The Creative Process, Neuroscience, Graphic Design (RGB Studios - Detroit Digital - McMath-Hulbert Solar Observatory - 21st Century Digital Learning Environments = A Good Magic Trick :-)

Creativity Is Like a Slot Machine

by Maria Popova

“To invent, you have to take the odd and the strange combination of the years of knowledge and experience.”

In How to Think Like a Great Graphic Designer(UK; public library), Debbie Millman (previously) sits down with 20 of today’s most celebrated graphic designers to unravel the secrets of their creative process, work ethic, and general philosophy on life. The result is a kind of modern-day equivalent of the 1942 gemAnatomy of Inspiration, presenting a rare glimpse of the creative machinery behind some of today’s most talented and influential designers through conversations that reveal in equal measure their purposeful brilliance and tender humanity.

One of the most stimulating interviews is with the inimitable Paula Scher — identity and branding goddess, Pentagrampartner, maker of magnificent hand-drawn maps, tireless champion ofcombinatorial creativity — who echoes Thoreau in this beautiful, poetic definition of success:

If I get up every day with the optimism that I have the capacity for growth, then that’s success for me.

Like many of history’s greatest scientists, Scher speaks to the power of intuition and additive knowledge in sparking those creative Eureka! moments, stressing the importance of what novelist William Gibson has termed “personal micro-culture.” She illustrates the point with an exquisite metaphor:

There’s a certain amount of intuitive thinking that goes into everything. It’s so hard to describe how things happen intuitively. I can describe it as a computer and a slot machine. I have a pile of stuff in my brain, a pile of stuff from all the books I’ve read and all the movies I’ve seen. Every piece of artwork I’ve ever looked at. Every conversation that’s inspired me, every piece of street art I’ve seen along the way. Anything I’ve purchased, rejected, loved, hated. It’s all in there. It’s all on one side of the brain.

And on the other side of the brain is a specific brief that comes from my understanding of the project and says, okay, this solution is made up of A, B, C, and D. And if you pull the handle on the slot machine, they sort of run around in a circle, and what you hope is that those three cherries line up, and the cash comes out.

But rather than willing the cherries into alignment, the essence of creative alchemy, says Scher, is in allowing for unconscious processing — that intuitive incubation period, to use T.S. Eliot’s term, that allows for all the combinatorial pieces gathered over years of being alive and awake to the world to click into place, to congeal into what we call “invention”:

I am conscious of resolving the brief, but I don’t think about it too hard. I allow the subconscious part of my brain to work. That’s the accumulation of my whole life. That is what’s going on in the other side of my brain, trying to align with this very logical brief.

And I’m allowing that to flow freely, so that the cherries can line up in the slot machine. I don’t know when that’s going to happen. I’ve had periods of time when the cherries never line up, and that’s scary, because then you have to rely on tricks you already have up your sleeve — the tricks in your knowledge from other jobs. And very often you rely on this.

But mostly what you want to do is invent. And to invent, you have to take the odd and the strange combination of the years of knowledge and experience on one side of the brain, and on the other side, the necessity for the brief to make sense. And you’re drawing from that knowledge to make an analogy and to find a way to solve a problem, to find a means of moving forward — in a new way — things you’ve already done.

When you succeed, it’s fantastic. It doesn’t always happen. But every so often, you take a bunch of stuff from one side of your head, and a very logical list of stuff from the other side, and through that osmosis you’re finding a new way to look at a problem and resolve a situation.

Perhaps George Lois was right, after all, when he stated that creativity isdiscovering ideas rather than “creating” them and John Cleese correctly defined it as “a way of operating” rather than a mystical talent.

How to Think Like a Great Graphic Designer is fantastic in its entirety — highly recommended.

Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds (Report: Global Overview of Ensuing 15 Years)

The World In 2030: Asia Rises, The West Declines

by TOM GJELTEN

December 10, 2012 5:24 PM

Global Trends 2030 Report PDF  http://media.npr.org/documents/2012/dec/dnireport.pdf

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

4 min 27 sec

• Playlist
• Download
• Transcript

Enlarge image

The National Intelligence Council's Global Trends 2030 report predicts that by the year 2030, a majority of the world's population will be out of poverty.

iStockphoto)

By the year 2030, for the first time in history, a majority of the world's population will be out of poverty. Middle classes will be the most important social and economic sector. Asia will enjoy the global power status it last had in the Middle Ages, while the 350-year rise of the West will be largely reversed. Global leadership may be shared, and the world is likely to be democratizing.

But the planet may also be racked by wars over food and water, with the environment threatened by climate change. Individuals, equipped with new lethal and disruptive technologies, will be capable of causing widespread harm. Global economic crises could well be recurring.

It all depends on how events develop over the next decade, according to a new report, Global Trends 2030 [PDF], prepared by the National Intelligence Council, comprising the 17 U.S. government intelligence agencies.

"We are at a critical juncture in human history, which could lead to widely contrasting futures," writes Christopher Kojm, the NIC chairman, in his introduction to the report.

The intelligence agencies update their Global Trends reporting every four years, in part to guide incoming presidential administrations. The new report identifies some new "mega-trends," including individual empowerment and the diffusion of global power, as well as highlighting issues that were covered in previous reports, such as growing conflict over access to food, water and energy sources.

A 'Radically Transformed' World

Among the demographic trends described in the report are the aging of the world population, more migration and increased urbanization.

"The world of 2030 will be radically transformed from our world today," Kojm said, introducing the report.

The report's authors note that the breadth of global change is comparable to the French Revolution and the dawning of the Industrial Age in the late 18th century, but unfolding at a far more dramatic pace. Whereas it took Britain more than 150 years to double per capita income, India and China are set to undergo the same transformation in a tenth of the time, with 100 times more people.

"By 2030," the report says, "Asia will be well on its way to returning to being the world's powerhouse, just as it was before 1500."

The report notes that Asian countries by that date will surpass the United States and Europe combined in overall power indices, including the size of their economies, populations and militaries, as well as in the extent of their technological investment.

A Multipolar World

Global political leadership, however, is likely to be diffused, with no single country or alliance playing a dominant role.

"A growing number of diverse state and nonstate actors, as well as subnational actors, such as cities, will play important governance roles," the report says. "The increasing number of players needed to solve major transnational challenges — and their discordant values — will complicate decisionmaking."

Much of the 2030 report highlights potentially positive developments, anticipating a healthier, more educated and more prosperous global population and a trend toward greater democracy. The report also warns about resource conflicts, the danger of nuclear war and global political gridlock. But its writers have nevertheless faced some criticism for an overly "optimistic" perspective, says Matthew Burrows, director of the NIC Long Range Analysis Unit and the principal author of the report.

"I got some comments from government officials who think we should have put more accent on even more negative scenarios and a lot more on a World War III scenario," Burrows says.

Diminished Threat From Terrorism

The report does identify some "Black Swan" possibilities that could cause large-scale disruption, such as a severe pandemic or the collapse of the European Union, but Burrows says his team of analysts figured a World War III scenario was not plausible.

Terrorism is likely to persist, according to the NIC analysts, but it will probably be less lethal, producing fewer civilian casualties and more economic disruption. Speaking at a news conference where he released the report, NIC Chairman Kojm said his analysts believe that radical Islam will have largely "exhausted" itself as a driver of terrorism by 2030.

The introduction of new media and technologies, however, may mean that individuals will be more capable of doing harm on their own or on behalf of others.

"With more access to lethal and disruptive technologies," Kojm said, "individuals who are experts in such areas as cybersystems might sell their services to the highest bidder."

The emphasis on individual empowerment was not highlighted in earlier NIC reports. The geopolitical shift from West to East did get attention previously, but Burrows said in hindsight it could have been given greater emphasis.

"We knew China was rising," Burrows says. "We underestimated the speed with which it was happening."

A Less Organized World

The NIC analysts may also have been caught a bit off guard by the Arab Spring, with the collapse of authoritarian governments from Egypt to Tunisia and the uprising in Syria. As with China's ascendancy, the democratization of Middle Eastern and North African countries was anticipated in the previous Global Trends report, but over a longer period of time.

"We were thinking about over 15 years," Burrows says. "We wrote that [last report] in 2008, so [we expected democratization] between 2008 and 2025. I think the lesson in a lot of these areas is that the developments come a lot faster."

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of this new global era will be that it's likely to be less organized. Global leadership will flow not to the strongest but to those who are most skilled at diplomacy and best able to mobilize international support. Under the "megatrends" category, the Global Trend authors predict that "power will shift to networks and coalitions in a multipolar world."

Should no group of countries prove capable of that cooperative leadership, the world could suffer, according to Burrows.

"You probably don't want to live in [that world]," Burrows says, "simply because of the challenges. Everything from proliferation to the global economy to the environment and resource issues, the responsibility to protect. All of those issues are not likely to fare very well in that world.You need some sort of management to keep a lot of these issues going in the right direction."

NEW: SAP Common Core Tools (Funding: Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust)

NEA, AFT Partner To Build Common-Core Tools

By Catherine Gewertz on December 17, 2012 11:01 AM

The two national teachers' unions have won $11 million to build an online warehouse of instructional tools for the Common Core State Standards. Student Achievement Partners, whose founders led the writing of the standards, is also a grantee. It will work with the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association and their teachers to build the tools and post them on Student Achievement Partners' website.

Announced today, the three-year project joins many similar efforts focused on the common standards, which are being implemented now in 46 states and the District of Columbia. One of the recent higher-profile cases in point is ShareMyLesson.com, an online instructional-tools portal being built by the AFT.

The grant came from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, which is supported by New York City hotel magnate Leona Helmsley. The 13-year-old philanthropy is seeking to expand its work in education, noting on its website that its education program area "is in transition and is now funding programs of national significance in K-12 and higher education." A search of its education grants since 2000 shows only a few over $1 million, so the $11 million award to SAP, NEA and AFT represents a major investment in that area for the trust.

Rich McKeon, Helmsley's education program director, said in a press release that the philanthropy "applauds the critical role of teachers and their unions in the development and adoption of Common Core State Standards in dozens of states across the nation," and is "delighted" to support the unions and Student Achievement Partners as they develop and deliver the "highest quality" tools to help teachers meet the new standards.

Susan Pimentel, who co-led the writing of the common standards in English/language arts and is leading the ELA work at Student Achievement Partners, told EdWeek that the New York City-based nonprofit would be "the engine room" for the new project, but teachers would be the fuel behind it. It will cover both ELA and math.

SAP will meet regularly with teachers to find out what they need most in the classroom, and come back to them with early versions that can then be reviewed and revised, Pimentel said. Teachers from the two unions will also play a key role by piloting the tools in their classrooms next year, she said. The tools will be available on SAP's website, Achieve The Core, and NEA and AFT websites, she said.

The grantees do not envision designing entire curricula, Pimentel said, but discrete pieces that could be helpful to teachers. Once meetings with AFT and NEA teachers begin, more specific plans can take shape, she said.

But SAP has some early ideas that were sparked by discussions with teachers in the field.

Many teachers have asked for help, Pimentel said, in designing "coherent text sets" to help them get at the standards' expectations for cross-disciplinary learning and cross-text synthesis. Building suggested text sets would involve taking a broad topic, like the human body, and using teachers' input to create lists of texts that could be used together, over several grade levels, to build knowledge about the body while teaching the skills outlined in the standards, she said.

Teachers have also told SAP that they need support with the standards' expectation of building students' academic vocabulary. Building a computer-based way to help teachers identify the academic vocabulary words students need most could be a good target for the grant work, Pimentel said.

Where Do Great Ideas Come From? (MI STEM Partnership Blog-site: Our Connected Hunch Bowl)

Common Core Assessments (The Digital Technology Equation)

Consortium Releases Technology Guidelines for Common Core Tests

By Sean Cavanagh on December 21, 2012 10:37 PM

One of the two consortia designing tests for the Common Core State Standards has released new guidance on the minimum technology standards states will need to meet to give those tests, beginning in 2014-15.

The Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers said the guidance, unveiled late Friday afternoon, is meant to provide direction to states and districts on the extent to which current technology meets testing standards, or whether upgrades will be required.

The document offers both "minimum specifications," that would satisfy the consortium's tech guidelines at least through 2014-15, and "recommended" ones, which would be expected to meet the state group's standards through the 2018-19 school year.

Earlier this month, the other group leading states toward the development of tests to match the Common Core, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, released its own list of technology requirements and recommendations for 2014-15.

The new PARCC guidelines are "very similar" to the Smarter Balanced requirements, said Susan Van Gundy, associate director for assessment technology at Achieve, an organization that is managing the partnership consortium's work.

One of the requirements focuses on test security. All devices used during the tests—whether laptops, netbooks, tablets—and operating systems must have the capability to "lock down" and temporarily disable features that present a security risk while exams are being given. Certain features would also need to be controlled during test administration, including unlimited Internet access, certain types of cameras, screen captures, e-mail, and instant-messaging, the requirements say.

Some of the PARCC requirements are still to come. Minimum bandwidth requirements won't be determined until next year, according to PARCC. But the group is setting the recommended bandwidth for external connections to the Internet at 100 kilobits per second, per student or faster, and the minimum for internal school networks at least at 1000 kilobits per second, per student.

Desktop and laptop computers, netbooks, thin clients are among the allowable testing devices. Smartphones will not be allowed for 2014-15, because they do not meet the minimum 9.5-inch screen size, Van Gundy said. Tablets that meet the standards will be allowed. (Smarter Balanced has also said a 9.5-inch screen should be the standard.)

Standards for operating systems vary. The minimum standards for Windows, for instance, is Windows XP/Service Pack 3, though looking ahead, Windows 7 or newer is recommended.

Douglas Levin, the executive director of the State Educational Technology Directors Association, agreed that the new requirements issued by PARCC are "very close" to the Smarter Balanced group's guidance.

Both the PARCC and Smarter Balanced documents will critical in helping state and local officials answer a overriding question when it comes to their existing technology, Levin said: "How much new stuff might they need to buy" to close the gap between what they have now, and what they will need to give the common core tests. (See Education Week's coverage of thecommon core technological challenges facing states and local districts in the most recent issue of Digital Directions.)

With the specifics from the two consortia, "we can actively have a conversation about how big the gap is, and what steps we need to take to address it," Levin said.

At the same time, the newly released PARCC documents have the effect of telling states that they will probably want to set their ambitions higher than simply meeting the minimum targets for 2014-15, he said.

"They do a good job of conveying that this is going to be an ongoing process," he said.

Digital Leaning Now (Getting Ready for On-Line Assessments PDF)

http://gettingsmart.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DLNSmartSeries-OA_12-21-2012a-with-disclaimer.pdf

Next Generation Science Standards (Video; Links, Draft and Comments submitted by James Emmerling)

Next Generation Science Standards (Video)
http://www.mistreamnet.com/vidflv.php?who=ngss121112.n01

Next Generation Science
http://www.nextgensicence.org

James Emmerling posted a new message:
Comment on New DRAFT Science Standards

To understand how your work can fit in the K12 system and to offer comments to the writers of the DRAFT Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) please view the following video and complete the survey.

The resources that I mentioned in our meeting for building a basic understanding of the Framework on which the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is built can be found here,. The 34 minute video also contains a timeline for possible state adoption, a possible transition timeline, and "how to read the standards". I put it together for teachers and other interested parties to watch prior to commenting on the 2nd public draft. The NGSS documents and the survey will be available for commenting to the writers during the first week of January. These documents will be found at www.nextgenscience.org . The input window will only be open for a three week period.

Published on Next Generation Science Standards (http://www.nextgenscience.org)

Home > Why Science Standards? > The Need

---

The Need for New Science Standards

In 2007, a Carnegie Foundation commission of distinguished researchers and public and private leaders concluded that "the nation’s capacity to innovate for economic growth and the ability of American workers to thrive in the modern workforce depend on a broad foundation of math and science learning, as do our hopes for preserving a vibrant democracy and the promise of social mobility that lie at the heart of the American dream"¹. However, the U.S. system of science and mathematics education is performing far below par and, if left unattended, will leave millions of young Americans unprepared to succeed in a global economy.

Reduction of the United States' competitive economic edge

Lagging achievement of U.S. students

Essential preparation for all careers in the modern workforce

Scientific and technological literacy for an educated society

Reduction of the United States' competitive economic edge 

• Shrinking share of patents: Foreign competitors filed over half of U.S. technology patent applications in 2010².
• Diminishing share of high-tech exports:  Our share of high-tech exports is on the decline, while the European Union’s has held steady and China’s has surpassed us³. Correspondingly, the United States has a growing high-tech trade deficit⁴.

[back to top]
Lagging achievement of U.S. students 

• The U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in mathematics on the 2009 PISA assessment. Less than ten percent of U.S. students scored at one of the top two of six performance levels⁵. 
• The United States is 12th in high school graduation rate among the 36 OECD countries for which data is available⁶.
• Over a third of eighth-graders scored below basic on the 2009 NAEP Science assessment⁷.
• 78% of high school graduates did not meet the readiness benchmark levels for one or more entry level college courses in mathematics, science, reading and English⁸.

[back to top]
Essential preparation for all careers in the modern workforce
When we think science education, we tend to think preparation for careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, which are wellsprings of innovation in our economy. Why then is ensuring scientific and technological literacy for all students of equal concern? Over the past decades, demands have shifted in favor of skilled jobs requiring more education than the unskilled jobs they replaced. Moreover, many of the fastest growing occupations are those where science and mathematics play a central role.

The National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, grouped all occupations into 16 career clusters⁹. Fourteen of the 16 career clusters call forfour years of science, with the remaining two clusters calling for three years. All 16 called for four years of mathematics. The inescapable message: to keep their options open and maximize their opportunities, all students should follow a rigorous program in both science and mathematics.
[back to top]
Scientific and technological literacy for an educated society
Beyond the concern of employability looms the larger question of what it takes to thrive in today’s society. Citizens now face problems from pandemics to energy shortages whose solutions require all the scientific and technological genius we can muster. Americans are being forced to increasingly make decisions—including on health care and retirement planning—where literacy in science and mathematics is a real advantage. Contrast these demands with the results of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Fewer than one in three college graduates can perform tasks such as interpreting a data table about blood pressure and physical activity¹⁰.
[back to top]

1. Carnegie Corporation of New York-Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education Executive Summary, p.1 [1].
2. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/all_tech.htm#PartA1_2a [2]
3. Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010.  National Science Foundation.  http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c0/c0s11.htm [3].
4. Our Nation’s Surprising Technology Trade Deficit. Center for American Progress.  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/high_tech_trade.html [4].
5. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development- High School Graduation Rates [5]
6. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653 [6]
7. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011451 [7]
8. ACT Readiness Benchmarks [8]
9. National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, Sample Plans of Study, http://www.careertech.org/career-clusters/ [9], [9] 2006. (Career clusters are as follows: Agriculture; Architecture & Construction; Arts, A/V Technology & Communication; Business; Education; Finance; Government; Health Science; Hospitality & Tourism; Human Services; Information Technology; Law, Public Safety; Manufacturing; Marketing, Sales, Service; Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics; Transportation.)
10. National Assessment of Adult Literacy [10], 2003.

---

Source URL: http://www.nextgenscience.org/overview-0

Links:
[1] http://opportunityequation.org/uploads/files/oe_report.pdf
[2] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/all_tech.htm#PartA1_2a
[3] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c0/c0s11.htm
[4] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/high_tech_trade.html
[5] http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_46635719_1_1_1_1,00.html
[6] http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653
[7] http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011451
[8] http://www.act.org/news/data/10/benchmarks.html?utm_campaign=cccr10&utm_source=data10_leftnav&utm_medium=web
[9] http://www.careertech.org/career-clusters/
[10] http://nces.ed.gov/naal/

Frequently Asked Questions

Printer-friendly version

Purpose for the Standards

• Why new science standards? Why now?

Contents and Research Background of the Standards

• How will critical thinking and communications skills, which are fundamental to student success in today’s global economy, be addressed in the Next Generation Science Standards?
• How will the standards take into account current research in cognitive science?
• Will the standards be internationally benchmarked?           
• What are core ideas in science?
• What are scientific practices?
• What are crosscutting concepts?
• What is the difference between the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science and the NGSS?

Standards Development Process

• How is the development of the Next Generation Science Standardsdifferent than the development of the Common Core State Standards?
• Is the federal government sponsoring the development of the Next Generation Science Standards?
• Who will be involved in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards?
• Will there be an opportunity for the general public to submit feedback on the standards during the development process?
• What is the timeline for completing the Next Generation Science Standards?
• After the writing team completes its work, will there be an alignment of the Next Generation Science Standards to the National Research Council’s Framework for K–12 Science Education?

Next Steps for the Standards and Framework

• Will the new standards be the Common Core State Standards for Science?
• How will states use these standards documents?
• How will states use the NRC's Framework?
• Will there be common science assessments?

Don’t see your question listed here?  Contact Us

Purpose of Next Generation Science Standards

Why new science standards? Why now?

Science—and therefore science education—is central to the lives of all Americans, preparing them to be informed citizens in a democracy and knowledgeable consumers.  It is also the case that if the nation is to compete and lead in the global economy and if American students are to be able to pursue expanding employment opportunities in science-related fields, all students must all have a solid K–12 science education that prepares them for college and careers. States have previously used the National Science Education Standards from the National Research Council (NRC) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to guide the development of their current state science standards. While these two documents have proven to be both durable and of high quality, they are around 15 years old.  Needless to say, major advances have since taken place in the world of science and in our understanding of how students learn science effectively. The time is right to take a fresh look and develop Next Generation Science Standards.

Back to Top

Contents and Research Background of the Standards

How will critical thinking and communications skills, which are fundamental to student success in today’s global economy, be addressed in the Next Generation Science Standards?

It is important to understand that the scientific practices defined by the NRC include the critical thinking and communication skills that students need for postsecondary success and citizenship in a world fueled by innovations in science and technology. These science practices encompass the habits and skills that scientists and engineers use day in and day out. In the Next Generation Science Standards these practices will be wedded to content. In other words, content and practice will be intertwined in the standards, just as they are in the NRCFramework and in today’s workplace.

Back to Top

How will the standards take into account current research in cognitive science?

Research on how students learn science effectively has been a long-term interest of the National Research Council, which published How People Learn, How Students Learn, and most recently, Taking Science to School.  Findings in cognitive science permeate the Framework for K–12 Science Education and will be central to developing the Next Generation Science Standards.

Back to Top                                     

Will the standards be internationally benchmarked?           

Yes. Achieve undertook a study of 10 countries’ standards to determine their overall emphases in the expectations they have for all students (grade spans 1–6 and 7–10), as well as emphases in Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Earth/Space courses in upper secondary. The comparison countries were generally those whose students performed well on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) or the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS): Ontario Canada, Chinese Taipei, England, Finland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. Achieve’s study consisted of two parts: a quantitative analysis of the knowledge and performances included in each country’s standards; and  a qualitative in-depth review of five of the ten countries that offered the most guidance for constructing useful and meaningful standards.  

The quantitative analysis enabled Achieve to detect patterns of emphases in major categories of knowledge and performances. Major findings for grade span 1-10 were as follows: Seven of 10 countries require general science for all students through grade 10, prior to students taking discipline-specific courses; Physical science (chemistry and physics taken together) receives the most attention; Biology receives somewhat less attention, and Earth/space science much less; Crosscutting content, such as the nature of science and engineering, and the interactions of science, technology and society, and environmental sustainability also receives significant attention. Achieve's qualitative analysis revealed exemplary features that we hope to incorporate in the Next Generation Science Standards, such as: the use of an overarching conceptual framework; multiple examples to clarify the level of rigor expected and connect concepts with applications; concrete links between standards and assessments; and development of inquiry and design processes in parallel to facilitate students engaging in both science and engineering practices. (Additional information regarding the study can be found at www.Achieve.org.)

Back to Top

What are core ideas in science?

The NRC defines disciplinary core ideas as those that focus K–12 science curriculum, instruction and assessments on the most important aspects of science disciplinary content knowledge. In order to identify the relevant core ideas for K–12 level science, the NRC Framework Committee developed and applied a set of criteria.  To be considered "core", the ideas should meet at least two of the following criteria and ideally all four: Have broad importance across multiple sciences or engineering disciplines or be a key organizing principle of a single discipline; Provide a key tool for understanding or investigating more complex ideas and solving problems; Relate to the interests and life experiences of students or be connected to societal or personal concerns that require scientific or technological knowledge; Be teachable and learnable over multiple grades at increasing levels of depth and sophistication. Design teams working in four domains – life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology – supported the work of the committee on core ideas, examining related research and key documents. These included recent research on teaching and learning science, much of which has been summarized in previous reports from the NRC—How People Learn, Taking Science to School, Learning Science in Informal Environments, Systems for State Science Assessment and America’s Lab Report. The Committee and design team members also reviewed the NAEP 2009 Science Framework, the College Board Science Standards for College Success, NSTA’s Science Anchors initiative, and such seminal documents as the National Science Education Standards developed by the NRC and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy developed by AAAS.

Back to Top

What are scientific practices?

Scientific practices are the behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world. The NRC uses the term practices instead of a term like “skills” to emphasize that engaging in scientific inquiry requires coordination of both knowledge and skills simultaneously. Use of the term practices helps avoid the interpretation of skill as rote mastery of an activity or procedure. Part of the NRC’s intent is to better explain and extend what is meant by “inquiry” in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical practices that it requires.

Like previous editions of science standards from the NRC and AAAS, science practices will also include practices of engineering, which are the behaviors that engineers engage in as they apply science and mathematics to design solutions to problems.  Although engineering design is similar to scientific inquiry there are significant differences. For example, scientific inquiry involves the formulation of a question that can be answered through investigation, while engineering design involves the formulation of a problem that can be solved through design. Strengthening the engineering aspects of the Next Generation Science Standardswill clarify for students the relevance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (the four STEM fields) to everyday life. And engaging in these practices help students become successful analytical thinkers, prepared for college and careers.

Back to Top

What are crosscutting concepts?

The NRC Framework describes crosscutting concepts as those that bridge disciplinary boundaries, having explanatory value throughout much of science and engineering. Crosscutting concepts help provide students with an organizational framework for connecting knowledge from the various disciplines into a coherent and scientifically based view of the world. These are as follows: Patterns; Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation; Scale, proportion and quantity; Systems and system models; Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation; Structure and function; Stability and change. The Framework also emphasizes that these concepts need to be made explicit for students because they provide an organizational schema for interrelating knowledge from various science fields into a coherent and scientifically-based view of the world.

Back to Top

What is the difference between the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science and the NGSS?

The CCSS Literacy Standards were written to help students meet the particular challenges of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language in their respective fields-in this case, science. The literacy standards do not replace science standards-they supplement them. The NGSS will lay out the core ideas and practices in science that students should master in preparation for college and careers.

Back to Top

Standards Development Process

How is the development of the Next Generation Science Standards different than the development of the Common Core State Standards?

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is following a different developmental pathway than did the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics. The process for the science standards development takes into account the importance of having the scientific and educational research communities identify core ideas in science and articulate them across grade bands. That is why the NRC took the first step by constructing a Framework for K–12 Science Education—to ensure scientific validity and accuracy. A committee of 18 experts in science, engineering, cognitive science, teaching and learning, curriculum, assessment and education policy, was responsible for writing the Framework. The Framework describes a vision of what it means to be proficient in science. It also  presents and explains the interrelationships among practices, cross-disciplinary concepts and disciplinary core ideas. The NRC released a draft for public comment during the summer of 2010 and the final report in July of 2011.

Achieve will facilitate the next step: a state-led process where state policy leaders, higher education, K–12 teachers, the science and business community and others will develop science standards that are grounded in the Framework. This second step recognizes the importance of state and educator leadership in the development of the actual standards. Moreover, all stakeholders can expect that there will be multiple opportunities for public feedback, review and discussion just as there were in the CCSS process.

Back to Top

Is the federal government involved in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards?

No. The federal government is not involved in this effort. It is state-led, and states will decide whether or not to adopt the standards. The work undertaken by both the NRC and Achieve is being supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.  No federal funds have or will be used to develop the standards.

Back to Top

Who will be involved in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards?

The development of the Standards will be a state-led effort. In addition to states, the NRC, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), AAAS, and other critical partners will be active in the development and review of the new standards and will provide significant strategic support to states.  Writing and review teams will consist of K–12 teachers, state science and policy staff, higher education faculty, scientists, engineers, cognitive scientists, and business leaders. Achieve will manage the development process on behalf of the lead states.

Back to Top

Will there be an opportunity for the general public to submit feedback on the standards during the development process?

Yes. The Next Generation Science Standards will have two public web-based feedback periods prior to the finalization of the standards. In addition, state leaders, teachers, scientific and educator organizations, higher education faculty, scientists and business community members will review drafts at specific intervals.

Back to Top

What is the timeline for completing the Next Generation Science Standards?

The current timeline is designed to complete the standards by the end of 2012.

Back to Top

Will there be an alignment of the Next Generation Science Standards to the National Research Council’s Framework for K–12 Science Education?

During development, a feedback loop between Achieve and the National Academies will ensure fidelity of the standards to the Framework.

Back to Top

Next Steps for the Standards and Framework

Will the new standards be the Common Core State Standards for Science?

In the end, the decision to adopt the standards and make them consistent between states will lie in the hands of the states themselves. The goal is to create robust, forward-looking K–12 science standards that all states can use to guide teaching and learning in science for the next decade. Thus, the National Academies, Achieve, NSTA, and AAAS are working collaboratively with states and other stakeholders to help ensure the standards will be of high quality—internationally benchmarked, rigorous, research-based and aligned with expectations for college and careers.

Back to Top

How will states use these standards documents?

To reap the benefits of the science standards, states should adopt them in whole, without alteration. States can use the NGSS, as they are using the CCSS in English language arts and mathematics, to align curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional preparation and development.

Back to Top

How will states use the NRC Framework?

The NRC Framework articulates a vision for science learning and teaching. States can start implementing changes to their systems for professional development and pre-service teacher training based on a deep understanding of this vision. They can also begin to think about ways to align curriculum, instruction and assessment with this vision. Once the Next Generation Science Standards are developed, the process of alignment can begin in earnest.

Back to Top

Will there be science assessments aligned to the NGSS?

States will decide whether to create assessments aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards.

Back to Top

Don’t see your question listed here?  Contact us

Development Process

Printer-friendly version

Throughout the development process, the Next Generation Science Standards(NGSS) will go through several rounds of review with multiple stakeholder groups.  Each group will receive draft standards at least twice throughout the development process. Below is the general process and timeline for the development of the NGSS.

Michigan

Printer-friendly version

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Michael P. Flanagan

Primary Point of Contact: Kevin Richard—Science Education Specialist

Partner Organizations: Michigan Science Teacher Association; Michigan Virtual University; Science Matters/Building a Presence; Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM; Michigan STEM Partnership.

Background:    Michigan requires students to complete three science courses, including one in biology and one in either chemistry or physics, in order to satisfy the Michigan graduation requirements. In 2008, Michigan restructured its science standards from grade bands to grade level standards K–7 and College and Career Readiness science standards for high school. Michigan is a local control state, where districts have the discretion to teach state standards in any order as long as they are taught before statewide assessments. The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) assesses students in grades 5, 8, and 11; however the grade 11 exam is a compilation of the ACT Science Reasoning component and a state developed supplement. While Michigan believes its science standards to be rigorous in content, it is aware of the advantages of multi-state collaboration and the benefits of common standards and is eager to work on developing, adopting, and implementing the NGSS.

Commitment:    Michigan has shown a strong commitment to standards based learning through its adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and its position as a governing state in SMARTER Balanced. The Michigan Department of Education has worked to develop a framework for universal implementation of standards, which include the CCSS and any future standards, to allow for equal implementation across the state. The framework will allow implementation structures to be in place for the NGSS for assessment development and improvement, professional development, infrastructure improvements, and communication. This dedication to development and implementation of common standards shows the commitment Michigan has to the adoption of the NGSS.

STEM Involvement:    Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are vital to Michigan’s economy, for the state must transform from a historically unskilled labor force to one comprised of skilled workers, specifically in the areas of science and technology. Michigan’s Science Teacher Association and regional Math/Science Centers have curriculum support models in these subjects that could act as models for other states. Additionally, the Michigan Virtual University (MVU) allows for an easily accessible database of science education tools, curriculum, and professional development. Working with the Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM, Michigan has formed a statewide STEM Partnership network of business and industry professionals, policy makers, and educators in order to enhance STEM education in Michigan. 

Alliances and Infrastructure:    There are strong professional alliances in Michigan that assist with science education advancement statewide. The Michigan Science Teacher Association puts on one of the nation’s largest annual conferences, and there are strong professional educator organizations in the following content areas, earth sciences, biology, chemistry, and physics, which result in strong professional development, communication, and educator resources. The Science Matters/Building a Presence network Michigan branch is one of the largest in the country with approximately 3,500 teachers representing over 60% of school buildings involved. These members receive a complete update on all national and state science education information, which again helps with communication and professional development within the state.