between STEM disciplines? The lesson need not demonstrate connections among all four disciplines. However, there should be experiences or activities that implicitly anticipate connections in future lessons or explicitly make connections between two or three disciplines. Evidence of Integration Among STEM Disciplines

Suggested Improvements

• Connections to Standards. Elements of the lesson should have identifiable connections to state standards. Evidence of Connections to State Standards

Suggested Improvements

• Monitoring Student Progress. The lesson should include opportunities for the teacher to assess students’ knowledge and abilities. These opportunities may be informal. Evidence of Student Progress

Suggested Improvements

Note: This figure is also available on the book’s Extras page at www.nsta.org/stem-standards-strategies.

208

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

LESSON STUDY: TEACHING, REVIEWING, AND IMPROVING YOUR STEM UNIT

Reviewing the Lesson

Shortly after teaching the lesson, you should meet with the teacher or teachers who observed it. Between teaching the lesson and this review, there should be time for reflecting on and evaluating the lesson’s strengths and weaknesses along with any proposed improvements. The review should be an in-depth, detailed, and evidencebased review of the lesson’s effectiveness, and it should include specific changes that would increase students’ learning. In the meeting, you should first discuss the lesson by reviewing what worked and what was problematic. Then your colleagues will provide their reflections on the lesson. I reinforce the view that this is an evidence-based discussion, and the framework in Figure 22.3 will be helpful in compiling the needed evidence for this discussion. The review is on the lesson, not on you. Because you speak first, you have the responsibility to establish the orientation for the review. Figure 22.4 (p. 210) presents a proposed protocol for the review.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

209

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

CHAPTER 22 Figure 22.4. Proposed Guidelines for Reviewing a Lesson These guidelines will help organize and facilitate the review and evaluation of the lesson under study. They should contribute to critical and constructive discussions. The aim here is to keep the review centered on the lesson and use of data as the basis of the review. • Set a designated amount of time and a location for the review session. Keep the session to just one hour. If the amount of time needed is more than an hour, designate a second session and amount of time for that session. • You (i.e., the teacher who taught the lesson) should begin the discussion with an overview of the unit’s and lesson’s goals. Also explain where the lesson falls within the instructional sequence (see Figure 22.1, p. 205). The introduction should be followed by your reactions to the lesson and specific examples of the lesson’s strengths, weaknesses, and elements that should be improved. As appropriate, the recommended changes should relate to the items in Figure 22.3: the storyline, phenomena/problems, STEM content, integration, connections to standards, and opportunities to monitor student progress. The components of the lesson (e.g., questions, activities, materials) should serve as the context for your comments. You may also identify issues in the beginning, middle, or end of the lesson. • Colleagues should ask clarifying questions during your discussion. • Before launching into their reviews, observers should recognize the inherent vulnerability of the situation and the courage it took to teach and review the lesson under study. • Each observer should begin presenting his or her feedback by mentioning his or her role and general observations (e.g., whether the students seemed motivated and interested). The discussion should then get into specific feedback about what worked, what did not seem to work, and what should be changed to improve the lesson. • As the observer presents critical feedback, he or she should identify specific aspects of the lesson and support his or her statements with evidence. For example, the observer might discuss the need for clearer instructions at the beginning of an activity, pointing to the fact that some students did not understand the procedures for this activity. • You should wait to respond until a significant amount of evidence-based information and constructive improvements have been expressed. Do not let the review session become a point-counterpoint discussion.

Revising the Lesson

Based on your experience teaching the lesson and feedback from your colleagues, the lesson should be revised and improved. In doing this, consider the feedback and its alignment with factors such as STEM content, storyline, flow, standards, and students’ progress in learning. Pay particular attention to the emphasis aligned with the phase of the 5E Instructional Model and how you might revise the lesson to address students’ misconceptions. You might consider questioning strategies, clarifying comments, and adding different activities that actively engage the students.

210

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

LESSON STUDY: TEACHING, REVIEWING, AND IMPROVING YOUR STEM UNIT

Reteaching the Lesson or Teaching a New Lesson

The ideal situation would be to reteach the revised lesson. However, this may not be a reasonable next step. By this time, you likely have established the procedures with peers for the process of teaching a lesson, reflecting on the lesson, and revising the lesson based on a critical review. Therefore, if reteaching the revised lesson is not possible, you can use your peers and PLC to teach another lesson from your STEM unit, improving that lesson.

Conclusion

This chapter provided direction and tools for implementing lesson study. The process was adapted from some prior discussions to accommodate variations that exist among states, districts, schools, and individual teachers. However, the essential features of lesson study have been maintained. In addition, this chapter served to provide guidelines for feedback from peers and underline the vital place of professional learning communities in creating STEM units.

References Chokshi, S., B. Ertle, C. Fernandez, and M. Yoshida. 2001. Lesson study protocol. Lesson Study Research Group. City, E., R. Elmore, S. Fairman, and L. Teitel. 2009. Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lewis, C. 2002. Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools. Lewis, C. 2003. Lesson study: Crafting learning together: The essential elements of lesson study. Northwest Teacher. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Lewis, C. 2008. Lesson study. In Powerful designs for professional learning. 2nd ed. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Loucks-Horsley, S., K. Stiles, S. Mundry, N. Love, and P. Hewson. 2010. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Stigler, J., and J. Hiebert. 1999. The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

211

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

PART VII

PART VII CONCLUSION

A

t this point, I assume you are well on your way to gaining new or deeper understandings of STEM, standards, and strategies for designing, developing, and implementing instructional materials. A second theme that I have reinforced is that your leadership is essential, be that leadership in the classroom, school, or larger venues. I wish you continued success.

212

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Afterword

C

itizenry living and working in the 21st century need a higher level of knowledge and skills and more adaptability in different contexts than citizens of the past. Knowledge of STEM disciplines factors into a wide variety of positive human actions, from making healthy choices about diet, nutrition, and drug use to the wise usage of energy resources to the mitigation of natural and human-made hazards. We do not inherit STEM knowledge, skills, and ways of thinking. Such understanding and abilities are acquired, for the most part, through education. That means the historical “basics” of reading, writing, and arithmetic should be complemented with an understanding and application of STEM disciplines as they relate to a variety of life situations. STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units is one small step in a response to the perennial question of how to address this need. Given that the ability to supply STEM knowledge and practices is essential for all citizens in the 21st century and that education is the method to impart such information, it seems reasonable to assume that K–12 teachers should introduce STEM knowledge and practices in their classrooms. I have proposed a way to begin—with a unit that would introduce students to experiences with topics, issues, and problems requiring the application of STEM knowledge and practices. However, like most things in life, addressing the development of STEM units is a little more complicated than it sounds. For example, a majority of U.S. states have new standards for science, many of which include engineering and mathematics. The nation’s public and private schools can address both the application of STEM and the implementation of new standards. Leadership, especially by teachers, will be required throughout the unit development process. First, lead teachers, coordinators, and administrators should have preliminary discussions and make the decision to develop and implement STEM units. Other procedural and administrative actions are required as well—for example, the arrangement of a meeting space, an agreement by administrators to support teachers, and the identification of teacher teams to collaborate on this enterprise. This is the beginning of a program of professional development for the implementation of STEM units. STEM teachers can and should play a critical role in leading the design, development, and implementation of STEM units. With the processes presented in this book, they will be the ones actually implementing the units in their classrooms. This said, the book’s emphasis on teacher leadership should not be interpreted as a signal that teachers will undertake the entire challenge on their own. There is a critical and essential role for professional learning and support by the educational community (e.g., PLCs, administrators, school boards, parents) that surrounds STEM teachers. With administrative support, opportunities to collaborate, and expert guidance, teachers

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

213

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Afterword

2

can design, develop, and implement STEM units that are engaging for students, coherent across grades and school districts, and characterized by innovative STEM themes. The approach and innovative model for the development and implementation of instructional materials is reasonable and doable. The main idea is that teachers develop units with help from districts that support professional development and retain expert individuals and organizations to provide said professional development. The professional learning activities proposed in this book are a synthesis of my experiences with curriculum development, national standards, the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, backward design, project-based learning, and lesson study. I have combined these ideas, other past experiences, and information associated with implementing science standards to propose a professional development program that forms a coherent set of experiences led by teams of teachers in the development of STEM units. I wish you continued success in your efforts to improve the knowledge and abilities of all your students. I do hope that this book has made and will continue to make a small contribution to your success. With my appreciation, Rodger

214

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

INDEX

Note: Page references in bold indicate information contained in figures or tables. A Achieve, 4, 40, 42 adaptability, 84 adapting instructional materials, 36, 43–45, 47 evaluating choices, 37, 37 exploring unit design and, 63–64 influences on teacher’s adaptations, 44 limitations of, 43 preliminary screen of lessons and units proposed for, 44–45, 45 research on, 43–44 America’s Lab Report (NRC), 151 analysis, definition of, 145 “Analyzing the Coherence of Science Curriculum Materials” (Gardner), 164 argument, components of scientific, 155 argumentation from evidence, 97, 98 Argument-Driven Inquiry series, 155–156 assessment backward design and, 110–111, 112–115 of effectiveness of learning experiences, 162 evaluating the concepts and practices of learning outcomes, 127 evaluation phase of BSCE 5E model, 121, 122, 127, 130, 181, 182, 189 of example STEM unit, 181, 182 feedback, 161–162 formative, 162, 164 instructional material selection and, 42 learning outcomes as basis for, 186 monitoring student progress, 22 performance-based, 110–111, 112–115 preliminary design of units and, 57 rubric connections to NGSS, 182 summative, 121, 127, 162, 186 three dimensions and, 71 of your STEM unit, 186–187, 189 autonomy, providing, 79 B backward design, 4, 109–117, 111–115 assessment and, 110–111, 112–115

connecting to 5E Instructional Model, 116–117, 117 in developing your STEM unit, 186–187, 189, 189–193 example of phases for a fourth-grade unit, 111 STEM unit development and, 168 use of, 110 Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Tyler), 161–162 benefit, instructional material choice and, 37, 37 Bess, Cassie, 174–183 bottom-up/top-down approach, 14 BSCS 5E Instructional Model. See 5E Instructional Model Burns, James MacGreger, 31 Bybee, Keith, 104 C capstone project, 10 Carter, Stephen L., 104 Catalyzing Change in High School Mathematics: Initiating Critical Conversations (NCTM), 95 cause-and-effect relationships, 138 “challenging but achievable” design principle, 79 choice, providing, 79 civil discourse, 101–105, 102–103 civility, 104–105 Civility (Carter), 104 clarifying questions, 18, 19 Classroom Discussions: Using Math Talk to Help Students Learn (Chopin, O’Connor, and Anderson), 105 cognitive perspective on learning, 76–78 coherence, 163–164, 166 among system components, increasing, 20 definition, 163–164 “Coherence in High School Science” (Rutherford), 163 Common Core State Standards, 33, 42, 73, 136 BSCE 5E model, 123 connections to designing instructional sequence, 130 connections to math, 90, 136

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

215

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

evaluation rubric connecting to, 182 STEM practices, 89–90, 98–99 communicating explanations and solutions, 153 communicating results of a STEM investigation, 155, 156 communication, complex, 84 competency, NGSS performance expectations as measure of, 70 complex communication, 84 computational thinking, 94–95, 95 conceptual flow, 164 conceptual framework, 77–78, 162 constraints, definition of, 145 content covering all, 110 how students learn STEM content, 75–81 importance of, 150 STEM unit development and, 168 context importance of, 150 opportunities to learn, multiple and varied, 164 sociocultural perspective on learning and, 78–79 STEM unit development and, 168 for your STEM unit, 188 cost instructional material choice and, 37, 37 of professional development, 37 STEM program, 23 cost-risk-benefit review, 37, 37–38 criteria for STEM units, 20–21, 21 crosscutting concepts, 3, 42, 44, 78, 96, 136–138, 137, 142, 153, 165 backward design and, 111, 112, 116–117 BSCE 5E model and, 121, 123 evaluation rubric connecting to, 182 example of middle-school performance expectation, 72, 72 innovations and, 70–72 STEM practices and, 100 curriculum basic principles for developing instructional materials, 161–163 definitions and uses of term, 160 implementation, 162 systems perspective of, 160–161 curriculum development, 159–168

216

curriculum reform, 4 D data analyzing and interpreting, 93–94, 94 framework collecting data on a STEM lesson, 208 deciding, in 5D framework for STEM investigations, 151–152, 152 definitions for the STEM Disciplines, 179 density, 61–62 design backward design, 109–117, 111–115, 186–187, 189, 189–193 “challenging but achievable” design principle, 79 choice or autonomy, providing, 79 completion of, 125–130 definition of, 145 exploring unit design, 59–64, 60–64 initial evaluation, 127, 127 instructional sequence, evaluation of, 60, 60–62 of integrated instructional sequence, 128 learning outcomes, identifying coherent set of, 126 preliminary, 51–57 preliminary planning, 126–127 reflection questions, 64 relevancy of educational experiences, 79 socially and culturally situated learning experiences, 79 sociocultural perspective on learning and, 78–79 of STEM units for student learning, 79, 80 using 5E Instructional Model, 119–123, 122 Designing Meaningful STEM Lessons (Huling and Dwyer), 38 designing solutions, 71–72 determining, in 5D framework for STEM investigations, 151–152, 152 developing, in 5D framework for STEM investigations, 151–152, 152 developing instructional materials, 36–37, 37, 47 development alignment of activities with learning outcomes, 164

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

basic principles for instructional materials, 161–163 coherence and, 163–164 content and context, 168 enhanced student learning, 168 leadership by unit developers, 166–167, 213 learning outcomes, 167 opportunities to learn, multiple and varied, 164 principles and processes for curriculum development, 159–168 scaffolding for learning progressions, 164 of your STEM unit, 185–193, 188–193 devising, in 5D framework for STEM investigations, 151–152, 152 dialogue about STEM education, initiating, 18 different outcomes, opportunities to emphasize, 116 disciplinary core ideas, 3, 42, 44, 57 backward design and, 111, 112, 116–117 BSCE 5E model and, 121, 123 evaluation rubric connecting to, 182 example of middle-school performance expectation, 72, 72 innovations and, 70–72 STEM practices and, 100 discussion, civil discourse and, 101–105, 102–103 diversity issues, 165 documenting, in 5D framework for STEM investigations, 151–152, 152 Duschl, Richard, 150 E EdReports, 4, 9 educational purposes, of STEM unit, 161 Educators Evaluating the Quality of Instructional Products. See EQuIP elaborate phase, BSCE 5E model, 121, 122, 129, 180–181, 193 energy transfer, investigation on, 112–115 engagement of English language learners, 165 sample STEM unit and, 174–175 engage phase, BSCE 5E model, 120, 122, 128, 174–175, 190 engineering analyzing and interpreting data, 94, 94

argumentation from evidence, 97, 98 asking questions and defining problems, 91, 91 characteristics of, 145–146 constructing explanations and designing solutions, 96, 96 definitions, 144–145, 178, 179 developing and using models, 92, 92 explaining problems, 121 habits of mind, 145 history of, 144 identifying concepts and processes for your STEM unit, 188 investigations, 152, 154 obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, 98, 99 planning and carrying out investigations, 93, 93 science differentiated from, 146 in state standards, 146–147 using mathematic and computational thinking, 95, 95 engineering design, 72, 117 critical features, 146–147 emphasis on, 145–146 processes, 144 in state standards, 146–147 engineering design process, 180, 180 Engineering in K–12 Education (NAE), 145 English language arts (ELA), 73, 90 English language learners, 165 EQuIP, 4, 40, 42 equitable opportunities for learning, 165 equity issues, 165–166 evaluate phase, BSCE 5E model, 121, 122, 127, 130, 181, 182, 189 evaluation. See also assessment of effectiveness of learning experiences, 162 lesson study and, 199 evidence, argumentation from, 97, 98 evidence-based explanations, 136–137, 146, 164 evidence-based solutions, 96 evidence of student learning, 186–187, 200 backward design and, 110, 111, 116, 117, 186 evaluation of unit and, 127, 127, 130 instructional sequence evaluation, 60 preliminary design of units and, 56–57

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

217

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

example STEM unit, 173–183 explain phase, BSCE 5E model, 121, 122, 129, 177–179, 179, 192 explanations argumentation from evidence, 97 communicating, 153 constructing, 96 evidence-based, 136–137, 146, 164 of phenomena, 71–72, 96, 136 scientific, 136–138 explore phase, BSCE 5E model, 120–121, 122, 129, 175–176, 176, 191 Extras page, 4, 189 F feedback, 161–162, 199, 210–211 5D framework, 151–153, 152, 156 5E Instructional Model, 4, 85. See also specific phases of the model backward design and, 110, 116–117, 117 as basis for instructional sequence, 186 in developing your STEM unit, 186–187, 189, 189–193 elaborating STEM concepts and practices, 121 engaging learners with questions and problems, 120 evaluating learners, 121 evaluating the concepts and practices of learning outcomes, 127 explaining scientific phenomena and engineering problems, 121 exploring phenomena and problems, 120–121 5D model connections to, 152 integrated instructional sequence development, 128, 128–130 organizing student experiences, 122, 122 phases, 120–123, 122, 198, 210 revising a lesson and, 210 sample STEM unit and, 174–183 foreground/background recognition, 116 formative assessment, 162, 164 A Framework for K–12 Science Education, 3 connections to designing instructional sequence, 130 innovations based on, 69–73 investigations and, 150–153, 156 preliminary design of units and, 55

218

selection of instructional materials aligned with, 40, 42 STEM practices, 89–90, 99 STEM unit structure and, 160–161 use of technology and engineering summarized by, 146 vision for STEM education, 31–32 Framework for Technology and Engineering Literacy (NAEP), 144 function, STEM unit, 161 fundamental knowledge, 77 G goals defining, 18, 19, 22–23 identifying unit, 126 Great Pacific Garbage Patch, 174–175 H high quality, meaning of, 3–4 How Civility Works (Bybee), 104 How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice (Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino), 76–77 hypothesis, 61 I implementation of change in instructional programs, 162 lesson study and, 198–201 making commitment to STEM units, 21, 23 of NGSS in STEM units, 166 of sample STEM unit, 173–183 of your STEM unit, 188 information, obtaining, evaluating, and communicating, 98, 99 initial evaluation, design of, 127, 127 innovations, 69–73 designing solutions, 71–72 engineering design, 72 explaining phenomena, 71–72 incorporation of mathematics and English language arts, 73 learning progressions, 73 nature of science, 72 three-dimensional learning, 71 inquiry, practices of, 136. See also scientific inquiry

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

instructional activities, translating learning outcomes into, 126, 128 instructional materials choices for, 35–38, 37 cost-risk-benefit review, 37, 37–38 development, basic principles for, 161–163 goals of, 186 Instructional Model. See 5E Instructional Model instructional resources, 165, 167 Instructional Rounds in Education (City), 199 instructional sequence backward design and, 110–111, 116 BSCE 5E model and, 123, 128, 128–130 designing integrated, 128, 168 evaluating integrated, 128, 128–130 evaluation of, 60, 60–62 expanding lesson into integrated, 126 5E Instructional Model as basis for, 186 questions for reviewing, 130 STEM unit development and, 168 of your STEM unit, 187 instructional strategies STEM practices, 99–100 translating learning outcomes into, 126, 128 integrated instructional units, key features of, 151 interpretations, 60 introducing idea of STEM units, 18–22, 19, 21–23 investigations communicating results of a STEM investigation, 155, 156 A Framework for K–12 Science Education and, 150–153, 156 organizing results of, 155 planning, conducting, and communicating, 149–156 planning and carrying out, 92–93, 93 role of practices in a STEM activity, 154–155, 155–156 understanding scientific, 60–64, 63–64 K knowledge applying, 79 fundamental, 77 organizing to facilitate retrieval and application, 77 KWLs, 64, 64

L laboratory experiences, 151 language, equitable opportunities for learning and, 165 leadership, 8, 13–14, 17, 31–32, 162, 212–213 lesson study and, 200–201 by unit developers, 166–167 Leadership (Burns), 31 learning cognitive perspective on, 76–78 designing STEM units, 79, 80 how students learn STEM content, 75–81 NRC reports on, 76 sociocultural perspective on, 78–79 learning experiences evaluation of effectiveness, 162 implementation, 162 organization of, 162 selecting, 161–162 sequencing, 186 learning outcomes alignment of activities with, 164 backward design and, 110–117, 186 as basis for assessments, 186 development of STEM units, 167 evaluating the concepts and practices of, 127 identifying coherent set of, 126 identifying desired, 186 preliminary design of units and, 56–57 principle of instructional design, 186 standards and, 166 statements of, 56–57 STEM practices, 99–100 three dimensions and, 70–72 translating into instructional activities, 126, 128 learning progressions, 73, 164 lesson as daily activity, 186 expanding to integrated instructional sequence, 126, 128 as fundamental component of classroom teaching, 204 observation by peers, 207, 208 lesson study, 4, 197–201, 203–211 descriptions of lesson under study, 206

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

219

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

framework for making observations and collecting data on a STEM lesson, 208 modified process for, 205–211 observing the lesson, 207, 208 preparing for the lesson, 205 process summarized, 198–199 as professional learning, 204 rationale, 199–201 reteaching the lesson, 211 reviewing the lesson, 209, 210 revising the lesson, 210 structure, 204 teaching a new lesson, 211 teaching the lesson, 207 template for lesson study description, 205 Lewis, Catherine, 198–199 M mathematics analyzing and interpreting data, 93–94, 94 argumentation from evidence, 97, 98 asking questions and defining problems, 91, 91 for civic participation, 95 Common Core State Standards and, 90, 136 constructing explanations and designing solutions, 96, 96 definition of, 178, 179 developing and using models, 92, 92 identifying concepts and processes for your STEM unit, 188 incorporation into STEM units, 73 obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, 98, 99 planning and carrying out investigations, 93, 93 quantitative reasoning, 95 using mathematic and computational thinking, 94–95, 95 McTighe, Jay, 110 measurements, 61, 151–153 misconceptions of students, 76–78, 121 modeling, definition of, 145 models, developing and using, 92, 92 monitoring progress, 22

220

N National Academy of Engineering (NAE), 145 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 22 National Research Council (NRC) reports on learning, 76 National Science Education Standards, 3 nature of science, 72, 117, 136, 139–143 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), 3, 9–10, 25 backward design and, 110, 111, 116 BSCE 5E model and, 121, 123 connections to designing instructional sequence, 130 effect on STEM unit, 166 equity and diversity issues, 165 evaluation rubric connecting to, 182 implementation of sample STEM unit connected to, 174, 180–181, 182 nature of science matrix and understandings from, 139–143 preliminary design of units and, 55 selection of instructional materials aligned with, 40, 42–43 STEM practices, 90, 99 STEM unit structure and, 161 vision for STEM education, 31–32 NextGen TIME, 40, 41 O observations framework for making observations on a STEM lesson, 208 in STEM investigations, 60, 151–153 observing the lesson, 207, 208 opportunities to learn equitable, 165 multiple and varied, 164 optimization, definition of, 145 optimize, in engineering design process, 180, 180 organizing student experiences, 122, 122 P Parsons, Seth, 43 performance-based assessment, 110–111, 112–115 performance expectations, 3, 42, 165 backward design and, 110, 111, 116–117 example of middle-school, 72, 72

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

NGSS as measure of competency, 70 three dimensions and, 70–72 phenomena explaining, 71–72, 96, 121, 136, 138 exploring, 120 place-based situation/project, 4, 43, 54, 73, 79, 84–85, 123, 126, 130, 154, 166, 173, 187, 188, 206 plan of action, 9–10, 25–30, 32 big-picture planning, 26–28 clarifying your, 28 planning for specific dimensions, 29, 29 story creation, 27–28, 27–28 time frame for change, 28 trip planning analogy, 26 postage stamps, STEM-related, 2, 2 practices. See STEM practices preconceptions of students, 76–78 preliminary design, 51–57 connections to state standards, 55, 57 critical questions about, 56–57 discussion questions for, 53, 53–54 dos and don’ts for, 52 evidence of student learning, 57 examples of contexts for, 54 framework for preparing, 55, 55 getting started on, 52 learning outcomes desired, 56–57 place-, project-, problem-based approach, 54 reflecting on your design and making your ideas public, 56 problem-based situations, 4, 21, 54, 73, 79, 84–85, 122, 123, 126–127, 130, 154, 166, 187 problems defining and clarifying human, 146 defining in engineering design process, 180, 180 defining in STEM units, 90–91, 91 developing solutions to, 146 engaging learners with questions and problems, 120 engineering and, 146 explaining engineering, 121 planning and carrying out investigations, 93 possible for STEM investigations, 154 proposing solutions to, 120 problem solving, nonroutine, 84–85 professional development, 13, 20, 27, 36–37, 43

cost, 37 leadership by unit developers, 167 program for implementation of STEM units, 213 role in curriculum reform, 162 support for, 214 professional learning, 7, 10, 14, 30, 32, 42, 213–214 lesson study as, 204 outcomes and processes for, 7 professional learning community (PLC) change in institutional programs achieved by, 162 developmental support from, 186 EQuIP rubric use, 42 lesson study, 198–201, 204, 211 reflection on design, 56, 64 role of practices in STEM activity, 153 use of book by, 8, 10 Program for International Student Assessment, 22 progress, monitoring, 22 progression of knowledge and skills, 72 project-based situation/activities, 4, 43, 54, 73, 79, 123, 126, 130, 154, 161, 166, 187, 188, 214 Promising Professional Learning: Tools and Practices (Bybee, Short, and Kastel), 40 public conduct, civility as a code of, 104 Q quantitative literacy, 95 quantitative reasoning, 95 questions about natural phenomena, 136 asking in STEM units, 90–91, 91 clarifying, 18, 19 engaging learners with questions and problems, 120 KWLs, 64, 64 planning and carrying out investigations, 93 possible scientific for STEM investigations, 154 scaffolded, 42 science and, 146 R Ready, Set, Science (Michaels, Shouse, and Schweingruber), 90 reflective thinking, 77–78, 85

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

221

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

relevancy of educational experiences, 79 resources, 165, 167 reteaching the lesson, 211 reviewing the lesson, 209, 210 revising the lesson, 210 risk, instructional material choice and, 37, 37 Rutherford, F. James, 163 S sample unit, analysis of, 60–64, 60–64 Sampson, Victor, 155 scaffolded questions, 42 scaffolding for challenging learning experiences, 79 for learning progressions, 164 Schwab, Joseph, 160 science analyzing and interpreting data, 94, 94 argumentation from evidence, 97, 98 asking questions and defining problems, 91, 91 constructing explanations and designing solutions, 96, 96 definition of, 178, 179 developing and using models, 92, 92 engineering differentiated from, 146 identifying concepts and processes for your STEM unit, 188 investigations, 152, 154 nature of, 72, 117, 136, 139–143 obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, 98, 99 planning and carrying out investigations, 93, 93 practices/processes, 136 using mathematic and computational thinking, 95, 95 science and engineering practices, 3, 42, 44, 90, 137, 137, 146–147, 156 backward design and, 111, 112, 116–117 BSCE 5E model and, 121, 123 evaluation rubric connecting to, 182 example of middle-school performance expectation, 72, 72 innovations and, 70–72 role of practices in a STEM activity, 154–155, 155–156 scientific explanations, 136–138

222

scientific inquiry, 40, 78, 91–92, 136, 146, 151, 179 scientific investigations, understanding, 60–64, 63–64 selecting instructional materials, 36–37, 40–43, 47 self-development, 85 self-management, 85 sequencing, in developing your STEM unit, 186–187 skills, 21st-century, 83–86 adaptability, 84 complex communication, 84 nonroutine problem solving, 84–85 self-management/self-development, 85 systems thinking, 86 socially and culturally situated learning experiences, 79 sociocultural learning, civil discourse and, 104 sociocultural perspective on learning, 78–79 solutions argumentation from evidence, 97 communicating, 153 designing, 71–72, 96, 96 developing in engineering design process, 180, 180 optimizing the design, 146 proposing, 120 standards. See also Common Core State Standards; Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS); state standards implementation, 166 long-term positive influence of national, 166 overview of, 3 state standards, 2–3, 9–10, 14, 25, 31, 33, 35–36, 40, 47. See also Common Core State Standards connecting STEM units and, 20 developing high-quality STEM units, 166 exploring unit design and alignment with, 63–64 fundamental knowledge, 77 innovations and, 70 lesson study and, 200 preliminary design of units and, 55, 57 STEM unit structure and, 161 technology and engineering in, 146–147 STEM, meanings attributed to term, 2 STEM practices, 89–100 analyzing and interpreting data, 93–94, 94 argumentation from evidence, 97, 98

National Science Teaching Association

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

Index

asking questions and defining problems, 90–91, 91 constructing explanations and designing solutions, 96, 96 developing and using models, 92, 92 elaborating, 121 obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, 98, 99 planning and carrying out investigations, 92–93, 93 using mathematic and computational thinking, 94–95, 95 STEM units. See units storyline, 164, 187 strategy, 3 structure, STEM unit, 160–163 student activities, preliminary design of units and, 57 summative assessment, 121, 127, 162, 186 supply and demand, STEM and, 26 system, definition of, 145 systems thinking, 86 T teaching a new lesson, 211 “Teaching for Civic Engagement” (Colley), 105 teaching STEM unit, as a “field test,” 198 teaching strategies, preliminary design of units and, 57 teaching the lesson, in lesson study, 207 technology analyzing and interpreting data, 94, 94 argumentation from evidence, 97, 98 asking questions and defining problems, 91, 91 characteristics of, 145–146 constructing explanations and designing solutions, 96, 96 definitions, 144–145, 178, 179 developing and using models, 92, 92 history of, 144 identifying concepts and processes for your STEM unit, 188 obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, 98, 99 planning and carrying out investigations, 93, 93

scientific explanations linked to, 138 in state standards, 146–147 using mathematic and computational thinking, 95, 95 technology and engineering literacy, 144 themes for book, 2–4 three-dimensional learning, 71. See also crosscutting concepts; disciplinary core ideas; science and engineering practices trade-offs, definition of, 145 transfer of concepts and practices to new situations, 121 Trends in Math and Science Study, 22 21st-century skills, 83–86 Tyler, Ralph, 161–162 U Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe), 110, 116, 186 The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High-Quality Units (Wiggins and McTighe), 186 unit development, 159–168 units action plan for developing, 9–10 connecting state standards and, 20 criteria for, 20–21, 21 description of, 4 designing for learning, 79, 80 developing your, 185–193, 188–193 example, 173–183 implementation, commitment to, 21, 23 innovations incorporated into, 69–73 integrated, 10, 32, 126–128 introducing idea of, 18–22, 19, 21–23 length of, 4, 9–10 preliminary design preparation, 51–57 revision of current, 4 sample unit, analysis of, 60–64, 60–64 “Unpacking the STEM Disciplines” (Bess), 174 using chapters and activities of the book, 8–9 V vision, 17–24, 31–32 W WestEd, 14, 40 Wiggins, Grant, 110

STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units

223

Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268

STEM, STANDARDS, STRATEGIES D N A

for

High-Quality Units o you, your school, or your school district want to align your science curriculum with state standards while meeting the growing demand for STEM instruction? If so, this is the book for you. It’s a guide to creating coherent, high-quality classroom materials that make standards and STEM work together in ways that are both effective for learning and practical for teaching.

D

The author of STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units is thought leader and curriculum expert Rodger W. Bybee. He wrote it to be useful for individual teachers, professional learning communities, and professional developers. The book offers explicit directions for how these different groups can use the book’s background information and activities at each step of developing a standards-based STEM unit. Book sections discuss the following: • Making decisions about selecting, adapting, and developing STEM materials • Getting started with preliminary unit designs • Improving your design with new knowledge and skills • Developing your STEM unit • Teaching and improving your unit Throughout the book, Bybee draws on contemporary educational strategies such as the 5E Instructional Model, backward design, and lesson study. “Because most states have new science standards, it only makes sense to incorporate various aspects of those standards in STEM activities,” Bybee writes. STEM, Standards, and Strategies for High-Quality Units can help you do this, whether your school is developing a new STEM program, adapting current instructional materials, or creating new materials of its own. PB453X ISBN: 978-1-68140-626-8 GRADES K–12

9 781681 406268 Copyright © 2020 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions. TO PURCHASE THIS BOOK, please visit https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681406268