State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire

State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Purpose and Audience This questionnaire allows users to gain a more thorough understanding of the similarities and differences between two sets of state science education standards that would not otherwise be captured by a more a traditional comparison. Typical state standards “crosswalk”-style documents focus on a one- to-one comparison of discipline-specific science content between sets of standards. Because new science standards documents, including the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), differ greatly in structure, complexity, and intent from other existing sets of standards, these one-to-one content comparisons might not fully capture the extent of the differences between standards. By answering the questions in this document, users should be better able to identify how standards compare on various aspects of knowledge development.

Due to the broad and inclusive nature of the questions, this questionnaire is also useful as a learning tool. While simply reading the answers in a completed questionnaire can be helpful to new users, the act of preparing answers to at least one or two of the questions will provide users with a much deeper understanding of each set of standards and of the comparisons between them. Furthermore, because the answers each user provides may vary depending on their experience and role (e.g., state board of education members, administrators, and teachers), it is recommended that multiple different stakeholder groups be given the opportunity to independently answer at least one question whenever possible. The incorporation of multiple perspectives will further enhance the depth of understanding of the differences between the sets of standards compared.

Intended User Ideally, individual(s) who use the questionnaire should have some familiarity with both sets of standards being compared. Primary participants could include state science supervisors, district administrators, teachers, and developers of instructional materials or assessments. However, because it is crucial that the comparison process be transparent and unbiased, when the questionnaire is used at a state or district level, it may be necessary to involve independent parties outside of the internal standards review team, such as higher education faculty members, researchers, business leaders, and others who are respected by the decision makers and their constituents.

Structure The questionnaire is designed as a table with rows containing suggested categories for comparison and columns listing the standards to be compared. For each set of standards, there is one column for a description of how those standards address the question in each row and a second column to cite the location of evidence from those standards that supports that description. When considering a question, users should give details of exactly how the

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 1 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Standards A: Standards B:

Next Generation Science Standards (2013)

C a t Evidence from Evidence from e How Do Standards A Address Standards A to How Do Standards B Address the Question Standards B to Support g the Question? Support the Question? the Answer o Answer r y

information in the standards answers the question and then list specifically where in the standards documents this information can be found. This design is intended to help users make broad, conceptual comparisons about the intent and methods for student learning between two sets of standards, particularly in places where a focused, detailed one-to-one comparison would fall short. Also, because of the focus on documenting evidence for each answer, this design will also help users gather documentation to support adoption and implementation decisions regarding state science education standards.

The structure of the questionnaire can be customized for a particular situation or context. For example, rows can be expanded to include greater detail in areas of particular local importance (e.g., the inclusion of engineering design).

Identifying Opportunities for Direct Comparison Between Sets of Standards While the intent of the questionnaire is to focus on conceptual comparisons between sets of state standards, there are some instances where a direct comparison of individual standards is useful. While these direct comparisons resemble the one-to-one content comparisons of more traditional “crosswalk” documents, the purpose of direct comparisons in this questionnaire is different. Direct comparisons of standards with similar components in this case are

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 2 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire meant to highlight similarities and differences in the specificity and demands of different sets of standards.

For such purposes, a direct comparison between standards of similar content but different structure or design can be challenging, especially with standards that have a multidimensional design (e.g., the NGSS). One way this can be done is by comparing the verbs used in each statement.

For example, at right is a comparison between a learning outcome from Kansas’s previous Science Education Standards (Kansas adopted the NGSS as their new state science education standards in June 2013) and a related NGSS performance expectation:

Kansas 2007 Science Education Standards, Grades 8–11, NGSS Life Sciences Grades 9–12, Biology, HS.3.3.4 HS-LS3-3 ”The student understands organisms vary widely ”Apply concepts of statistics and probability within and between populations. Variation allows for to explain the variation and distribution of natural selection to occur.” expressed traits in a population.” Such a comparison of the verbs in two statements of similar content helps to illustrate the different level of required student synthesis and depth of knowledge as well as the differences in the specificity of standards with respect to what it means to “meet” each standard. A comparison such as this can also help highlight similarities and differences in equity and issues of access as well as other qualitative differences between the standards. These specific comparisons should be chosen based on relevance to the state’s education needs and decision makers’ priorities.

Other methods of direct comparison between standards include but are not limited to: (a) mapping aligned assessment or instructional items to one another or to the other set of standards, (b) comparing a standard in one set to the “nearest neighbor” in the other standards document, and (c) if a “nearest neighbor” does not exist, writing a comparable standard modeled after the verbs and architecture found in the standard of interest.

Terms and Language When developing a comparison and presentation for decision makers, keep in mind the connotations of language choices. As much as possible, language used should be non-technical and neutral with regard to any particular set of standards. In other words, the language should be applicable to both sets of

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 3 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire standards in the comparison.

Due to the differences between this questionnaire’s comparisons and a typical “crosswalk” document, avoiding the term “crosswalk” when describing the results is advised. Some states have successfully used the terms comparison, alignment, or analysis in presentations.

Please note that this is a comparison tool to produce evidence for discussion regarding similarities and differences between sets of standards and the presentation of these to various audiences. This questionnaire and the table of information produced should not be relied upon to serve as the primary means of information delivery to the intended audience (e.g., board of education, school committee, etc.). Once the comparison is complete and all users have had a chance to provide answers to the questionnaire, this tool could then inform a more formal report or presentation that details the significant findings.

General Information on Standards Development and Design

The development and use of standards in education typically follow an outcome-based education model where the standards are statements of what students are supposed to have learned and be able to do by the end of their instructional experience, and these statements are used to guide the development of all components of the education system (Spady, 1994).

When developing an outcome-based education system, the outcomes are clear, specific, and measureable, as stated in a framework document (Acharya, 2003; Killen, 2000; Spady, 1994). The outcomes are then used to build curriculum plans, instructional units, and assessment, with assessment measuring if curriculum and instruction are producing the measured achievement stated in the outcomes. The outcomes are designed to apply to all learners and set a high bar for all student achievement, such that all students must be successful at meeting the outcomes. It is recommended that multiple instructional and assessment strategies be developed to meet the needs of each student, allowing every student to achieve the outcomes.

Gener Question Standards A: Standards B: al Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Infor matio How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Address the Question? Evidence from Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 4 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire What process Process Workgroups are The NGSS were developed in a state-led NGSS Introduction was used to - Writing Team (Academic and Internal identified on inside process. Twenty-six states signed on to be Lead (NGSS Lead States, develop the Review) Workgroups) cover (HSCE). State Partners. The states provided guidance 2013, Vol. I, p. xvi); standards, - Scholarly Research review Process description and direction in the development of the NGSS http://www.nextgen including what - Identified structure and alignment and research to the 41-member writing team, composed of science.org/lead- research and constraints/requirements review on page 1. K–20 educators and experts in both science and state-partners; background - Extensive field review engineering. In addition to six reviews by the http://www.nextgen materials (NSES, HSCE - Science lead states and their committees, the NGSS science.org/writing- http://www.michig etc.) are the Based on were reviewed during development by team; an.gov/mde/0,461 standards K-12: 2009 NAEP Science Framework (2006), hundreds of experts during confidential review http://www.nextgen n on 5,7-140- documents based AAAS Project 2061 (1993), NSES (NRC, 1996), periods and tens of thousands of members of science.org/critical- 38924_41644_428 Stand on? MCF Science (2000) the general public during two public review stakeholders; 14---,00.html ards HS: S4S/UUS (2006), ACT CRS, CB AP course periods. National Research GLCE – Science Devel descriptions, ACT Success, Council Review of http://www.michig opme SREB/HSTW/MMGW Science The NGSS content and structure are based on the Next Generation K-7 Taking Science to School (NRC, 2007) an.gov/documents nt the National Research Council’s Framework for Science Standards /mde/Complete_S K–12 Science Education (2012a), and an NRC and (NGSS Lead States, cience_GLCE_12- review found that the NGSS were faithful to the Desig 2013, Vol. I, p. v); 12- Framework. n 07_218314_7.pdf Gener Standards A: Standards B: al Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Question Infor How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI Evidence from How Do Standards B Address the Question? matio Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B n on What part(s) of MI HSCE are structured to address useful Description and The performance expectations of the NGSS are NGSS Introduction Stand the standards and connected knowledge at four levels chart explaining the assessable components. (NGSS Lead States, ards documentation  Prerequisite levels and 2013, Vol. I, p. xviii) Devel represent the  Essential expectations and opme assessable  Core intended nt components?  Recommended assessment plans “Essential content knowledge and (HSCE, p. 2) and performance expectations are required for Desig graduation and are assessable on the Essential n Michigan Merit Exam (MME) and on future Performance secondary credit assessments.” Expectations from All levels of performance expectations are all 4 disciplines are assessable through formative assessment; published in a Prerequisite, Essential, and Core are separate assessable on large scale assessments. document

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 5 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire All K-7 GLCE are assessable. http://www.michig an.gov/documents /mde/Essential_Sci ence_204486_7.pd f

Standards A: Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE Next Generation Science Standards (2013) 2006/GLCE 2009 How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 6 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire General Information What part(s) of the “Essential content Requirements for earning The NGSS focus on a Appendix D (NGSS Lead on Standards science standards are knowledge and science credit are limited number of core States, 2013, Vol. II, Development and required of all high school performance expectations explained on HSCE p. 2 ideas in science and pp.25–39), Appendix E Design students, and to what are required for and in separate Course/ engineering that build (NGSS Lead States, 2013, extent do these fit the graduation and are Credit Requirements coherently over time Vol. II, pp.40–47), time restrictions of a assessable on the documents throughout K–12 in an Appendix K (NGSS Lead typical school year? Michigan Merit Exam http://www.michigan.gov effort to foster a greater States, 2013, Vol. II, (MME) and on future /mde/0,4615,7-140- depth of understanding pp.113–136) secondary credit 38924_41644_42814---,0 on a few fundamental assessments.” 0.html concepts within the constraints of the typical “Credit for high school school year (Vol. II, pp.40, Earth Science, Biology, MMC Overview 113–115). These Physics, and Chemistry http://www.michigan.gov standards are expected will be defined as meeting /documents/mde/New_M of all students, including both essential and core MC_one_pager_11.15.06 at the high school level, subject area content _183755_7.pdf with opportunity for expectations. Credit accelerated students to requirements are outlined continue past the in separate Michigan Science Priority requirement of the Merit Curriculum Expectations standards (Vol. II, pp.25, Course/Credit http://www.macombscie 31, 114). However, Requirement nce.org/uploads/5/8/3/4/ having expectations for all documents.” 583452/priority_standard students doesn’t mean s_-_isd_statewide.pdf that all students will take The Michigan Merit the same courses in high Curriculum (MMC) school. There are many requires students to earn different ways to one credit in Biology, one structure different credit in either Chemistry courses (e.g. CTE courses, or Physics, and one integrated science, senior additional science credit. project, etc.) that could Credit may be earned in help different students traditional science reach and exceed courses, integrated proficiency on the science courses, or standards. alternative instructional delivery methods (e.g., CTE, technology,

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 7 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire vocational education courses).

Finding the HSCE to be “numerous and vast in breadth,” a group of MI educators developed Science Priority Expectations. They “prioritized” expectations that best point to central ideas (big ideas and core concepts), lend themselves to rich student investigations, and readily connect to critical societal concerns.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 8 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Research on the Nature of Science and Methods of Inquiry in Science

Learning about science involves more than just learning facts and concepts; it involves learning about how scientists view the world (e.g., habits of mind and modes of thought), how scientific knowledge is developed (e.g., processes of questioning, investigation, data collection, and data analysis), and how the different scientific disciplines are connected in describing the natural world (AAAS, 1989, pp. 1-12; Lederman, 1992; McComas et al., 1998). Aspects of the “Nature of Science”, including components of scientific inquiry, could be explicitly integrated with science content in the standards to give students a deeper appreciation for how scientific knowledge is developed, which enhances the depth of content learning (Clough, 1998; Khisfe and Lederman, 2006; Lederman and Lederman, 2004; McComas and Olson, 1998; McDonald, 2010; NRC, 1996, p.105, 107, Table 6.7; NRC, 2002a, pp. 18-20, Table 2.2, 2.3; Schwartz et al., 2004; Songer and Linn, 1991). Also, highlighting in the standards important overarching themes of science that apply to all scientific disciples (e.g., systems, models, consistency and change, scale, etc.) and more content-specific core concepts shared by more than one discipline helps students to develop a greater depth of understanding by allowing them to consider a single, fundamental scientific theme/concept in different disciplinary contexts (AAAS, 1989, pp. 165-181; Georghiades; 2000; Helfand, 2004; Hestenes, 2013; Ivanitskaya et al., 2002; Jacobson and Wilensky, 2006; Jordan, 1989; Mathison and Freeman, 1998; NRC, 1996, p.104; NRC, 2012a, pp. 83-101; Parsons and Beauchamp, 2012, pp. 157-173).

Components of scientific inquiry can specifically be incorporated with the content in the standards by including student expectations such as: understanding and using subject specific vocabulary; individual and collaborative investigation; building models, sketches, and diagrams; critical analysis of a text or an argument; evidence-based argumentation and explanation; making predictions; developing and testing hypotheses; computation; using tables and graphs to interpret and present data; and communicating scientific findings and ideas in multiple forms (AAAS, 1989, pp. 1-12; Anderson, 2002; Haury, 1993; Llewellyn, 2006, p.27; Minner et al., 2010; NRC, 1996, p.105, Table 6.1; NRC, 2002a, pp. 18-20, 115-120, Tables 2.2 & 2.3; NRC, 2005, pp.397-415).

Students will have the greatest potential to develop deep understanding of science content and of the Nature of Science when they can engage in the material covered by the standards through a variety of learning avenues (Magnusson et al., 1999, Table II, p. 101; Minner et al., 2010; NRC, 1996, p.105; NRC, 2002a, pp.115- 124; Zirbel, 2006). Providing room for such flexibility of learning in the standards gives students opportunities to encounter or apply science content in different, typically novel settings (i.e. learning transfer) and also benefits all students because the content can be tailored to students with different learning styles, motivations, and cultural backgrounds (Felder and Brent, 2005; Felder and Silverman, 1988; Georghiades, 2000; NRC, 1999, pp. 62-68; NRC, 2002a, pp. 119- 120,126; Tanner and Allen, 2004).

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 9 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Nature of Science Question Standards A: Standards B: and Methods of Michigan Science HSCE Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Inquiry in Science 2006/GLCE 2009 How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 10 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How is the ”Nature of The Nature of Science is Described in detail as The NGSS include eight Appendix H (NGSS Lead Science” represented in addressed in HSCE included in Scientific student “Understandings States, 2013, Vol. II, the standards? Standard 1 (Inquiry, Inquiry, Reflection, and about the Nature of pp.96–102) Reflection, and Social Social Implications (HSCE, Science” (Vol. II, p.97) in Implications) and GLCE p. 6) each grade band K–12. Discipline 1 (Science These are described in Processes). Nature of detail in Appendix H (Vol. Science is specifically II, pp. 96–102) and are described using language incorporated in the from Benchmarks for practices and crosscutting Science Literacy (HSCE, p. concepts foundation 6). boxes throughout the standards wherever they are used in the student performance expectations; for an example, see HS-ESS1 (Vol. I, pp.120–121). The first four Nature of Science themes describe student experiences within the scientific and engineering practices dimension, and the next four themes describe student understanding within the crosscutting concepts dimension (Vol. II, pp. 97–99).

Nature of Science Question Standards A: Standards B: and Methods of Michigan Science HSCE Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Inquiry in Science 2006/GLCE 2009

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 11 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 12 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire What aspects of scientific Scientific Inquiry is Scientific Inquiry, The NGSS are written as Appendix F (NGSS Lead inquiry and processes described in the Reflection, and Social performance expectations States, 2013, Vol. II, (e.g., skills and habits of introduction in terms of Implications (HSCE, pp. 6- built from the three pp.48–78) mind) are expressed in the science practices, habits 7) dimensions described in standards, and how are of mind, and nature of the NRC Framework they related to or science. Organization of Each (2012a), including Science integrated with the Standard (HSCE, p. 8) Practices (Vol. II, p.48). content? Scientific inquiry, These eight practices are reflection and social the behaviors that implications are scientists engage in as addressed in Standard 1; they investigate and build discipline-specific content Knowledge and Practices models and theories expectations are of Model-Based about the natural world: addressed in Standards 2 Reasoning (HSCE, p. 4) Asking questions; – 5. Each standard Developing and using includes three parts: a models; Planning and standard statement, carrying out content statements, and investigations; Analyzing performance and interpreting data; expectations. Using mathematics and computational thinking; The Practices of Science Constructing Literacy are further explanations; Engaging in described using the argument from evidence; “Knowledge and Practices and Obtaining, evaluating, of Model-Based and communicating Reasoning,” which relates information. The Learning from Data practices are integrated (Inquiry) with Application with the disciplinary core (Using Knowledge). ideas and crosscutting concepts in every NGSS performance expectation, such that students are expected to demonstrate their understanding of the core ideas and crosscutting concepts in the context of the practices. For an example, see HS-ESS1

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 14 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How are the The HSCE use the Knowledge and Practices The NGSS express Appendix G (NGSS Lead interconnections in Knowledge and Practices of Model-Based interconnections among States, 2013, Vol. II, scientific content among of Model-Based Reasoning (HSCE, pp. 4-5) scientific disciplines in pp.79–95) individual scientific Reasoning Structure to Description of PE (HSCE, two distinct ways. First, disciples (e.g., chemistry, relate Learning from Data p. 8) one of the three NRC life sciences, physical (Inquiry) with Application Framework (2012a) sciences, earth sciences, (Using Knowledge). Companion Documents dimensions from which etc.) expressed in the “Performance High School the NGSS performance standards? expectations are derived http://www.michigan.gov/ expectations were from the intersection of mde/0,4615,7-140- developed is the content statements and 28753_64839_38684_2876 crosscutting concepts. practices.” 0-171474--,00.html Crosscutting concepts are Priority Expectations ideas that have http://www.macombscienc Interconnections are applicability across all e.org/uploads/5/8/3/4/583 addressed by including science disciplines and 452/priority_standards_- references to crosscutting _isd_statewide.pdf that serve to deepen concepts in each 5-7 student understanding of disciplinary section. http://michigan.gov/docu each discipline (Vol. II, ments/mde/5- p.79). They are The crosscutting concepts 7_Science_GLCE_Companio integrated in each are not spelled out in the n_Document_v.1.09_2_264 performance expectation, standards document, but 472_7.pdf such that students are included in K-4 demonstrate their companion documents http://www.slideserve.com understanding of the developed to support /khuong/michigan-high- disciplinary core ideas and implementation and unit school-science-content- practices in the context of development. expectations the crosscutting concepts. For an example, see HS- Priority Expectations ESS1 (Vol. I, pp.119–121). documents identify big The progression in ideas and core concepts expectations of student for each unit of study. performance on the crosscutting concepts Big Ideas (Key Concepts) through the grade levels is and Curricular also described in detail in Connections and Appendix G (Vol. II, Integrations are identified pp.79–95). in K-7 Companion Documents. The NGSS also express interconnections in

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 16 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire In what ways do the The HSCE use the Knowledge and Practices The performance Appendix D (NGSS Lead standards encourage Knowledge and Practices of Model-Based expectations are not a States, 2013, Vol. II, students to utilize of Model-Based Reasoning (HSCE, pp. 4-7) curriculum and do not pp.25–39); Appendix F multiple avenues of Reasoning Structure to dictate methods of (NGSS Lead States, 2013, learning (e.g., learning by relate Learning from Data instruction. Instead, they Vol. II, pp.49–50) doing, direct instruction, (Inquiry) with Application are statements of what reading, etc.) and to apply (Using Knowledge). students should know and content material in novel “Performance be able to do at the end situations? expectations are derived of each grade band (Vol. I, from the intersection of p.xxiii). The performance content statements and expectations can and practices.” should be met through a By describing Identifying MMC Science number of different and Using Science Course/Credit means (e.g. Vol. II, p.101) Principles, Inquiry, and Requirements documents allowing for multiple Reflection and Social http://www.michigan.gov avenues of learning for Implications, the HSCE /mde/0,1607,7-140- diverse student groups encourage learning by 38924_41644_42814---,0 (Vol. II, p.35) as well as doing as well as accessing 0.html encouraging innovation and communicating and creativity in science information. instruction. Importantly, the integration of science The GLCE/HSCE and engineering practices documents do not into the performance specifically encourage expectations in the NGSS multiple avenues of ensures that students will learning. Course/Credit be expected to Requirements documents demonstrate proficiency for all MMC credits in many different kinds of describe Curriculum Unit skills, thereby increasing Design, and provide ideas the likelihood that for engaging and effective instruction will units of instruction, incorporate many including “a focus on big different kinds of learning ideas that have great modes. transfer value, varied flexible instruction for diverse learners, explicit and systematic instruction, adequate

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 17 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Research on Connections/Relationships Among Standards at Different Grade Levels

Research on the retention and depth of understanding of science content indicates that learning is enhanced through repeated and varied engagement with the content (NRC, 1999, pp. 20, 51-78; NRC, 2001, pp. 84-88; NRC, 2007, pp.211-249). The coverage of a greater number of concepts that are sequentially introduced from grade level to grade level leads to a shallow understanding of each of those concepts, whereas the repetition of fewer concepts that are considered fundamental and that increase in sophistication with grade level leads to a deeper understanding of those concepts (e.g. learning progressions; Corcoran et al., 2009; Duschl et al., 2011; Kesidou and Roseman, 2002; NRC, 2007, pp.211-216; NRC, 2008, pp.59-85; Schmidt et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2006). By focusing on fewer concepts, there is the opportunity to investigate those concepts with methodology consistent with current scientific inquiry and processes, which also leads to greater knowledge transfer (Grabinger and Dunlap, 1995; Lavonen and Laaksonen, 2009).

In instances where the science standards are coherent, with science concepts introduced gradually and then deliberately built upon from grade-level to grade- level (i.e. curriculum coherence), there are quantified increases in learning (e.g. higher test scores and increased performance at the college level; Bao et al., 2009; NRC, 2007, p.216; Schmidt et al., 2005; Schwartz et al., 2008; Valverde and Schmidt, 2000). Because the progressive building of a few fundamental concepts over time leads to a deeper understanding of those concepts, every standard at every grade level that addresses a concept is essential to understanding the learning goals in subsequent years.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 18 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Connections/Relations Question Standards A: hips Among Standards Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE at Different Grade Next Generation Science Standards (2013) 2006/GLCE 2009 Levels How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 19 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire In what ways are the The scope of content Grade Band Charts The NGSS focus on a Appendix E (NGSS Lead standards designed to addressed in the MI GLCE Life (12.07) limited number of core States, 2013, Vol. II, build from grade level to and HSCE aligns closely http://michigan.gov/docu ideas in science and pp.40–47), Appendix F grade level in science with the NAEP Framework ments/mde/LSAcrosstheG engineering that build (NGSS Lead States, 2013, content, depth of content and address a limited rades_225540_7.pdf coherently over time Vol. II, pp.48–78), understanding, and the number of disciplinary Physical (12.07) throughout K–12 (Vol. II, Appendix G (NGSS Lead application of scientific topics at each grade band, http://www.michigan.gov pp.41–47, “Disciplinary States, 2013, Vol. II, inquiry and processes? providing a progression of /documents/mde/PSAcro Core Idea Progression pp.79–95) content knowledge that sstheGrades_225541_7.p charts”), such that by the builds throughout K-HS. df end of high school all Grade band progressions Earth (12.07) students are expected to by content statement are http://www.michigan.gov have developed an provided for each science /documents/mde/ESAcros accurate and thorough discipline K-7. stheGrades_225538_7.pd understanding of each f core idea. The depth of MI HSCE are structured to understanding address useful and Knowledge Levels (HSCE, appropriate for each connected knowledge at p. 2) grade band was specified four levels Topic Progression Chart by the NRC Framework  Prerequisite http://create4stem.msu.e (2012a). Student  Essential du/sites/default/files/pag performance expectations  Core es/Progressions%20by at each grade band form a  Recommended %20Topic%20April foundation for the Prerequisite knowledge %202013%20NGSS achievement of the next describes “useful and %20SFIP.pdf grade band’s associated connected knowledge performance that all students should expectation(s). Practices bring as a prerequisite to and crosscutting concepts high school science also grow in complexity classes.” K-4 builds to 5- and sophistication across 7, with some gaps the grades (Vol. II, pp. 49– between 5-7 and 67, “practices tables”; Vol. prerequisite HSCE. II, pp. 80–88 “crosscutting concept tables”), allowing Inquiry and reflection for a greater depth of standards build in understanding of the core sophistication in each ideas and crosscutting grade band (K-4, 5-7, and concepts over time, as HS). well as a greater mastery of science and

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 20 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Connections/Relations Question Standards A: hips Among Standards Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE at Different Grade Next Generation Science Standards (2013) 2006/GLCE 2009 Levels How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 21 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire If there are any “outlier MI HSCE are structured to Knowledge Levels (HSCE, The NGSS are standards Appendix E (NGSS Lead concepts” within the address useful and p. 2) for all students and focus States, 2013, Vol. II, standards, how might they connected knowledge at on a limited number of pp.40–47) relate back to or reinforce four levels core ideas in science (Vol. the other concepts in the  Prerequisite II, p.40). These core ideas standards?  Essential were derived from the  Core NRC Framework (2012a)  Recommended and met the Framework Core - for all high school committee’s criteria for graduates who have inclusion in expectations completed a discipline- for all students. To specific course. In general ensure that the NGSS core knowledge includes scope was teachable and content and expectations that there can be time in that students need to be a typical classroom to prepared for more help all students build advanced study in that depth of understanding in discipline. these core ideas, the NGSS do not include Recommended – concepts that fall outside desirable as preparation the direct progression to for more advanced study each core idea. However, in the discipline, but not the NGSS should not be required for graduation viewed as a ceiling for credit. instruction. Students who GLCE/HSCE vary in grain are proficient in the NGSS size, with some can and should go beyond expectations serving as to make connections and extensions or additional apply what they’ve applications of the learned to other areas of content knowledge interest. described in the content statement.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 22 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Research on the Evaluation of Understanding and Application of Content Knowledge

The progression from novice to expert in science involves more than just acquisition of rote content knowledge. Experts are able to identify patterns, solve problems, and make connections in ways that reflect a deep understanding of the content (NRC, 1999, pp. 31-50; NRC, 2012b, pp. 78-79, 84-86). Research indicates that deep learning of science content, particularly content that is related to complex, multidisciplinary systems, is best achieved when students have multiple opportunities to engage in a few, key, foundational concepts and when that engagement is over a sustained period of time and involves application of the content in many different and authentic contexts (Grabinger and Dunlap, 1995; Jacobson and Wilensky, 2006; NRC, 1999, pp. 51-78; NRC, 2002b, pp. 117-129; NRC, 2008, pp.59-85; NRC, 2012a, pp.24-27; NRC, 2012b, pp. 69-85, 125-129, 136-137; Zirbel, 2006).

Deep learning of material “is more difficult when a concept is taught in a limited set of contexts or through a limited set of activities” (NRC, 2002, pp. 127- 128) because students miss the applicability of the concept to real life problems and other classes or disciplines (Grabinger and Dunlap, 1995). Given a smaller number of focused core concepts that serve as the coherent “organizational structure for learning” (NRC, 2007, p.59), new facts and explanations, varied applications, and connections made to other disciplines build and deepen knowledge of the core concepts ( Kuhn et al., 1992; NRC, 2002b, pp. 117-129). It is only by encountering the same concept in multiple ways, particularly in novel contexts, that the student can develop a depth of understanding and demonstrate true knowledge transfer (Georghiades, 2000; NRC, 2002a, pp.116, 119-120; NRC, 2002b, pp. 117-129).

In addition, learning and a depth of understanding are enhanced when the concepts are applied in authentic contexts where the activity uses methods similar to those currently practiced in science and engineering (Ainsworth, et al., 2011; Dym et al., 2005; Keys, 1999; McNeill, 2011; Mehalik et al., 2008 ; NRC, 2007, pp. 149-159; Osborne, 2010; Rivard, 1994; Schauble et al., 1995; Zimmerman, 2007). Students who build and use the skills and methods in which scientists engage will be developing hypotheses, using experimentation and observation to build evidence, participating in position-driven discussion, citing evidence in explanations and arguments, and using visual representations when explaining scientific findings and phenomena (AAAS, 1989, pp. 1-12; Lederman, 1992; McComas et al., 1998). By engaging in the methods of science, students will also learn more about the nature of science and confront their misconceptions about how science is done (NRC, 2007, pp.168-178). They will learn to construct and defend an explanation without ignoring, distorting, or selectively choosing evidence; without confusing belief for evidence; and without changing the hypothesis to fit the evidence (NRC, 2007, pp. 131-142). They will also develop an understanding and appreciation that science is an human endeavor, something that people do and create, done through collaboration and cooperation that involves creativity and comes to a consensus of content knowledge through the persuasiveness of evidence (NRC, 2007, pp.168-178).

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 23 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Evaluation of Question Standards A: Understanding and Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE Application of Content Next Generation Science Standards (2013) 2006/GLCE 2009 Knowledge How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 24 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire In what ways do the The HSCE describe the Practices of Science Decades of science Appendix F (NGSS Lead standards encourage Practices of Science Literacy (HSCE, pp. 4- education research have States, 2013, Vol. II, students to apply content Literacy as encompassing 7) indicated that the best pp.48–78), Appendix G knowledge or to use identifying, using, inquiry, way to help students (NGSS Lead States, 2013, content knowledge in and reflection and social learn content deeply is to Vol. II, pp.79–95) novel situations to build implications. The provide opportunities to and demonstrate depth of practices are described practice applying content understanding? using the “Knowledge and material, particularly in Practices of Model-Based Levels of Knowledge novel situations Reasoning,” which relates (HSCE, p. 2) (Grabinger and Dunlap, Learning from Data 1995). By building the (Inquiry) with Application performance expectations (Using Knowledge). from the three dimensions described in In the HSCE, “useful and the NRC Framework connected knowledge is (2012a), the NGSS require contrasted with application of a relevant procedural display— Science DOK Levels practice of science or learning to manipulate (definition, examples) engineering with a core words and symbols http://michigan.gov/docu disciplinary idea(s) and without fully ments/mde/J7_Science_D connects a crosscutting understanding their OK_Levels_Defin_and_ex concept(s) with that core meaning. When amples_06-22- idea. Through the expectations are 05_249868_7.pdf repeated application of excessive, procedural the science and display is the kind of DOK Report engineering practices and learning that takes place. http://www.michigan.gov crosscutting concepts to Teachers and students /documents/mde/Science different core ideas “cover the content” _DoK_251398_7.pdf (especially among instead of “uncovering” different disciplines) and useful and connected through the explicit knowledge.” (HSCE, p.2) connections between core ideas in different Standards are organized performance by topic, content expectations, the statements (content), and students are expected to performance expectations use core ideas in different (application of content and novel contexts, which knowledge). Most PEs are enhances depth of written at depth of understanding of all three

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 26 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How do the standards HSCE Standard 1 – Standard 1 (HSCE, pp. 12- Performance expectations Appendix F (NGSS Lead expect students to Inquiry, Reflection, and 13) require the application of States, 2013, Vol. II, proficiently demonstrate Social Implications a practice of science or pp.48–78) the ability to support includes three engineering with a core scientific hypotheses with performance expectations disciplinary idea(s) (Vol. II, evidence and sound that address supporting p.48). Specifically, the scientific reasoning? claims with evidence and practices of “analyzing reasoning. and interpreting data” 1.1E Describe a reason for (Vol. II, pp.56–57) and a given conclusion using “obtaining, evaluating, evidence from an and communicating investigation. information” (Vol. II, pp.64–65) require 1.1g Use empirical students to gather evidence to explain and evidence while the critiques the reasoning practices of “constructing used to draw a scientific explanations (for conclusion or explanation. science)” and “engaging in 1.2B Identify and critique argument from evidence” arguments about personal require students to use or societal issues based that evidence to support a on scientific evidence. hypothesis with data and The standards suggest sound scientific that instruction and reasoning. These assessment should practices are paired with function at the cross core ideas in all of the section of Standard 1 and scientific disciplines and the content in Standards are expected of students 2 – 5, but Standard 2-5 in each grade level. PEs are not written at the level of application suggested in Standard 1.

Evaluation of Question Standards A: Standards B: Understanding and Michigan Science HSCE Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Application of Content 2006/GLCE 2009 Knowledge

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 27 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 28 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How do the standards HSCE Standard 1 – Standard 1 (HSCE, pp. 12- The “Understandings Appendix H (NGSS Lead expect students to Inquiry, Reflection, and 13) about the Nature of States, 2013, Vol. II, demonstrate an Social Implications Science” in the NGSS pp.96–102) understanding of the addresses the Nature of Nature of Science is requires an understanding origin and development of Science; it includes four further described on HSCE of the origin and scientific content performance expectations p. 6. development of scientific knowledge (i.e., “How do that address content knowledge. The we know what we understanding the origin themes within the Nature know?”)? and development of of Science are addressed scientific content. by both the practices and 1.1B Evaluate the crosscutting concepts, as uncertainties or validity of seen in the performance scientific conclusions expectations, and build in using an understanding of complexity across the sources of measurement grade levels (Vol. II, p.97). error, the challenges of Specifically, the themes of controlling variables, “science is a human accuracy of data analysis, endeavor” and “science as logic of argument, logic of a way of knowing” are experimental design, addressed by the and/or the dependence crosscutting concepts, on underlying and the themes of assumptions. “scientific investigations use a variety of methods”, 1.1i Distinguish between “scientific knowledge is scientific explanations based on empirical that are regarded as evidence”, and “scientific current scientific knowledge is open to consensus and the revision in light of new emerging questions that evidence” are included in active researchers the practices (Vol. II, investigate. pp.98–99). 1.2h Describe the distinctions between scientific theories, laws, hypotheses, and observations. 1.2i Explain the progression of ideas and explanations that leads to

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 30 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire In what ways do the The HSCE use the Knowledge and Practices The NGSS are composed “How to Read the Next standards require students Knowledge and Practices of Model-Based of student performance Generation Science to combine or synthesize of Model-Based Reasoning (HSCE, pp. 4-5) expectations, which are Standards” (NGSS Lead multiple content ideas in Reasoning Structure to statements of what States, 2013, Vol. I, pp. order to demonstrate a relate Learning from Data Using Science Principles students should know and xxii-xxvi), Appendix E deeper understanding of a (Inquiry) with Application (HSCE, p. 5) be able to do at the end (NGSS Lead States, 2013, large, broad theme within (Using Knowledge). of each grade band (Vol. I, Vol. II, pp.40–47) science or a specific “Performance Description of PE (HSCE, p.xxiii). In the NGSS, scientific discipline? expectations (PEs) are p. 8) performance expectations derived from the are grouped together intersection of content based on how they statements and support or build up to a practices.” core idea. In this way, a single performance The PEs in HSCE Standard expectation that requires 1 Inquiry, Reflection, and the student to apply a Social Implications (and in science or engineering GLCE Discipline 1 Science practice to one aspect of Processes) are written to a core idea can be define student combined with the other understanding of the performance expectations nature of science and the in the group to address application of scientific multiple facets of the reasoning as they are disciplinary core idea, applied to the various leading to a greater depth disciplinary content of understanding of that expectations. Standard 1 core idea. For example, expectations call for all of the components of application of science the disciplinary core idea principles, and require “HS-ESS1: Earth’s Place in synthesis of multiple the Universe” listed in the content ideas from each disciplinary core idea discipline. foundation box are addressed in total by the six performance expectations HS-ESS1-1 to HS-ESS1-6 (Vol. I, pp.119– 121). By demonstrating proficiency in all the performance expectations

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 31 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Research on the Incorporation of Engineering Design and Methods into Science Standards

Modern society is increasingly reliant on engineering and technology to increase connectivity, communication, and worker productivity, and to confront and address modern challenges, including those related to the environment, resources availability, and natural hazards (AAAS, 1989, pp. 25-37, 107-126; AAAS, 1993, pp. 181-191; NAE and NRC, 2002, pp. 25-44; NRC, 2009a, pp. 36-37). Students who learn engineering skills and habits of mind related to the nature of technology, technology and society, and the engineering design process will be prepared for successful employment, post-secondary education, and democratic citizenship in an increasingly technology-dependent world (Dugger and Gilberti, 2000, pp.2-10; NRC, 2009a, pp. 44-45). Given the increasing demand for technological and engineering skills in the workplace, it is important that all students, regardless of race, gender, or social status, have the opportunity to build those skills and knowledge (Cantrell et al., 2006; NAE and NRC, 2002; NRC, 2009a, p.44; NRC, 2012b, p. 31).

Engineering habits of mind include “systems thinking, creativity, optimism, collaboration, communication, and attention to ethical considerations” (NRC, 2009a, p. 5) while engineering methods through the design process involve solving problems in a highly iterative manner through the identification of the problem, the development of possible solutions, testing of those solutions, and then the evaluation of the test results to optimize existing designs, to develop new solutions, or to better identify the problem (Dym et al., 2005; Fortus et al., 2004; Kolodner et al., 2003; NRC, 2009a, pp. 38-39). Engineering methods are applied with the knowledge that one problem may have more than one solution, that failure is an essential part of the process, and that there are tradeoffs (e.g. budget constraints, societal considerations) that must be considered when developing and optimizing solutions (AAAS, 1989, pp. 28-37; Kolodner et al., 1998). Because concepts covered repetitively over time lead to a greater depth of understanding, engineering-related standards that address the design process could include increasingly more complex problems that require a greater number of solutions and have more trade-offs to consider (NRC, 2012a, pp. 201-214). Students can demonstrate understanding by participating in the design process in a standalone course, by applying engineering principles and habits of mind in mathematical and scientific contexts (e.g. engineering as a pedagogical strategy for science and mathematics), through integration with science and math standards, or by considering engineering in the context of the nature and history of technology (e.g., cultural, social, economic, and political dimensions of technology development and technological literacy).

There is evidence that, when integrated with science content, incorporation of engineering in science standards can lead to an overall increase in understanding of science (Cantrell et al., 2006; Fortus et al., 2005). Application of engineering practices to scientific contexts improves understanding and encourages greater depth of understanding of science content by (a) providing different, novel contexts for science learning; (b) providing real world context to better learn more abstract scientific concepts; (c) encouraging discussion of scientific concepts as solutions are being formulated; and (d) encouraging students to reexamine their understanding of science concepts as they test and optimize design solutions (Fortus et al., 2005). Understanding of engineering processes is enhanced by applying engineering design methodologies to scientific questions because science questions provide culturally relevant contexts that students can better identify with and because they provide realistic constraints to consider when identifying the trade-offs in the design process (NRC, 2009a, p. 43-44). Overall, the study of scientific inquiry with engineering design enhances the understanding of each because it emphasizes the similarities in habits of mind and processes (e.g. systems thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, reasoning to solve problems, brain-storming, using analogy and models, evidence-based evaluation, and prediction) and accentuates the differences between the approaches and goals of each (AAAS, 1989, pp.26-27; Fortus et al., 2004; Kolodner et al., 2003; NRC, 2009a, pp. 41-43).

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 32 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Incorporation of Question Standards A: Engineering Design and Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE Methods into Science Next Generation Science Standards (2013) 2006/GLCE 2009 Standards How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question?

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 33 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How do the standards Engineering design is NOT Reflection and Social Engineering practices are Appendix F (NGSS Lead define engineering skills specifically included in MI Implications (HSCE, pp. 7, raised to the level of States, 2013, Vol. II, and habits of mind, and in Science Standards. 12-13) traditional science pp.48–78), Appendix I what ways are students Critiquing solutions to practices and include (NGSS Lead States, 2013, expected to demonstrate problems, tradeoffs in behaviors that engineers Vol. II, pp.103–107) an understanding of design decisions, engage in, such as these? alternative solutions, and “defining problems” and technological design “designing solutions” (Vol. considerations are II, pp.49,104). There are included in Reflections eight engineering and Social Implications practices defined by the (Standard 1). NGSS and the NRC Framework (2012a) – 1.2f Critique solutions to most of which have problems, given criteria equivalents in science: and scientific constraints. Defining problems; 1.2g Identify scientific Developing and using tradeoffs in design models; Planning and decisions and choose carrying out among alternative investigations; Analyzing solutions. and interpreting data; 1.2j Apply science Using mathematics and principles or scientific computational thinking; data to anticipate effects Designing solutions; of technological design Engaging in argument decisions. from evidence; and It is intended that Obtaining, evaluating, and students apply reflection communicating standards in the context information. These of disciplinary content. practices are incorporated throughout the NGSS with the disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts in performance expectations, such that students are expected to demonstrate engineering design methods as applied to the content of the core ideas. The NGSS

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 34 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Incorporation of Standards A: Engineering Design Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE and Methods into Next Generation Science Standards (2013) 2006/GLCE 2009 Science Standards How Do Michigan Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Evidence from Standards HSCE/GLCE Address the HSCE/GLCE Address the Question? B Question? How are students Inquiry and reflection Reflection and Social The NGSS include the core Appendix F (NGSS Lead expected to demonstrate standards build in Implications (GLCE, pp. 3, idea of engineering design States, 2013, Vol. II, pp. increasing levels of sophistication in each 6, 11, 14, 20, 22, 28, 31- that requires use of 48–78), Appendix I (NGSS proficiency over time in grade band (K-4, 5-7, and 32, 39, 42-43, 50, 53-54, engineering methods and Lead States, 2013, Vol. II, the use of engineering HS). 61, 64-65, 73, 76-77; practices that build pp.103–107) design methods, including K-7 Reflection and Social HSCE, pp. 7, 12-13) coherently and grow in how to incorporate Implications standards complexity and ”failure” Questionin the design describe applying sophistication from grade process? scientific knowledge to level to grade level (Vol. new and different II, pp.49–67; 104–107). situations and focus more Of the three components on the use of technology of this core idea, than on engineering “optimizing the design design. solution” requires The HSCE Reflection and students to test their Social Implications designs and to refine the standards address final design, addressing critiquing solutions to any “failures” (Vol. II, problems, tradeoffs in p.104; e.g. HS-ETS1, Vol. I, design decisions, pp.129–130). alternative solutions, and technological design considerations.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 35 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire For which students are the The HSCE Reflection and Description and chart Engineering design is Appendix I (NGSS Lead engineering-related Social Implications explaining levels and integrated throughout the States, 2013, Vol. II, standards a requirement standards include expectations and standards and is required pp.103–107) (e.g. graduation Essential (for all) and Core intended assessment of every student in two requirements)? Expectations (for credit). plans (HSCE, p. 2) ways: 1) with science Since the MMC requires specific performance that all high school expectations that apply students earn a credit in engineering practices and Biology and one in either 2) with engineering- Chemistry or Physics, all specific performance students are expected to expectations that focus meet all Standard 1 on engineering design at expectations (in the the K–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9– context of the content 12 grade level bands (Vol. addressed in the science II, pp.104–107). credits they earn to meet the MMC requirements). PEs that most closely reflect engineering design and practices are coded as Core Expectations and so are not assessed on the MME.

In Question Standards A: Standards B: co Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) rp How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI How Do Standards B Address the Question? Evidence from or Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 36 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How and to what It is intended that students apply reflection Reflection and Engineering method and design, as both practice Appendix I (NGSS degree are standards in the context of disciplinary Social Implications and disciplinary content, are coupled with science Lead States, 2013, engineering methods content. (HSCE, pp. 7, 12- content in each grade band of the NGSS (Vol. II, Vol. II, pp.103–107) and the design 13) p.104). process coupled with the science content standards to enhance the learning of both?

ati on of En gi ne eri ng De sig n an d M et ho

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 37 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Research on Course Sequencing and Relationships with Courses in other Content Areas

A feature of the science education requirements of high performing countries is that they have a core set of standards that involve application of content using mathematics, literacy, and language arts skills while being open for advanced coursework for students to excel beyond the core standards (Linn, 2000; NCES, 1992, pp. 29-38; NGA-CCSSO-Achieve, 2008; NRC, 2007, p.216; Schmidt et al., 2005; Valverde and Schmidt, 2000). Such standards apply to all students as a requirement for graduation (AAAS, 1989, p. xviii; Linn, 2000; NRC, 2012a, pp. 277-278). In order to enhance the success of all students on such standards and to be sure that the standards can be covered within a typical school year, fewer concepts are covered but explored in greater depth (Schmidt et al., 2005; Valverde and Schmidt, 2000)

Although all students should meet the expectations of a core set of achievable science standards, these would not limit further study by advanced students beyond the minimum set by the standards (Linn, 2000; NRC, 2012a, pp. 277-278; NRC; 2002b, p. 12). Opportunities for students to accelerate beyond the core requirements of K–12 education in the United States are provided by the availability of advanced coursework, such as upper-level science courses, AP classes, or through partnerships with universities (NRC; 2002b, pp. 103-116). Advanced coursework allows students to build on a foundation of content knowledge as well as skills of inquiry, analysis, and problem solving. In order for a student to be successful, the standards that lead up to this advanced course work must account for the development of these skills and of a deep understanding of the core concepts of content knowledge (NRC; 2002b, pp. 23, 36-47).

Science standards that support students’ advanced study often include language arts and mathematics concepts and skills. Standards that include the Nature of Science, application of content, and application of science skills (e.g. inquiry, or science and engineering methodologies) could require students to apply reading, writing, and speaking and listening skills through such activities as the critical analysis of evidence or sources, evidence-based argumentation and explanation, and communicating scientific findings in multiple forms (AAAS, 1989, pp. 1-12; Minner et al., 2010; NRC, 2002a, pp. 18-20; Zimmerman, 2007). Similarly, standards that include computation, data collection and analysis, math-based explanations of science concepts, and the presentation of data using graphs as essential components of science learning will include a demonstration of skill in using numbers and quantities, functions, mathematical models, principles of geometry, measurement, graphing, and statistics and probability. In this way, science standards can enhance learning in other areas by providing context for learning transfer (Rebello et al., 1998).

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 38 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Standards A: Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Co Question How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI Evidence from ur How Do Standards B Address the Question? se Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B Se In what ways do the The MI HSCE were written to define “what Process description The NGSS performance expectations are Appendix K (NGSS qu standards provide a every student is expected to know and be and research specifically designed not to limit the curriculum Lead States, 2013, en foundation for AP able to do by the end of high school” (HSCE, review on page 1. and to allow students interested in continuing Vol. II, pp.113– ci courses or other p. 1). their coursework in science or engineering the 136), pending AP advanced HSCE - Science opportunity to do so (Vol. II, pp.113–115). The course models ng coursework? The HSCE in all content areas were written http://www.michig NGSS performance expectations provide a an to prepare students for successful post- an.gov/mde/0,461 foundation for rigorous advanced courses in d secondary engagement. The HSCE align well 5,7-140- science or engineering. During the NGSS Re with College Ready documents available in 38924_41644_428 development process, over a hundred university lat 2006. 14---,00.html and community college professors, as well as io (S4S/UUS (2006), ACT CRS, CB AP course career training program instructors, met together ns descriptions, ACT On Course for Success, Post-Secondary to examine the NGSS expectations to ensure that hi SREB/HSTW/MMGW Science, HSCE, p.1) Engagement (HSCE, they would provide a thorough foundation for ps p. 3) entry level courses in their fields. Course models wi New AP Course descriptions provide a more are currently being developed to show how the rigorous definition of science knowledge-in- NGSS standards could specifically lead into th use. advanced study in AP courses. Co ur se s in ot he r Co nt en t Ar ea s

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 39 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Standards A: Standards B: Co Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Question ur How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI Evidence from How Do Standards B Address the Question? se Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B Se How and to what The science standards do not articulate Overview of MI The NGSS were designed to align and keep pace Appendix L (NGSS qu extent do the science application of knowledge from other High School with the CCSS-M/ELA, and the performance Lead States, 2013, en standards require the content areas, but do acknowledge that the Expectations expectations are explicitly connected to the Vol. II, pp.137– ci application of MMC defines expectations for http://www.missio specific CCSS standards (Vol. I, p.xxvi; Vol. II, 50, 157), Appendix M ng knowledge from postsecondary success in ELA, Mathematics, nliteracy.com/unit- 137, 158). These connections highlight how the (NGSS Lead States, an other content areas Science, and Social Studies. (Overarching development- performance expectations require mathematic 2013, Vol. II, d as well as enhance Expectations) resources.html principles to more deeply understand the core pp.158–169) learning in these ideas as well as the role of writing, reasoning, and Re other areas, including Reading, writing, communication, basic HSCE Introduction communication in understanding and applying lat English language arts mathematics conventions, probability, (HSCE, p. 2, 3, 8) the core ideas via the practices (Vol. II, pp.27–28, io and mathematics? statistics, measurement are listed as 50, 137–138, 158). In addition, these connections ns prerequisite knowledge and skills (HSCE, p. also provide suggestions for where science skills hi 2) and knowledge could be built simultaneously ps with mathematics or ELA skills and knowledge. wi K-8 Educational Foundation for HSCE th Content Knowledge – ELA, MA, SC, SS Co Learning Processes – strategies and skills, ur reasoning, analytical thinking, constructing new meaning, communication (HSCE, p. 3) se s Basic mathematics and English language arts in skills necessary for meeting the high school ot science content expectations will be he included in a companion document. (HSCE, r p. 8) Co nt The Science GLCE (2009) and HSCE (2006) en were written before the Common Core State Standards for ELA/Literacy and Mathematics t were written (2010). Ar ea s

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 40 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Research on Preparing Students for College, Career, and Citizenship

Employers report that they are looking for employees with a broad knowledge base, including a solid foundation of content knowledge in the sciences. They desire employees to be adaptive, optimistic, innovative, self-managed critical thinkers that can make judgments based on evidence, solve complex problems, process information from a variety of sources (written, oral, and technical/mathematical), and communicate (oral and written) clearly (AACU, 2013; Coles, 1998; NRC, 2010, pp.9-15). Standards that integrate content knowledge with the methods and habits of mind of science and engineering, such as through incorporating the Nature of Science in the standards, prepare students for an increasingly changeable job market. These methods and habits of mind include: conducting research-style, inquiry-based projects; systems thinking; using evidence-based analysis in the context of science and engineering content; practicing problem-solving in respect to scientific or engineering problems; building interpersonal and communication skills by working in teams to test designs, making observations, gathering data, and communicating findings; and generally applying content knowledge in real-world settings (NRC, 2002a, pp. 18-20; NRC, 2009a, pp. 38-39; NRC, 2010, pp.19-25; NRC, 2012b, pp. 136-139). These same skills are also expected of students entering college or technical programs, so that standards incorporating methods and habits of mind of science and engineering are preparing all students for the future whether they are entering college, technical training, or the workforce following graduation (Carnevale et al., 2012; Conley, 2010, pp. 4-6, 19-52; Griffiths and Cahill, 2009; Lazzaro, 2010; NRC, 2009a, pp. 44-45; Tai et al., 2005).

Science standards that include aspects of the Nature of Science and Engineering also provide students with a deeper understanding of how science is practiced in society, how decisions and discoveries in science and engineering impact society, and what the scientific enterprise can and cannot do to address societal needs and concerns (NRC, 1996, pp. 19-24). By participating in processes of questioning, investigation, using terminology, data collection and analysis, and argumentation based on evidence, students can better appreciate that “the World Is Understandable” and that “Scientific Knowledge Is Durable,” but also that “Scientific Ideas Are Subject To Change” and that “Science Cannot Provide Complete Answers to All Questions” (AAAS, 1989, pp. 1-12; McComas et al., 1998). Also, by learning about how science is currently done in society, they can appreciate that science is a human endeavor where many different people from different disciplines and institutions work together to ethically study natural processes as specialists while at the same time participating in the world as citizens (NRC, 2007, pp.168-179). Without an appreciation for the Nature of Science, scientific factual knowledge may be misinterpreted or misunderstood when used by policy makers, members of the justice system, and the public (NRC, 2012b, pp. 59-61). For this reason, a deeper understanding of the Nature of Science and Engineering, and science and engineering habits of mind and methods are essential for all students and not just those for whom science may become a profession.

In order to build knowledgeable future decision makers and citizens, and to prepare all students for a technical and intellectually demanding job market, it is important to have opportunities to apply science and engineering methods available to all groups, especially minorities and females (AAAS, 1989, p. xviii; Lee and Buxton, 2010; NRC, 1996, p. 20). Success of a diverse range of students can be facilitated by having those students learn and apply science and engineering methods in contexts familiar to them (e.g. specific to their cultural background), by providing multiple opportunities for learning, and by providing more than one way to engage the content so that all different types of learners can succeed, including students with learning disabilities and English language learners (NRC, 2002a, pp. 116-120; NRC, 2002b, pp. 117-129; NRC, 2008, pp. 97-103; NRC, 2009b, pp. 209-232 ; NRC, 2012a, pp. 277-299; Zimmerman, 2007).

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 41 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Standards A: Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Question How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI Evidence from How Do Standards B Address the Question? Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B In what ways do the The science standards do not articulate Overview of MI The NGSS integrate science and engineering Appendix C (NGSS standards help application of knowledge from other High School practices throughout the K–12 standards, and Lead States, 2013, Pr students develop the content areas, but do acknowledge that the Expectations describes explicit connections to the CCSS-M/ELA Vol. II, pp.11–24), ep technical knowledge MMC defines expectations for http://www.missio — thereby expecting students to develop habits, Appendix D (NGSS ari requirements and the postsecondary success, including 21st nliteracy.com/unit- skills, and knowledge specifically applicable to Lead States, 2013, ng collaboration, century learning and thinking skills. (MMC development- many technical fields or preparation programs Vol. II, pp.25–39) St communication, and Overarching Expectations, 21st Century Skills) resources.html (Vol. II, pp.11–14, 17–20, 25–30, 138). To be ud problem-solving skills  Critical thinking and problem solving skills proficient in the NGSS, students will need to st en desired by employers  Communication skills 21 Century Skills develop the means to communicate effectively ts (e.g., in preparation  Creativity and innovation skills http://www.missio and the critical thinking and problem solving skills for Career and nliteracy.com/uplo necessary for employment in rapidly changing job fo  Collaboration skills Technical Education ads/3/1/5/8/31582 market. r [CTE] programs or  Information and media literacy skills 34/21st_century_p Co direct employment  Contextual learning skills olicy_on_learning.p lle out of high school)? df ge , Ca re er, an d Cit iz en sh ip

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 42 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Standards A: Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Question How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI Evidence from How Do Standards B Address the Question? Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B How do the The PEs in HSCE Standard 1 Inquiry, Reflection and By integrating science and engineering practices Appendix C (NGSS standards reflect the Reflection, and Social Implications (and in Social Implications with core ideas and by describing connections to Lead States, 2013, Pr ways in which GLCE Discipline 1 Science Processes) are (HSCE, pp. 7, 12- the CCSS-M/ELA, the NGSS better reflect the Vol. II, pp.11–24), ep science and written to define student understanding of 13) interconnection of science, engineering, and Appendix J (NGSS ari engineering are the role of science and technology in society math in industry (Vol. II, pp.17–20, 49–50, 103– Lead States, 2013, ng currently practiced in and the application of scientific reasoning. 104, 138). The inclusion of engineering and Vol. II, pp.108–112) St society as well as 1.2E Evaluate the future career and science practices reflects the emphasis on ud how these disciplines occupational prospects of science fields. investigation and innovation in technical fields. impact society and The NRC Framework (2012a) disciplinary core en 1.2i Explain the progression of ideas an d address societal idea of ETS2: “Links among engineering, ts explanations that leads to science theories needs and concerns? technology, science, and society” is included in fo that are part of the current scientific the NGSS as an overarching, cross-disciplinary r consensus or core knowledge. idea, and the specific components of this idea are Co explicitly stated within the foundation boxes lle where they apply to individual performance ge expectations in each of the scientific disciplines , and across grade bands (e.g. HS-ESS1; Vol. I, Ca pp.120–121). The standards that specifically re address the interrelationship among science, er, engineering, and human society help students an develop the understanding that technological d advances can have a profound impact on society Cit and the environment (Vol. II, pp.108–111, including the “Science, Technology, Society, and iz the Environment Connections Matrix”). This en highlights the importance of technology in sh developing scientific understanding and the ip importance of science on driving technological innovation.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 43 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Standards A: Standards B: Michigan Science HSCE 2006/GLCE 2009 Next Generation Science Standards (2013) Question How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI Evidence from How Do Standards B Address the Question? Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B To what extent do The GLCE and HSCE provide a set of clear Levels of The NGSS describe performance expectations for Appendix D (NGSS Pr the science and rigorous expectations for all students, Knowledge all students, raising the expectations for students Lead States, 2013, ep standards explicitly and provide teachers with clearly defined (HSCE, p. 2) who might not otherwise take much science in Vol. II, pp.25–39); ari support underserved statements of what students should know high school. www.nextgenscien ng student populations and be able to do as they progress from K- Companion The NGSS also make connections across the ce.org/appendix-d- St and those 12. Documents school curricula, including to mathematics and case-studies populations that High School ud The HSCE provide useful and connected English Language Arts. In addition, the NGSS traditionally have http://www.michig en knowledge at four levels, including Essential practices converge with the math and ELA not succeeded in Knowledge for all students regardless of high an.gov/mde/0,461 practices. These connections are beneficial for ts science and school credits earned. In addition, the HSCE 5,7-140- students from non-dominant groups who are fo engineering (e.g. provide Core Expectations that define 28753_64839_386 pressed during instructional time to develop r females, minorities, additional knowledge for meeting MMC 84_28760- literacy and numeracy skills at the cost of others, Co English language required credits. 171474--,00.html including science. learners, etc.)? lle The standards documents do not specifically Priority The NGSS integrate science and engineering ge address supporting underserved student Expectations practices in every performance expectation, , populations. Companion documents provide http://www.maco providing students an opportunity to Ca an instructional framework to assist districts mbscience.org/upl demonstrate their understanding in multiple, re and teachers in developing rigorous and oads/5/8/3/4/5834 diverse ways and providing a justification for er, relevant curricula for meeting the GLCE and 52/priority_standar multiple, diverse modes of instruction. ds_- an HSCE. K-7 companion documents include By emphasizing engineering, the NGSS recognize _isd_statewide.pdf inquiry instructional examples, enrichment the contributions of non-dominant cultures and d 5-7 and intervention examples, and curricular groups to science and engineering. Engineering Cit http://michigan.go connections and integrations. HSCE also has the potential to be inclusive of students iz v/documents/mde/ companion documents include instructional who have traditionally been marginalized in the en 5- examples of five different modes of science classroom and who do not see science as sh 7_Science_GLCE_C instruction – inquiry, reflection, general being relevant to their lives or future (Vol. II, ompanion_Docum ip instruction, enrichment, and intervention pp.27–30). By solving problems through ent_v.1.09_2_2644 strategies. engineering in local contexts, students view 72_7.pdf (answer is continued on next page) science as relevant to their lives and future, and engage in science in socially relevant and transformative ways. (answer is continued on next page)

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 44 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire How Do Michigan HSCE/GLCE Address the Evidence from MI Evidence from Question How Do Standards B Address the Question? Question? HSCE/GLCE Standards B (answer starts on (answer starts on preceding page) (answer starts on preceding page) preceding page) “This Instructional Framework is NOT a K-4 Engagement in any of the scientific and Appendix D (NGSS step-by-step instructional manual but a http://www.slidese engineering practices involves both critical Lead States, 2013, Pr guide developed to help teachers and rve.com/khuong/m thinking and communication skills (Vol. II, p.50). Vol. II, pp.25–39); ep curriculum developers design their own ichigan-high- Because the NGSS are required of all students, www.nextgenscien ari lesson plans, select useful portions of text, school-science- these skills will help ESL learners to practice ce.org/appendix-d- ng and create assessments that are aligned content- language skills. case-studies St with the grade level science curriculum for expectations Finally, the integration of practices with ud the State of Michigan. crosscutting concepts requires students to think en It is not intended to be a curriculum, but deeply about material and to make connections ts ideas and suggestions for generating and among big ideas that cut across disciplines, fo implementing high quality K-7 instruction which provides opportunities for learning that r and inquiry activities to assist the classroom have not traditionally been available to Co teacher in implementing these science disadvantaged or less privileged learners (Vol. II, pp.80–81). The following case studies are lle content expectations in the classroom.” (K-4 and 5-7 Companion Documents, p. II) provided to detail how the NGSS can be used to ge benefit diverse groups of students: (1) , Economically Disadvantaged, (2) Race and Ca Ethnicity, (3) Students with Disabilities, (4) re English Language Learners, (5) Girls, (6) er, Alternative Education, (7) Gifted and Talented an Students (www.nextgenscience.org/appendix-d- d case-studies) Cit iz en sh ip

References:

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 45 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. AACU (Association of American Colleges and Universities). (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Washington, DC. Hart Research Associates. Acharya, C. (2003). Outcome-based education (OBE): A new paradigm for learning. Triannual Newsletter. (http://www.cdtl.nus.sg/Link/nov2003/obe.htm) Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science,333, 1096-1097. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1-12. Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., Liu, Q., Ding, L., Cui, L., Luo, Y., Wang, Y., Li, L., & Wu, N. (2009). Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 323, 586-587. Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez‐Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 301-309. Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Hanson, A. R. (2012). Certificates: Gateway to gainful employment and college degrees. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Available at: http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Certificates.FullReport.061812.pdf. Clough, M.P. (1998). Integrating the nature of science with student teaching. In W.F. McComas, Ed., The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 197-208), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Coles, M. (1998). Science for employment and higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 609- 621. Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Education Series. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), 13. Dugger, W. E., & Gilberti, A. F. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Technology Teacher, 59(5), 8-13. Duschl, R., M., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47, 123-182. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103-120. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of engineering education, 94, 57-72. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78, 674-681.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 46 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2004). Design‐based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081-1110. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 855-879. Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42, 119-139. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3(2). Griffiths, P., & Cahill, M. (2009). The opportunity equation: transforming mathematics and science education for citizenship and the global economy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York and Institute for Advanced Study, 63. Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE Digest. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. Helfand, D. J., & Columbia University. (2004). Frontiers of science: Scientific habits of mind. New York, N.Y.: Columbia CNMTL. Retrieved from http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/frontiers/ Hestenes, D. (2013). Remodeling science education. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 13-22. Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 95-111. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11-34. Jordan, T. (1989). Themes and schemes: A philosophical approach to interdisciplinary science teaching. Synthese, 80, 63-79. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J.E. (2002). How Well Do Middle School Science Programs Measure Up? Findings from Project 2061’s Curriculum Review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522-549. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130. Khisfe, R. & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching the nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395-418. Killen, R. (2000). Outcomes-based education: Principles and possibilities. Unpublished manuscript. University of Newcastle, Faculty of Education. (http://drjj.uitm.edu.my/DRJJ/OBE%20FSG%20Dec07/2-Killen_paper_good-%20kena%20baca.pdf) Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by designTM into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495-547.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 47 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 98,16-22. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 285-327. Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of Teaching and Learning School Science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 Results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 922-944. Lazzaro, C. (2010). Science College Board Standards for College Success. (http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science- standards-2009.pdf) Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of research in science teaching, 29, 331-359. Lederman, N.G. & J.S. Lederman. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71,36-39. Lee, O., & Buxton, C.A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and Accountability. Educational Researcher. 29, 4-16. Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3-8. 2nd edition Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Gess- Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G., Eds., Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education, Vol. 6. (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Mathison, S., & Freeman, M. (1998). The Logic of Interdisciplinary Studies. National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany, State University of NY.

McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W.F. McComas, Ed., The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 3-39), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. McComas, W.F., & Olson, J.K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W.F. McComas, Ed., The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 41-52), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1137-1164. McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 793-823. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle‐school science through design‐based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 48 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496. NAE and NRC (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council). (2002). Technically Speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) (1992). International mathematics and science assessments: What have we learned?. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. NCES 92-011. (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs92/92011.pdf). NGA-CCSSO-Achieve (National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc.) (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. (http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504084.pdf) NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards) Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. NRC. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2002a). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. (2002b). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2005). How students learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2008). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NRC. (2009a). Engineering in K-12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects . Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. (2009b). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NRC. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2012a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting themes, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 49 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire NRC. (2012b). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466. Parsons, J., & Beauchamp, L. (2012). From knowledge to action: Shaping the future of curriculum development in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education. Retrieved from http://www.education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/curriculum/research/knowledgetoaction.aspx

Rebello, N.S., Cui, L., Bennett, A.G., Zollman, D.A. & Ozimek, D.J. (1998) Transfer of Learning in Problem Solving in the Context of Mathematics & Physics. In D.H. Jonassen, Ed., Learning to Solve Complex Scientific Problem (pp. 223-246), Lawrence Earlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Rivard, L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969- 983.

Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.

Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-559. Schwartz, M.S., Sadler, P.H., Sonnert, G., & Tai, R.H. (2008). Depth vs. breadth: how high school science courses relates to later success in College Science Coursework. Science Education, 93, 798–826. Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645. Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement, 4, 1-98. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784. Spady, W.G. (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. American Association of School Administrators: Arlington, VA.

Tai, R. H., Sadler. P. M., & Loehr, J. F. (2005). Factors influencing success in introductory college chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 987–1012. Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2004). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: learning styles and the problem of instructional selection—engaging all students in science courses. Cell Biology Education, 3, 197-201.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 50 of 51 State Science Education Standards Comparison Questionnaire Valverde, G.A., & Schmidt, W. H. (2000). Greater expectations: learning from other nations in the quest for `world-class standards’ in US school mathematics and science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 651-687. Zimmerman, C., (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223.

Zirbel, E. L. (2006). Teaching to promote deep understanding and instigate conceptual change. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 38, 1220.

April 2014Working DRAFT – Do NOT Distribute NGSS Analysis Tool – MI NGSS Internal Review Team v.4-27-14 Page 51 of 51