Achieve “played a similar role” (Robelen, 2012) to its part in coordinating the development of the CCSS. Also note that the federal government did not fund the development of the NGSS (Achieve, n.d.d). Instead, private foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Noyce Foundation, the Cisco Foundation, and DuPont provided funding (Gillis, 2013).
While composing the standards, the writing team conducted several rounds of review, feedback, and revision. Figure 1.1 depicts the general process and timeline for writing the NGSS.
Source: Achieve, n.d.c.
Figure 1.1: General timeline for the creation of the Next Generation Science Standards.
Emulating the actions of the NRC in the construction of its framework and the NGA and CCSSO in the construction of the CCSS, Achieve and the NGSS lead states welcomed feedback from various parties. As indicated in figure 1.1, the NGSS went through two rounds of public feedback: one in May 2012 and one in January 2013. The writing team also received feedback from specific individuals and organizations—which Achieve (n.d.b) called “critical stakeholders”—that they believed had a special interest in the NGSS. These individuals included representatives from the AAAS and the NSTA, state leaders, K–12 teachers, professors, and scientists, as well as experts in postsecondary education, state standards and assessments, mathematics and literacy, business and industry, workforce development, education policy, special education, and English language acquisition (Achieve, n.d.b). Finally, all fifty states had the chance to read and offer feedback on preliminary drafts of the standards (Achieve, n.d.g).
In April 2013, the final version of the NGSS was published. Several features set the NGSS apart from previous standards documents for science education, prompting writing team member Joseph S. Krajcik to proclaim, “You can travel worldwide and you’re not going to find standards like them” (quoted in Robelen, 2013). These unique characteristics as well as an overview of the initial reception of the NGSS are described online at MarzanoResources.com/reproducibles.
The Influence of the NRC Framework
It is important to keep in mind that A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012) heavily informed the creation of the NGSS. As stated previously, the NRC framework was written before the NGSS with the intention of determining the critical content the standards themselves should contain. The framework divided this content into three dimensions: (1) scientific and engineering practices, (2) crosscutting concepts, and (3) disciplinary core ideas. Table 1.3 lists the three dimensions and their component parts.
Table 1.3: The Three Dimensions of the NRC Framework
| Scientific and Engineering Practices | 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information |
| Crosscutting Concepts | 1. Patterns 2. Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation 3. Scale, proportion, and quantity 4. Systems and system models 5. Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation 6. Structure and function 7. Stability and change |
| Disciplinary Core Ideas | Physical Sciences PS1: Matter and its interactions PS2: Motion and stability: Forces and interactions PS3: Energy PS4: Waves and their applications in technologies for information transfer Life Sciences LS1: From molecules to organisms: Structures and processes LS2: Ecosystems: Interactions, energy, and dynamics LS3: Heredity: Inheritance and variation of traits LS4: Biological evolution: Unity and diversity Earth and Space Sciences ESS1: Earth’s place in the universe ESS2: Earth’s systems ESS3: Earth and human activity Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science ETS1: Engineering design ETS2: Links among engineering, technology, science, and society |
Source: NRC, 2012, p. 3.
The first dimension included scientific and engineering practices, which were defined as “behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world” (Achieve, n.d.h). The second dimension contained crosscutting concepts, which were defined as concepts that “bridge disciplinary boundaries [and have] explanatory value throughout much of science and engineering” (NRC, 2012, p. 83). (We recommend addressing the crosscutting concepts through vocabulary instruction, as detailed in the book Vocabulary for the New Science Standards [Marzano, Rogers, & Simms, 2015].) The third dimension was composed of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), which were defined as ideas that “focus K–12 science curriculum, instruction and assessments on the most important aspects of science” (Achieve, n.d.h). Within the third dimension, the NRC identified four scientific disciplines: (1) physical sciences, (2) life sciences, (3) Earth and space sciences, and (4) engineering, technology, and applications of science. Each discipline contained core ideas, which specified areas of knowledge within the discipline with which students should become familiar. Table 1.4 shows how sub-ideas further divide each core idea.
Table 1.4: Core and Sub-Ideas Within the Four Scientific Disciplines
Source: NRC, 2012, pp. 105, 142, 171, 203.
It is important to note that the organizational structure of the NGSS mirrored the order of the core ideas from the framework listed in table 1.4, as content knowledge—disciplinary core ideas—organized the standards rather than either of the other two dimensions (scientific and engineering practices or crosscutting concepts).
Though the NRC (2012) defined the three dimensions separately, it recommended that “in order to facilitate students’ learning, the dimensions … be woven together in standards, curricula, instruction, and assessments” (pp. 29–30). To accomplish such an amalgamation, the NGSS used performance expectations. Each performance expectation in the NGSS was a synthesis of related elements from the three dimensions. As depicted in figure 1.2, each NGSS standard has three sections: (1) a performance expectations section, (2) foundation boxes, and (3) a connections section.
Source: Achieve, 2013b, p. 1.
Figure 1.2: Generic format of an NGSS standard.
The first section contains performance expectations, grade-specific statements that serve as an indication of a student’s proficiency with related knowledge and skills. These statements
