Upload
buinhu
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Is it a Scientific Explanation? A group of students were talking about Scientific Explanations. They each had a different idea about the definition of a Scientific Explanation. Which student do you most agree with? Katie: I think a scientific explanation is a summary that uses evidence from text. Angel: I think a scientific explanation is a story about what you observed or did in an experiment. Blake: I think a scientific explanation is a presentation, like a science fair project. Jada: I think a scientific explanation is an answer to a question that has a claim, evidence, and reasoning. Cori: I think a scientific explanation is when you write a procedure for how to conduct an investigation. I agree with __________________________________. Explain why you picked this idea and why you did not pick the others. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Is it a Claim?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Facilitation Notes Purpose The purpose of this assessment probe is to elicit learners’ ideas about what constitutes a CLAIM in a scientific explanation. If these ideas are not uncovered they could prevent a learner from fully understanding the CER framework.
Explanation Students may have some confusion about how a scientific explanation differs from an everyday explanation. The best answer is JADA’s-‐ that a scientific explanation answers a question with a claim, evidence, and reasoning. The other students’ ideas represent possible preconceptions that students may have about scientific explanations.
Facilitation Considerations This probe is a Formative Assessment Classroom Technique (FACT) called a Friendly Talk Probe. It begins with a scenario about a concept. Examples that fit (or possibly do not fit) the scenario are then listed via Student Talk. Learners pick the student idea that best matches their own and provide justification explaining their rule or reasons for their selection. This assessment probe can also be used to provide an opportunity for learners to engage in the ideas and modify their thinking based on new evidence or research. Misconceptions Learners may have a variety of misconceptions regarding what constitutes a scientific explanation. The examples in the probe represent a range of common ideas students may express when considering a scientific explanation. Administering the Probe This probe is best used at the beginning of instruction on a CER framework OR just after some initial
instruction. Learners should be encouraged to share their choices and thinking with a partner. The teacher should circulate around the room to observe the responses, and the conversation occurring between partners. Use this information to inform your ongoing instruction on the CER framework. It is recommended to immediately use this probe to debrief as a whole class. Are they noticing how a scientific explanation is different than other explanations? Do students have a broad or specific definition of a scientific explanation? How could you use this information to influence your upcoming instruction on how to write a scientific explanation?
References Supporting Grade 5-‐8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science, McNeill & Krajcik (2011) http://books.google.com/books/about/Supporting_Grade_5_8_Students_in_Constru.html?id=_PzIbwAACAAJ
Created by Kirk Robbins [email protected] teachscience4all.wordpress.com Based on the Formative Assessment Probe framework developed by Page Keeley in her Uncovering Student Ideas in Science series
Write a Scientific Explanation
- Examine the data table below. - Write a scientific explanation stating whether fat and soap are the same substance or different substances.
Student Data Collection for Fat and Soap Color Hardness Solubility Melting
Point Density
Fat Off-white or slightly yellow
Soft, squishy
Water- no Oil- yes
37 degrees C
0.92 g/cm3
Soap Milky white Hard Water-yes Oil- no
Hotter than 100 degrees C
0.84 g/cm3
Scientific Explanation
Write a Scientific Explanation
Examine the following student explanation. Brandon’s First Explanation about Soap and Fat
What strengths do you see in this scientific explanation? What feedback might you give to this student? What are some key features/components of a quality scientific explanation?
Fat and soap are both stuff but they
are different substances. Fat is
used for cooking and soap is used
for washing. The are both things we
use everyday. The data table is my
evidence that they are different
substances. Stuff can be different
substances if you have the right
data to show it.
Write a Scientific Explanation
Examine the following explanation. Brandon’s Second Explanation about Soap and Fat
What changes did Brandon make to his explanation? In what ways did these changes make the explanation more clear? If you were going to teach your students to write scientific explanations, how might you scaffold this for them?
Fat and soap are different
substances.
Fat is of white and soap is milky
white.
Fat is soft squishy and soap is
hard.
Fat is soluble in oil, but soap is
not soluble in oil.
Fat has a melting point of 37
degrees C and soap has a melting
point above 100 degrees C. Fat has a
density of 0.92 g/cm3 and soap has a
density of 0.84g/cm3. These are all
properties. Because fat and soap
have different properties, I know
they are different.
Walkabout Activity- NGSS Deep Dive June 2014
Walkabout Activity – From The Adaptive School by Bruce Wellman and Robert Garmston
Your Thoughts Another Person Landmark Partner
Which answers are you
least sure of regarding the
implementation of the
NGSS?
Fremont Troll Partner:
What answers are you
most confident of
regarding the
implementation of the
NGSS?
Pike Place Pig Partner:
What aspects of the NGSS
are you interested in
learning more about?
Mt. Rainer Partner:
Walkabout Activity- NGSS Deep Dive June 2014
Walkabout Activity – From The Adaptive School by Bruce Wellman and Robert Garmston
1
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
FAQ Overview- January 2014
Prepared by Washington’s Regional Science Coordinators in collaboration with OSPI
Q: What is the relationship between the NGSS and A Framework for K-12 Science Education?
A: A Framework for K-12 Science Education is the parent document for the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS). The Framework provides the foundational research, information, and narrative
description of student learning from which the NGSS were distilled. The NGSS is difficult to
understand and use for assessment or planning without the Framework.
Q: Are the NGSS adopted nationwide like the CCSS?
A: Twenty-six “lead states” donated resources and expertise to the development of the NGSS. Of
those lead states, Washington was the 8th to adopt the NGSS (October 4, 2013).
Q: How do the NGSS relate to the CCSS?
A: Common Core State Standards cover Mathematics (-M) and English Language Arts (-ELA) only.
While CCSS includes standards for literacy in science and technical subjects, they do not include
science standards. The Next Generation Science Standards reference relevant CCSS-M and CCSS-
ELA standards and practices. The Next Generation Science Standards were constructed with the
CCSS in mind, but their inception and development have been guided by leaders in science
education and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
Q: What about assessment?
A: At the time of this writing, the federal No Child Left Behind law still requires students to be tested in
science once each in elementary school, middle school, and high school. Science assessments will
continue to be administered at grades 5, 8 and in high school. Students will take the Measurements
of Student Progress (MSP) and Biology End-Of-Course exams based on the 2009 K-12 Science
Learning Standards until an assessment for the NGSS is developed.
● Washington is participating in the State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards
(SCASS) for Science supported by CCSSO to assist in developing evidence statements and
tasks aligned to the NGSS. The SCASS will also work to identify priorities, timelines, and next
steps in planning for NGSS assessments. At the time of this writing, WA expects the earliest
that an assessments based on the NGSS could be available is the 2016-17 school year..
● Achieve Inc. is crafting sample tasks for each grade level that could be used formatively.
These are not yet available to view.
● House Bill 1450 (see section 4(2)(a)) indicates the intent to transition to a comprehensive high
school science assessment consistent with the way in which the state transitioned to an
English language arts assessment and a comprehensive mathematics assessment.
2
Q: In the 2013-14 school year, what can Washington science educators do to prepare for the
NGSS?
● This school year is an opportunity for science educators become aware of the NGSS, to learn,
digest, and try things out.
● Science educators should take part in professional learning opportunities that focus on A
Framework for K-12 Science Education (the foundation document to the NGSS) in order to
gain a deep understanding of the dimensions of the “Framework” (i.e., Science and
Engineering Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, Disciplinary Core Ideas of science); and to
understand how these dimensions are integrated into Performance Expectations.
● Teachers should pick 2-3 practices or cross-cutting concepts they would like to improve on in
their classrooms and implement them intentionally and well.
Q: What resources are available for the NGSS?
● Attend professional development through your Educational Service District or LASER Alliance.
● Visit the Regional Science Coordinator website at www.washingtonesds.org.
● Visit the OSPI NGSS website at: http://www.k12.wa.us/Science/NGSS.aspx
● Visit the NGSS website at www.nextgenscience.org.
● Download the free NGSS app and CCSS app from Mastery Connects.
● Download or purchase, read, and study A Framework for Science Education available at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
Q: In the 2013-14 school year, what instructional practices should Washington science
educators continue to use?
A: Washington science educators have been working hard at building students’ science content
knowledge and practices. Science educators should continue:
● Using instructional materials that align to 2009 WA K-12 Science Learning Standards.
● Being intentional about WA Inquiry, Application, and Systems standards.
● Expecting their students to use claims, evidence, and reasoning in their discourse about
science concepts.
● Using effective science instructional practices (i.e., help students surface prior knowledge,
construct understanding, make sense of learning experiences, and promote a positive learning
environment and appropriate scientific discourse.)
Q: How do existing K-12 science instructional materials align with the NGSS?
A: At this time, Washington Educators are encouraged to stick with their current instructional
materials and district adoptions.
● Currently, there exist no materials known to be truly NGSS-aligned.
3
● In Winter of 2014 Achieve Inc. will release a tool called Educators Evaluating the Quality of
Instructional Products (EQuIP) to help science educators identify high-quality materials that align
to the NGSS. And in Spring of 2014, Achieve Inc. will release a Publisher’s Criteria tool to help
publishers create science instructional materials that are aligned to NGSS.
● At the time of this writing, science educators and leaders across the state are collaborating to
examine high-use K-5 instructional materials to provide advice for placement and/or
modifications.
● Mostly, educators are encouraged to learn deeply about the science and engineering practices
and the crosscutting concepts, and to use those to teach from their current instructional
materials. That way, if future alignments shift where the content is located in a gradeband, we
will have solid, exemplary instruction already in place everywhere.
Q: How will the move to NGSS affect secondary science courses?
● Appendix K of the NGSS outlines some course maps for secondary science courses.
● Additional course maps are scheduled to be released Winter, 2014.
● Summer of 2014 high school and post-high school alignment institutes will take place.
● National groups will also examine correlations between Advanced Placement science courses
and the NGSS.
● Washington currently requires two years of science to graduate, Washington STEM, in addition
to other state-level groups are advocating for a third year of science.
Q: How can Washington’s Regional Science Coordinators help you?
● Disseminate news and information about state-level decisions related to Washington’s
transition to NGSS.
● Connect you to State and National NGSS resources.
● Provide professional learning to:
o Understand A Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS.
o Implement effective instructional practices for the NGSS.
o Make informed curricular decisions.
QUESTIONS? CONTACT US!
OSPI Science Teaching and Learning
Dr. Ellen Ebert, Science Director
4
Amber Farthing, Science Specialist
Washington’s Regional Science Coordinators
NEWESD 101 Wendy Whitmer
Puget Sound ESD 121 Cheryl Lydon
ESD 105 Mike Brown
ESD 123 Georgia Boatman
ESD 112 Ford Morishita
North Central ESD 171 Mechelle LaLanne
Capital Region ESD 113 Craig Gabler
Northwest ESD 189 Brian MacNevin
Olympic ESD 114 Jeff Ryan
______Districts should begin aligning their curriculum to the NGSS _____ Eight states have adopted the NGSS as their state standards _____ Performance Expectations should be written on the board as Learning Targets _____ Performance Expectations are just examples of how students might demonstrate understanding of the standards. _____ Teachers should use “all and any of the practices” that build toward the Performance Expectation. In other words we don’t need to limit ourselves to practice in the PE. _____ There is little difference between adoption and implementation _____ Students need to know how and why they know science content _____ Washington State currently plans to develop its own state assessment of NGSS ____ Several national projects are working on supporting implementation of the NGSS. _____ Publishers have already developed instructional materials that are well aligned to NGSS _____ There is instruction that needs to happen before students are able to demonstrate the PEs. _____ There are great differences between our current Washington State Standards and the NGSS. _____ There are state groups working to support districts and teachers in building understanding and beginning to implement the NGSS. Explain your thinking. Which of the answers above are you the least sure about regarding the implementation of the NGSS?
The NGSS has been Adopted… now what?
Place an X next to the descriptions that you think are correct.
19 APRIL 2013 VOL 340 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 276
EDUCATIONFORUM
Imagine that politicians and the people they
represent understood how human activity
impacts Earth, including climate. And
imagine that they had learned how to evaluate
claims, argue from evidence, and understand
models. These understandings and practices
are prominent in the U.S. National Research
Council (NRC) framework to guide the next
iteration of standards for U.S. elementary and
secondary school students ( 1). We discuss
how aspects such as authorship, coordina-
tion among subject areas, and broader goals
of college and career readiness give reason to
believe that this effort will be more success-
ful than previous attempts to use standards to
improve science education ( 2).
Concurrent development in English Lan-
guage Arts (ELA) (“literacy”) and Mathemat-
ics, under the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) ( 3, 4), has provided the opportunity
to build on the strengths of these literacy and
math documents from a science education
perspective. Closely following the CCSS, the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
are being developed by Achieve, a nonprofi t
organization, working directly with 26 lead
states ( 5). This structure acknowledges that
the standards will be adopted and imple-
mented at the state level.
Past educational standards were devel-
oped by professional organizations on behalf
of scientists and educators and in different
subject areas independently, yielding more
material than any K–12 school system (kin-
dergarten to high school) could teach well ( 6,
7). Now there is a call for “fewer, clearer, and
higher” standards ( 8).
Building on Literacy and Math
The CCSS focus not only on what it will
take to become a successful student in higher
education but also a successful employee.
Broadening the scope in this way, skills and
abilities that support civic participation are
explicit in the standards. Reading standards
give earlier and more extensive treatment of
informational text than in the past. This is
echoed in the writing standards; “The abil-
ity to write logical arguments based on sub-
stantive claims, sound reasoning, and rele-
vant evidence is a cornerstone” ( 9). Writing
standards include in-depth research with an
emphasis on analysis and presentation. Stan-
dards for speaking and listening include
“Integrate multiple sources of information
presented in diverse formats and media (e.g.,
visually, quantitatively, orally) in order to
make informed decisions and solve prob-
lems, evaluating the credibility and accuracy
of each source and noting any discrepancies
among the data” ( 3).
We see a similar emphasis on reasoning
and problem-solving in the math standards.
Comparisons with high-performing countries
fi nd that spending more time on fewer topics
gets better results. Thus, the math standards
emphasize focus and coherence rather than
covering topics in a curriculum that is a “mile
wide and an inch deep” ( 10). Greater depth in
each topic comes from students’ development
of mathematical expertise defi ned by eight
standards for mathematical practice.
The math standards take an overdue
step toward greater synergy with science by
introducing modeling in secondary grades.
The math standards defi ne modeling as “the
process of choosing and using appropriate
mathematics and statistics to analyze empiri-
cal situations, to understand them better, and
to improve decisions” ( 4). The elaboration of
the basic modeling cycle resonates with the
Opportunities and Challenges in Next Generation Standards
SCIENCE EDUCATION
E. K. Stage, 1 * H. Asturias, 1 T. Cheuk, 2 P. A. Daro, 3 S. B. Hampton 3
Goals for literacy, math, and science education may increase citizens’ capacity to argue from evidence.
Math
ELA
Science
M1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving themM2. Reason abstractly and quantitativelyM6. Attend to precisionM7. Look for and make use of structureM8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
S2. Develop and use modelsM4. Model with mathematicsS5. Use mathematics and computational thinking
S1. Ask questions and define problemsS3. Plan and carry out investigationsS4. Analyze and interpret dataS6. Construct explanations and design solutions
E2. Build a strong base of knowledge through content-rich textsE5. Read, write, and speak grounded in evidenceM3 and E4. Construct viable arguments and critique reasoning of othersS7. Engage in argument from evidence
E1. Demonstrate independence in reading complex textsand in writing and speaking about themE7. Come to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading, listening, and collaborations
S8. Obtain, evaluate, and communicate informationE3. Obtain, synthesize, and report findings clearly and effectively in response to task and purpose
E6. Use technology and digital media strategically and capablyM5. Use appropriate tools strategically
Relations and convergences in literacy (3), math (4), and science and engineering (1) practices. Adapted from ( 12).
*Corresponding author. [email protected]
1Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. 2Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 3National Center on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC 20006, USA.
Published by AAAS
on
Mar
ch 1
3, 2
014
ww
w.s
cien
cem
ag.o
rgD
ownl
oade
d fr
om
on
Mar
ch 1
3, 2
014
ww
w.s
cien
cem
ag.o
rgD
ownl
oade
d fr
om
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 340 19 APRIL 2013 277
EDUCATIONFORUM
writing standards and with the science prac-
tices, e.g., “(5) validating the conclusions
by comparing them with the situation, and
then either improving the model or, if it is
acceptable, (6) reporting on the conclusions
and the reasoning behind them. Choices,
assumptions, and approximations are pres-
ent throughout this cycle” ( 4).
Literacy and math standards include prac-
tices that are challenging to teach in science
without support from teachers of other sub-
jects. Standards for Speaking and Listening
include, “Evaluate a speaker’s point of view,
reasoning, and use of evidence and rheto-
ric” ( 3). Standards for Mathematical Practice
include, “Construct viable arguments and
critique the reasoning of others” ( 4).
Operationalizing InquiryIn this promising context, science standards
have been drafted, working from the NRC
framework, that operationalized “inquiry”
with eight practices of science and engineer-
ing: (i) asking questions and defi ning prob-
lems; (ii) developing and using models; (iii)
planning and carrying out investigations; (iv)
analyzing and interpreting data; (v) using
mathematics and computational thinking;
(vi) constructing explanations and designing
solutions; (vii) engaging in argument from
evidence; and (viii) obtaining, evaluating,
and communicating information ( 2).
The framework attempted to narrow the
number of core disciplinary ideas, although
reviewers of draft science standards have
said that the volume of content undermines
the sense making required by the practices
( 11). The framework retained the idea of
crosscutting concepts (e.g., structure and
function, stability and change of systems),
and argued that practices, core disciplinary
ideas, and crosscutting concepts should not
be taught or assessed separately from each
other. Each draft science performance expec-
tation incorporates one or more disciplinary
idea, practice, and/or crosscutting concept.
These performance expectations also cross-
reference the literacy and math standards;
the convergence is shown in the chart ( 12).
Science educators have decried the com-
mon practice of reading textbooks instead
of doing investigations; the former is still
alive and well ( 13). Literacy educators are
concerned about increased emphasis on
informational text in the CCSS ( 14). It is
time to embrace the coherence and learning
that can be achieved by making meaning-
ful connections between and among direct
experience with science and engineering
practices and reading, writing, speaking,
and listening ( 15).
What’s Next?Forty-fi ve states have adopted the CCSS.
If a substantial number of states adopt the
NGSS, it increases the likelihood that devel-
opers and publishers of instructional and
assessment materials will focus on creat-
ing a common set of tools, at least at ele-
mentary and middle grades. If colleges and
universities accept high school courses that
are based on the standards and the College
Board continues to revise the Advanced
Placement syllabi, high schools are more
likely to follow them.
In addition to suff icient time and
resources for educators and parents to learn
how to support these more ambitious expec-
tations, there are several challenges that sci-
entists, educators, and policy-makers should
consider. Advocates for high-quality science
education for all students need to participate
in conversations at the local and state level
where educational policy is enacted. Scien-
tists from higher education, research organi-
zations, and corporations infl uence science
education and can align their contributions
with educational goals in the standards.
Historically, the United States has pro-
vided limited opportunity to learn science
to most of its students and advanced training
to a privileged few, focusing on the pipeline
for future scientists and innovators without
concomitant attention to a science literacy
for citizenship. The system needs to be trans-
formed to affi rm high standards of accom-
plishment for all students and to provide
resources for all students to reach them ( 8).
Although the literacy and math standards
were widely adopted, and 26 states have served
as partners in developing NGSS, momentum
may be slowing; some states may reject the
NGSS because of the inclusion of evolution
and climate change ( 16). The National Center
for Science Education, a defender of teach-
ing evolution for more than three decades,
broadened its mission to include the defense
of teaching climate science.
Science education benefits from the
learning sciences; scientists interested in
the most effective teaching of science need
to learn from education research. Formal
schooling has been criticized as ineffective
at motivating and inspiring students ( 17)
and inadequate at recognizing the relation
between interest and accomplishment ( 18).
The NGSS can provide a platform for for-
mal education to become more motivating.
Many people are inspired by science in infor-
mal settings; parallel attention to the NGSS
can contribute to “a wide-ranging and thriv-
ing ecosystem of opportunities that respond
to the needs of children as well as commu-
nities” ( 19). Education and public outreach
activities associated with research grants,
whether in or out of school, should pro-
vide both preparation and inspiration. Local
school districts, after-school providers, and
informal science institutions need to create
a coherent strategy for the regional science
learning ecosystem.
This new round of standards develop-
ment is an opportunity to improve science
education that comes around once for each
generation. We need to inform ourselves,
figure out whether and how we want to
get involved, and be intentional about our
participation.
References 1. Board on Science Education, National Research Council
(NRC), A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Prac-
tices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
2. National Academy of Engineering and Committee on
Standards for K–12 Engineering Education, NRC, K-12
Standards for Engineering? (National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2010).
3. Center for Best Practices, National Governors Associa-
tion (NGA), and Council of Chief State School Offi cers,
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
(NGA, Washington, DC, 2010); www.corestandards.org/
ELA-Literacy.
4. Center for Best Practices, NGA, and Council of Chief State
School Offi cers, Common Core State Standards for Mathe-
matics (NGA, Washington, DC, 2010); www.corestandards.
org/Math.
5. Next Generation Science Standards, www.nextgenscience.
org/next-generation-science-standards.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Project 2061, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Oxford
Univ. Press, New York, 1993).
7. National Committee for Science Education Standards and
Assessment, NRC, National Science Education Standards
(National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
8. Commission on Mathematics and Science Education,
The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics
and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global
Economy (Carnegie Corporation of New York, New York,
2009).
9. Common Core, www.corestandards.org/about-the-stan-
dards/key-points-in-english-language-arts.
10. W. H. Schmidt, C. C. McKnight, S. A. Raizen, A Splintered
Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathemat-
ics Education (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA,
1997).
11. J. Coffey, B. Alberts, Science 339, 489 (2013).
12. T. Cheuk, Comparison of the three content standards:
CCSS-ELA, CCSS-Mathematics, and NGSS (2012); http://
ell.stanford.edu/content/science.
13. E. R. Banilower et al., Report of the 2012 National
Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Horizon
Research, Chapel Hill, NC, 2013)
14. C. Gewertz, Educ. Week 32(12), S2 (2012).
15. P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, C. Greenleaf, Science 328, 459
(2010).
16. E. W. Robelen, Educ. Week 32(19), 13 (2013).
17. C. Weiman, Issues Sci. Technol. 2012 (Fall) (2012).
18. R. H. Tai, C. Qi Liu, A. V. Maltese, X. Fan, Science 312,
1143 (2006).
19. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technol-
ogy, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s
Future (Offi ce of the President, Washington, DC, 2010).
10.1126/science.1234011
Published by AAAS
Sequence for Teaching & Practicing Scientific Explanations
1. Make the framework explicit. 2. Model and critique explanations. 3. Provide a rationale for creating explanations. 4. Connect to everyday explanations. 5. Assess and provide feedback to students.
Framework for the Cl-Ev-R Scientific Explanation
Claim
1. Relevant The claim directly & clearly responds to the question.
2. Stands-Alone The claim statement is complete (stands alone).
Evidence
3. Appropriate Is this the right type of evidence for this claim?
(Discuss this in the “Reasoning” section.)
a. Validity: Measurements & observations are relevant.
b. Validity: Controlled variables focus attention on key factors.
4. Sufficient Is there enough evidence?
a. Reliability: Repeated trials will increase confidence.
b. Full Range: Enough different conditions/values of variables?
c. Full Range: The explanation cites enough examples to represent the whole data set
without being tedious.
Reasoning
5. Stands-Out Is the reasoning obvious, or hard-to-spot?
a. DO NOT repeat the Claim or the Question.
b. DO NOT repeat the Evidence.
6. Link Why this data should count as evidence.
a. Why it’s the right type of measurement/observation.
b. How the controls help to validate the link.
7. “System Reason” Use scientific principle or knowledge of the system:
a. Why should this system behave this way, showing these results?
b. What does this tell us about the system that we didn’t know before?
Note: A fuller scientific explanation will also contain a “Rebuttal,” which describes alternative Claims,
plus the Evidence and/or Reasoning that refute the alternative Claim.
Notes:
Look at all parts to judge the strength and truth of the explanation. The truth of
the claim should not be judged by itself.
Look elsewhere to judge the accuracy of the data.
Pieces of reasoning sometimes get embedded in the Claim statement.
Separating reasoning from Claim and Evidence can make explanations clearer.
Feedback Rubric for Scientific Explanations
4 - BEST 3 - GOOD 2 1
Claim Relevant The claim directly & clearly responds to the question.
Claim directly & clearly responds to the question.
Claim responds directly or clearly to the question.
Claim does not respond to the question.
No claim statement. Stands-Alone
The claim statement is complete (stands alone).
Claim stands alone as a complete statement.
Minor missing piece to be a complete statement.
Vague or missing pieces.
Evidence
Appropriate Is this the right type of evidence for this claim?
Data is relevant to the question. Controls focus on key variables.
Data is relevant, but there are not enough controlled variables.
Cites evidence that is not relevant to claim.
No evidence cited.
Sufficient Is there enough evidence?
Full range of data is cited, and that data has several conditions and repeated trials.
Cites unbalanced parts of the data, or data that is not from repeated trials.
Cites a minimal amount of data.
Reasoning
Stands-Out Is the reasoning obvious, or hard-to-spot?
Reasoning statements stand out among other statements.
Reasoning is present, but is not obvious.
Repeats the Claim, Question, or Evidence.
No reasoning statements.
Link Why this data should count as evidence.
Says how the data are the right data, and/or how the controls validate the data.
Minor piece is missing.
Attempts, but is unclear about how the data cited is relevant.
“System Reason” Use scientific principle or knowledge of the system.
Describes how or why the system works in a way that is consistent with the evidence.
Describes how or why the system works, but weakly relates this to the evidence.
Lightly addresses the system, and fails to connect to claim or evidence.
Three Parts of Feedback:
A. Specifically describe what was done well (see rubric).
B. Clarify the target: evidence-based explanation with
CLAIM + EVIDENCE + REASONING.
C. Specifically describe what must be done next to improve
the explanation (see rubric).
Three Dimensions of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
Scientific and Engineering Practices
Asking Questions and Defining Problems A practice of science is to ask and refine questions that lead to descriptions and explanations of how the natural and designed world works and which can be empirically tested. Engineering questions clarify problems to determine criteria for successful solutions and identify constraints to solve problems about the designed world. Both scientists and engineers also ask questions to clarify the ideas of others. Planning and Carrying Out Investigations Scientists and engineers plan and carry out investigations in the field or laboratory, working collaboratively as well as individually. Their investigations are systematic and require clarifying what counts as data and identifying variables or parameters. Engineering investigations identify the effectiveness, efficiency, and durability of designs under different conditions. Analyzing and Interpreting Data Scientific investigations produce data that must be analyzed in order to derive meaning. Because data patterns and trends are not always obvious, scientists use a range of tools—including tabulation, graphical interpretation, visualization, and statistical analysis—to identify the significant features and patterns in the data. Scientists identify sources of error in the investigations and calculate the degree of certainty in the results. Modern technology makes the collection of large data sets much easier, providing secondary sources for analysis. Engineering investigations include analysis of data collected in the tests of designs. This allows comparison of different solutions and determines how well each meets specific design criteria—that is, which design best solves the problem within given constraints. Like scientists, engineers require a range of tools to identify patterns within data and interpret the results. Advances in science make analysis of proposed solutions more efficient and effective.
Developing and Using Models A practice of both science and engineering is to use and construct models as helpful tools for representing ideas and explanations. These tools include diagrams, drawings, physical replicas, mathematical representations, analogies, and computer simulations. Modeling tools are used to develop questions, predictions and explanations; analyze and identify flaws in systems; and communicate ideas. Models are used to build and revise scientific explanations and proposed engineered systems. Measurements and observations are used to revise models and designs. Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions The products of science are explanations and the products of engineering are solutions. The goal of science is the construction of theories that provide explanatory accounts of the world. A theory becomes accepted when it has multiple lines of empirical evidence and greater explanatory power of phenomena than previous theories. The goal of engineering design is to find a systematic solution to problems that is based on scientific knowledge and models of the material world. Each proposed solution results from a process of balancing competing criteria of desired functions, technical feasibility, cost, safety, aesthetics, and compliance with legal requirements. The optimal choice depends on how well the proposed solutions meet criteria and constraints. Engaging in Argument from Evidence Argumentation is the process by which explanations and solutions are reached. In science and engineering, reasoning and argument based on evidence are essential to identifying the best explanation for a natural phenomenon or the best solution to a design problem. Scientists and engineers use argumentation to listen to, compare, and evaluate competing ideas and methods based on merits. Scientists and engineers engage in argumentation when investigating a phenomenon, testing a design solution, resolving questions about measurements, building data models, and using evidence to identify strengths and weaknesses of claims.
Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking In both science and engineering, mathematics and computation are fundamental tools for representing physical variables and their relationships. They are used for a range of tasks such as constructing simulations; statistically analyzing data; and recognizing, expressing, and applying quantitative relationships. Mathematical and computational approaches enable scientists and engineers to predict the behavior of systems and test the validity of such predictions. Statistical methods are frequently used to identify significant patterns and establish correlational relationships. Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information Scientists and engineers must be able to communicate clearly and persuasively the ideas and methods they generate. Critiquing and communicating ideas individually and in groups is a critical professional activity. Communicating information and ideas can be done in multiple ways: using tables, diagrams, graphs, models, and equations as well as orally, in writing, and through extended discussions. Scientists and engineers employ multiple sources to acquire information that is used to evaluate the merit and validity of claims, methods, and designs.
Developed by NSTA based on content from the Framework for K-12 Science Education and supporting documents for the May 2012 Public Draft of the NGSS
www.nsta.org/ngss
Disciplinary Core Ideas in Physical Science
Disciplinary Core Ideas in Life Science
Disciplinary Core Ideas in Earth and Space Science
Disciplinary Core Ideas in Engineering, Technology, and
the Application of Science
PS1: Matter and Its Interactions PS1.A: Structure and Properties of Matter PS1.B: Chemical Reactions PS1.C: Nuclear Processes PS2: Motion and Stability: Forces and
Interactions PS2.A: Forces and Motion PS2.B: Types of Interactions PS2.C: Stability and Instability in Physical
Systems PS3: Energy PS3.A: Definitions of Energy PS3.B: Conservation of Energy and Energy
Transfer PS3.C: Relationship Between Energy and
Forces PS3.D: Energy in Chemical Processes and
Everyday Life PS4: Waves and Their Applications in
Technologies for Information Transfer PS4.A: Wave Properties PS4.B: Electromagnetic Radiation PS4.C: Information Technologies and
Instrumentation
LS1: From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes
LS1.A: Structure and Function LS1.B: Growth and Development of
Organisms LS1.C: Organization for Matter and Energy
Flow in Organisms LS1.D: Information Processing LS2: Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and
Dynamics LS2.A: Interdependent Relationships in
Ecosystems LS2.B: Cycles of Matter and Energy Transfer in
Ecosystems LS2.C: Ecosystem Dynamics, Functioning, and
Resilience LS2.D: Social Interactions and Group Behavior LS3: Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of
Traits LS3.A: Inheritance of Traits LS3.B: Variation of Traits LS4: Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity LS4.A: Evidence of Common Ancestry and
Diversity LS4.B: Natural Selection LS4.C: Adaptation LS4.D: Biodiversity and Humans
ESS1: Earth’s Place in the Universe ESS1.A: The Universe and Its Stars ESS1.B: Earth and the Solar System ESS1.C: The History of Planet Earth ESS2: Earth’s Systems ESS2.A: Earth Materials and Systems ESS2.B: Plate Tectonics and Large-Scale
System Interactions ESS2.C: The Roles of Water in Earth’s Surface
Processes ESS2.D: Weather and Climate ESS2.E: Biogeology ESS3: Earth and Human Activity ESS3.A: Natural Resources ESS3.B: Natural Hazards ESS3.C: Human Impacts on Earth Systems ESS3.D: Global Climate Change
ETS1: Engineering Design ETS1.A: Defining and Delimiting an
Engineering Problem ETS1.B: Developing Possible Solutions ETS1.C: Optimizing the Design Solution ETS2: Links Among Engineering, Technology,
Science, and Society ETS2.A: Interdependence of Science,
Engineering, and Technology ETS2.B: Influence of Engineering, Technology,
and Science on Society and the Natural World
Crosscutting Concepts
Patterns Observed patterns of forms and events guide organization and classification, and they prompt questions about relationships and the factors that influence them. Cause and Effect: Mechanism and Explanation Events have causes, sometimes simple, sometimes multifaceted. A major activity of science is investigating and explaining causal relationships and the mechanisms by which they are mediated. Such mechanisms can then be tested across given contexts and used to predict and explain events in new contexts.
Scale, Proportion, and Quantity In considering phenomena, it is critical to recognize what is relevant at different measures of size, time, and energy and to recognize how changes in scale, proportion, or quantity affect a system’s structure or performance. Systems and System Models Defining the system under study—specifying its boundaries and making explicit a model of that system—provides tools for understanding and testing ideas that are applicable throughout science and engineering.
Energy and Matter: Flows, Cycles, and Conservation Tracking fluxes of energy and matter into, out of, and within systems helps one understand the systems’ possibilities and limitations. Structure and Function The way in which an object or living thing is shaped and its substructure determine many of its properties and functions. Stability and Change For natural and built systems alike, conditions of stability and determinants of rates of change or evolution of a system are critical elements of study.
Developed by NSTA based on content from the Framework for K-12 Science Education and supporting documents for the May 2012 Public Draft of the NGSS