The Next Generation Science Standards: The Featuresand Challenges

Stephen L. Pruitt

Published online: 22 March 2014

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2014

Abstract Beginning in January of 2010, the Carnegie Corporation of New York

funded a two-step process to develop a new set of state developed science standards

intended to prepare students for college and career readiness in science. These new

internationally benchmarked science standards, the Next Generation Science

Standards (NGSS) were completed in April of 2013. From his perspective as the

coordinator of the development of the NGSS, the author discusses the background

regarding the development, key features and some of the challenges ahead in

implementing the NGSS.

Keywords Science education � Standards � Next Generation Science

Standards � A Framework for K-12 Science Education

Introduction

Beginning in January of 2010, the Carnegie Corporation of New York funded a two-

step process to develop a new set of state developed science standards intended to

prepare students for college and career readiness in science. These new interna-

tionally benchmarked science standards, the Next Generation Science Standards

(NGSS) were completed in April of 2013.

The NGSS represent a change in how states have traditionally approached their

science standards. In embracing science education research, the NGSS represent

performance expectations (PEs) that require all students have a deep understanding

of a smaller number of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), are able to show evidence of

that knowledge through scientific and engineering practices, and connect crosscut-

ting concepts across disciplines. Historically, states have developed their own

S. L. Pruitt (&)

Achieve, Inc., 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20036, USA

e-mail: spruitt@achieve.org

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2014) 25:145–156

DOI 10.1007/s10972-014-9385-0

standards (student expectations) based on the National Science Education Standards

(NSES) by the National Research Council (NRC) or the Benchmarks for Science

Literacy (Benchmarks) by the American Association for the Advancement of

Science (AAAS). Each state used one or both of these original ground breaking

documents to develop their standards. While each of them called for inquiry to be

integrated into classrooms, state standards have traditionally kept inquiry and

content standards separate. As a result, state assessment has tended to keep them

separate and focused almost solely on content which has also led to a greater focus

on content in classrooms. While the previous efforts in science education reform felt

did not intend science to be discrete pieces of knowledge, state standards often

reduced it to just that. The NGSS were developed by states to be adopted directly by

states in a manner that will realize the vision of a quality science education.

This paper will discuss the development of the NGSS, key aspects, its

implications, and adoption and implementation challenges and opportunities.

Developing the Next Generation Science Standards

As stated earlier, the NGSS is the result of an almost 3 years endeavor. Privately

funded, the two-step process began with the NRC leading the first phase in

partnership with AAAS, National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and

Achieve to develop A Framework for K-12 Science Education (Framework). The

goal of the Framework was to articulate the vision for science education in the

twenty first century and to articulate what students need to know in their K-12

experience to be considered scientifically literate. The second phase, also privately

funded, was led by twenty-six states and facilitated by Achieve. This phase was to

take the Framework and develop student PEs that could be adopted by states.

While many readers of this article may be more than familiar with the

Framework, it is necessary to begin here. Despite the completion of the NGSS, the

Framework must remain as a partner document to the standards. The two documents

together provide a more complete picture of what the K-12 science education

experience should be in the twenty first century. The Framework embodied a vision

for science education. This vision values a learning progression of scientific content,

scientific and engineering practices, and the crosscutting ideas that connect the

various disciplines of science. The process involved a consensus study that utilized

an 18 member committee as well as several working teams that fed the committee

recommendations to consider. The NRC also held one public review of the

Framework. This process is different from how the NRC typically conducts a study

(NRC, 2012).

Once the Framework was complete, the second phase began by Achieve inviting

all states to participate as a lead state in the NGSS development process. In order to

be considered, a state had to submit a proposal that included how their state was

positioned to enhance the development of the NGSS and their capacity to consider

adoption and implementation. Additionally, state school chiefs and state board of

education chairs signed a list of assurances that included giving serious consider-

ation to adopting the resulting NGSS as presented; identifying a state science lead

146 S. L. Pruitt

123

who will attend meetings with writers to provide direction and work toward

agreement on issues around the standards, adoption, and implementation; publically

announcing the state is part of the effort to draft new science standards and make

transparent the state’s process for outreach/receiving feedback during the process;

and forming a broad based committee that considers issues regarding adoption and

provides input and reactions to drafts of the standards. In all, twenty-six states

submitted their respective proposals and were accepted as lead states. These states

were geographically dispersed throughout the country and represented approxi-

mately 58 % of the public school students in the country (Achieve, 2011; NGSS

Lead States, 2013a).

Writing the NGSS

At the same time the lead states were being named, 40 writers from across the

country were chosen to translate the Framework into student PEs states need for

standards adoption. The writing team was comprised of K-12 educators (both

teachers and administrators), higher education faculty (both Arts and Sciences and

Education Faculty), state science supervisors, practicing scientists and engineers,

and researchers. The writing team worked primarily in the content teams of life,

physical, and Earth and space, with the exception of the elementary team and the

access and equity team. In putting together the writing team, there were several

factors used in the selection process. Educators and other interested parties from

across the country applied to be a part of the writing team. The team needed to

represent the stakeholders that the NGSS could impact. Significant experience in

each grade band, higher education, each discipline, English Language Learners,

special education, gifted and talented education, career technical education,

education supervision and practicing science and engineers needed to be

represented. As a beginning, chairs of the NRC design teams were asked to serve

on the leadership team. Co-chairs were selected to serve on the leadership team as

well. A profile of the final writing team was developed that would ensure smaller

teams by grade band, discipline, and special needs were possible. Individuals were

selected based on this profile. The final writing team met the profile and was

comprised of award winning teachers and scientists from across the country with

each one fitting a particular aspect of the profile. Each member was nominated and

references checked before the official invitation was released.

Writing standards with a team of 40 individuals was a challenge to say the least.

The team came from many different backgrounds and perspectives. The first

challenge was coming to a common understanding of the scientific and engineering

practice. The first 6 months of development were focused on coming to a common

understanding of the practices. Each team had to understand the practices in the

context of standards as opposed to teaching strategies. They also had to understand

the subtleties of the practices. As the Framework did not describe the progression of

the practices across the grade bands, the writing teams needed to spend time doing

so before standards could be written (NGSS Lead States, 2013b). This was critical

as practices in the standards had to describe the intended outcomes. This was critical

to have this understanding across both grade bands and the practices themselves.

The Next Generation Science Standards 147

123

When asked how to aid educators in their understanding of the NGSS, I propose

starting with the practices. For instance, having teachers engage in collegial debates

about the difference between argument and explanation, one of the most difficult

distinctions, is invaluable in understanding the NGSS. The second step was

understanding the crosscutting concepts. In many ways, this was a similar challenge.

The complexities were made even more difficult by the fact that some of the

crosscutting concepts were so closely related to the DCIs. After spending

considerable time on these dimensions and understanding the dynamics with the

three dimensions together, work could begin on the standards themselves. From this

work, it became clear to the writers that a simple list of PEs would not suffice in

communicating the dimensions. The resulting architecture is the result of many

hours of discussions regarding how to best inform the field. The team found out,

however, this was the easy part.

The State Role

For the NGSS to be successful, this could not simply be an academic exercise. The

states must own the process and the final product. Important to note here is the process

of decision making. The question of ‘‘Who holds the pen?’’ was asked more often than

not. Simply put, the writing team worked at the behest of the lead states. The writers

would present drafts to the states and the states, using their broad-based committees,

would provide feedback and direction. The lead states received four drafts in addition

to the two public drafts. The states convened their broad-based committees to review

each draft and submit feedback to Achieve. The feedback data were assembled and the

science leads for each of the states attended meetings with the writing team leadership

to provide direction based on the feedback. The same occurred during the public

feedback. The state teams would convene with the writing team to discuss the public

feedback as well as the state feedback. From this, the states would discuss the feedback

and give direction to the writers. An example would be the treatment of engineering in

the second public draft in January of 2013. The states were concerned that engineering

would be forgotten or minimally used if they were separate. The writers were directed

to integrate engineering design into the PEs. The public feedback, especially from the

engineering community, left no doubt that the engineering design performances

needed to be reinstated. The constant theme was that in integrating the engineering

design standards, the ideas behind engineering design were lost. This feedback was

taken to the states. The lead states subsequently directed the writers to keep

performances that were deemed as quality in the feedback, but to reinstate the

engineering design standards. While consensus was always the preference, there were

sometimes various issues were put to a vote.

Key Aspects of the NGSS

There are several aspects of the NGSS that are important to point out. If these

aspects are implemented with fidelity, there should be significant change in

classroom practice.

148 S. L. Pruitt

123

Redefining Rigor in State Science Standards

Historically, rigor in science has been based solely on the amount of discrete

knowledge a student had to have to pass a given course or grade level. Inquiry has

been included in state standards, but has always remained as separate standards and

tended to be tested separately. Additionally, inquiry came to be seen as solely

pedagogical rather than the scientific habits of mind that were intended by the

authors of the NSES and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Benchmarks). Let’s

be clear, both of these efforts pushed for the integration of inquiry with content.

However, virtually no state required the integration in their standards nor on their

assessment. For many years state science education standards have focused more on

discrete facts, such as the names and order of the planets, phases of mitosis, and

only the calculations involved with Newton’s Laws and stoichiometry as opposed to

using any of these facts to understand bigger concepts such as the Earth–Sun–Moon

system, survival of an organism, force and motion, and the law of conservation of

matter. Many gifted teachers have helped their students move past simply learning

the facts by focusing on application. The vision of the Framework and the NGSS is

to use scientific and engineering practices as a means for students to show evidence

they are able to apply knowledge. To be clear, students’ ability to show a deeper

level of understanding of content is critical. Those who follow science education

research also recognize the importance of this vision to integrate practice with

content (Carey, 1985; Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009; Duschl, 2008; Hofstein &

Lunetta, 2004; Kuhn, 1993; Metz, 1995; NRC, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2007; Schmidt,

Wang, & McKnight, 2005; Schwarz & White, 2005). It is through this integration

that students are able to show their mastery of content, but also an understanding of

the accumulation of scientific knowledge. In using the practices, students are able to

use their grasp of scientific knowledge in new and unique situations. In previous

considerations of rigor, it was enough for students to ‘‘know’’ content and many

state standards used this or other verbs from Bloom’s taxonomy. In some cases, the

verb understand is used. The NGSS use the scientific and engineering practices as

verbs. Take the following example from the 1998 California State Standards, High

School Chemistry 8.b: Students know how reaction rates depend on such factors as

concentration, temperature, and pressure. To be successful with this standard,

students need to know that for most reactions increasing any of those factors will

increase the rate of the reaction. This is clearly not true in all cases, but it is a simple

perspective of this standard. Consider a PE from the NGSS dealing with the same

content, HS-PS1-5: Apply scientific principles and evidence to provide an

explanation about the effects of changing the temperature or concentration of the

reacting particles on the rate at which a reaction occurs. While students will still

need to know the general rules regarding these factors, they now have to provide

evidence that support those rules. Another example can be found by comparing a

California high school Earth Science standard to an NGSS middle school standard.

The California standard 3.a: Students know features of the ocean floor (magnetic

patterns, age, and sea-floor topography) provide evidence of plate tectonics. Once

again, students are expected to simply know features of the ocean floor and that they

provide evidence of plate tectonics. Compare this with a middle school NGSS PE,

The Next Generation Science Standards 149

123

MS-ESS2-3: Analyze and interpret data on the distribution of fossils and rocks,

continental shapes, and seafloor structures to provide evidence of past plate

motions. To be proficient in this performance, students will have to use data with

their knowledge of rocks, fossils, and Earth processes to articulate evidence of

tectonic movement. In both cases, the NGSS require more than content memori-

zation from students through the use of the practices.

An important change in how the practices will effect science classrooms is the

realization that practices are not merely pedagogical strategies. There is knowledge

that is required as well as the ‘‘skill’’ required. As stated in the Framework, ‘‘We use

the term ‘practices’ instead of a term such as ‘skills’ to emphasize that engaging in

scientific investigation requires not only skill but also knowledge that is specific to

each practice.’’ (NRC, 2012) Over the years, some educators have seen inquiry as a

teaching strategy, but do not always help their students to connect the knowledge of

how scientists work with how the science works. It is critical for educators to

understand this. In the development of the NGSS, deliberate language was used as

the standards were written. However, a greater understanding of the practices is

needed to understand some of the nuances. For instance, take the practice modeling.

There are PEs written using the initial phrases, ‘‘Develop a model that describes…’’

and ‘‘Develop a model that predicts…’’. Models can be used to describe (represent),

predict phenomena, or be revised based on new evidence. If educators are not

familiar with the multiple uses of models, they will miss the fact that models should

not only be for representation or description. Another example is the difference

between argument and explanation. Understanding that argument is the process of

science while explanations are the goal of science are two different pieces of

knowledge. Building a good scientific argument means students know how to

assemble data into evidence to support a claim means one understands the thought

process and the functional communication of that argument. The NGSS is a far

more integrated document than most any set of state science standards by including

the dimensions and engineering. This structure will require adopting states to assess

these standards in an integrated fashion, unlike traditional state science standards.

In this vain, there is a critical point to be made. While there is a practice coupled

with specific content in the NGSS, this should not be misinterpreted to mean it is the

only practice to be used in classroom instruction nor should it diminish the content

requirement on students. Instruction should build toward a student’s ability to

demonstrate understanding of the PEs; they are not in themselves tasks, curriculum,

or lessons. To fully meet the vision of the Framework and the NGSS, students

should be engaged in multiple practices throughout the course of instruction.

Instructional Planning/Focus

Another key aspect of both the Framework and the NGSS is the commitment to

coherence. This is extended into how instruction will need to be considered in an

NGSS classroom. For the NGSS to be successfully implemented, instruction must

be designed as a full instructional plan as opposed to a series of lessons. Attempting

to teach the NGSS from day to day will negate coherence.

150 S. L. Pruitt

123

A set of PEs that provide students with coherent connections among the concepts

represented within and across disciplines should be the beginning point of the

instructional plan. This set of standards is referred to as a bundle. There are several

methods for bundling standards. First, and probably most common would be using

the DCIs. An example could be an instructional unit that focuses on the flow of

matter and energy in an ecosystem. The following five PEs (NGSS Lead States,

2013a) would be an appropriate bundle.

HS-LS2 Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and DynamicsStudents who demonstrate understanding can:

HS-LS2-1. Use mathematical and/or computational representations to support

explanations of factors that affect carrying capacity of ecosystems at

different scales.

HS-LS2-4. Use mathematical representations to support claims for the cycling of

matter and flow of energy among organisms in an ecosystem.

HS-LS2-7. Design, evaluate, and refine a solution for reducing the impacts of

human activities on the environment and biodiversity.*

HS-LS4 Biological Evolution: Unity and DiversityStudents who demonstrate understanding can:

HS-LS4-3. Apply concepts of statistics and probability to support explanations

that organisms with an advantageous heritable trait tend to increase in

proportion to organisms lacking this trait.

HS-LS4-6. Create or revise a simulation to test a solution to mitigate adverse

impacts of human activity on biodiversity.

This bundle focuses on the flow of matter and energy, but it utilizes concepts of

systems and cause and effect to show how organisms affect the overall system.

Another possibility for bundling could be bundling by scientific and engineering

practices.

Grade 3: Planning and Carrying Out Investigations and Analyzing andInterpreting Data

3-PS2-1. Plan and conduct an investigation to provide evidence of the effects of

balanced and unbalanced forces on the motion of an object.

3-PS2-2. Make observations and/or measurements of an object’s motion to

provide evidence that that a pattern can be used to predict future

motion.

3-ESS2-1. Represent data in tables and graphical displays to describe typical

weather conditions expected during a particular season.

These three PEs (NGSS Lead States, 2013a) utilize investigations and data. From

a content perspective, the focus of this instructional unit would be focused on force

and motion. The third PE would be an additional PE that would require students

apply the concept of motion and force to weather conditions.

The Next Generation Science Standards 151

123

Learning Progressions

Another important aspect to consider is that of learning progressions. It is

noteworthy that previous science education reform efforts considered the progres-

sion of learning. Unfortunately, state science standards were not always as

thoughtful. The Framework and subsequently the NGSS were developed based on

learning progressions across K-12. The NGSS were developed in a manner

consistent with the learning progressions dictated by the Framework. Additionally,

this allowed for a coherent approach to the development in the elementary grades.

Not only were the DCIs developed across grades, deliberate connections were made

within a grade to strengthen the progressions.

It is also important to remember that great care and planning must be used while

developing instruction to ensure the coherence of science instruction stay intact.

This again speaks to the idea of bundling. Attempting to teach PEs one at a time,

will only lead to a disjointed view of science. Bundles help students form the

connections they need to make sense of the world. Important to note here is the

bundles themselves should be viewed in context of learning progressions. That is to

say that a unit of instruction should be thoroughly developed to help students

progress toward the desired learning, but each ‘‘set’’ of bundles should be arranged

in a way that provides a coherent ‘‘story’’ or perspective across the entire grade/

course. If students are not given the opportunity to connect these bundled concepts, I

fear we will not make the progress we all hope for.

Science and Engineering

Engineering is an important, and for many states, new aspect of science standards. It is

important to know that the engineering in the NGSS is not intended to be a full blown

engineering course; rather, this is the application of engineering design. Engineering in the

NGSS is intended to be the natural point where the understanding of science content is

used to solve a problem or improve a situation. Engineering is integrated in the NGSS in

multiple ways. First, as a component of the Scientific and Engineering Practices, second as

a standalone set of PEs that support Engineering Design, and third it is used similar to the

crosscutting concepts in that it can be used to connect to science and society.

The Engineering Design standards are important to the success of students in the

twenty first century. These PEs should not be viewed as intended to be taught in

absence of content; rather, they are the opportunity to allow students to apply their

scientific knowledge. While engineering activities have been used before, a key

change with the NGSS is the engagement in the design process. Students are expected

to define problems and design solutions, but they will also be expected to optimize

those solutions, all of which occurs in the context of the more traditional sciences.

Challenges in Implementing the NGSS

An important difference between the NSES and the NGSS is that the NGSS were

written with the intention that states adopt them as written as opposed to the NSES

152 S. L. Pruitt

123

which states had to modify to make them fit the requirements for state standards. As

such, states must undergo a process to adopt the NGSS as part of their state

education standards. The adopting body for most states is the state board of

education, in some states it is the state legislature, and in just a few states the state

superintendent has the sole authority to adopt standards. There are several factors of

varying importance that states evaluate when making the decision to adopt: first, is

the quality of the standards compared to their existing standards; second, the

political climate or political will of the leadership; and third, and maybe more

influential, is the feedback from constituencies which is often based on the political

climate. States have been evaluating the NGSS in light of these and other factors to

determine the best course of action for their state. Several states, including

California, Delaware, Kentucky, Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont, and

Washington adopted the NGSS in full in the first 6 months after the final release.

Other states are undergoing a longer review process. Still other states, mainly

because of their political climate, are developing their own standards based on the

Framework or simply making no action at all. A key message to states has been to

evaluate the NGSS and ensure transparency and awareness in the adoption process.

Rushing into adoption without following the normal procedures states use to adopt

standards could very well result in a great deal of controversy.

The immediate challenge that exists is the development of quality materials and

building awareness and understanding for educators and communities. This will

take time and collaboration between states and organizations committed to science

education. To best understand this challenge, it is necessary to be clear about the

difference between adoption and implementation. Adoption is the legal process to

name a new set of standards or education rules whereas implementation is actually

instituting the adopted standards in classrooms. Implementation does not typically

happen immediately; it can happen over several years and usually is defined as the

year the standards are assessed on large scale assessment. States will typically adopt

new standards and then develop an implementation timeline over the course of

multiple years in order to prepare the field for implementation through professional

development, new policies, and realignment of fiscal and education resources.

Another key message to states and districts has been to not rush to implementation.

Currently, the states who have adopted the NGSS are planning on 3–4 years

implementation timelines. A longer implementation timeline is preferable to ensure

the field is ready for the changes the NGSS will require in most states. It also allows

for the priority to be on building capacity of teachers and administrators for the new

standards. Developing quality materials will be a critical component to success

however developing these materials will be a challenge for multiple reasons. The

first step will be to help educators deeply understand the NGSS and Framework.

Understanding the vision, but also understanding the internal coherence and

deliberate use of terminology within the standards will be critical to success.

Another challenge here is understanding both the knowledge associated with the

practices and the application of them beyond pedagogy. The depth of knowledge

required by the NGSS far exceeds most states in large part because of the

requirement of the practices. Take for instance the following PE (NGSS Lead

States, 2013a),

The Next Generation Science Standards 153

123

HS-PS1 Matter and its interactions

Students who demonstrate understanding can:

HS-PS1-3. Plan and conduct an investigation to gather evidence to compare the structure of substances at

the bulk scale to infer the strength of electrical forces between particles. [Clarification statement:

Emphasis is on understanding the strengths of forces between particles, not on naming specific

intermolecular forces (such as dipole–dipole). Examples of particles could include ions, atoms,

molecules, and networked materials (such as graphite). Examples of bulk properties of substances could

include the melting point and boiling point, vapor pressure, and surface tension.] [Assessment

Boundary: Assessment does not include Raoult’s law calculations of vapor pressure.]

The PEs above were developed using the following elements from the NRC document A Framework for

K-12 Science Education:

Science and engineering

practices

Planning and carrying Out

investigations

Planning and carrying out

investigations in 9–12 builds

on K-8 experiences and

progresses to include

investigations that provide

evidence for and test

conceptual, mathematical,

physical, and empirical models

Plan and conduct an

investigation individually and

collaboratively to produce data

to serve as the basis for

evidence, and in the design:

decide on types, how much,

and accuracy of data needed to

produce reliable measurements

and consider limitations on the

precision of the data (e.g.,

number of trials, cost, risk,

time), and refine the design

accordingly. (HS-PS1-3)

Disciplinary core ideas

PS1.A: Structure and properties

of matter

The structure and interactions

of matter at the bulk scale are

determined by electrical forces

within and between atoms.

(HS-PS1-3), (secondary to HS-

PS2-6)

PS1.A: Structure and properties

of matter

Attraction and repulsion

between electric charges at the

atomic scale explain the

structure, properties, and

transformations of matter, as

well as the contact forces

between material objects.

(secondary to HS-PS1-1),

(secondary to HS-PS1-3)

Crosscutting concepts

Patterns

Different patterns may be

observed at each of the scales

at which a system is studied

and can provide evidence for

causality in explanations of

phenomena. (HS-PS1-3)

Historically, the focus has been on memorizing terms such as intermolecular forces,

ions, and dipole–dipole. Students were traditionally asked to know that one

compound has a higher melting point than another, but not necessarily how or why.

In fact, often the electrical force interaction is not mentioned or is mentioned in

passing. For a chemist, understanding this interaction is critical to application of

chemistry. The NGSS require a much deeper understanding of the phenomena as

opposed to the memorization of the vocabulary alone. Further, from an assessment

perspective, to be proficient in this PE, students will need to have a strong

understanding of electrical forces and structure of matter to plan investigations that

will produce evidence that support the science.

Of course, a big challenge will be the assessment. Yes, states will develop tests

based on the NGSS, but an early focus on preparing educators, parents, and

communities should lead to the development of an assessment that represents

154 S. L. Pruitt

123

science education in the twenty first century. That is to say that focusing on

instruction first may lead to an assessment that is indicative of science as opposed to

building a test that does not represent science or how it is conducted in classrooms.

The assessment of the three dimensions of the NGSS will challenge some long held

beliefs and assumptions: for instance, the idea that practice must be assessed

separately from content. This traditional separation in assessment has led to the

separation of instruction in the classroom as well, that was discussed above. The

research in the Framework and other NRC publications are clear that the integration

of the dimensions result in greater student understanding of science, therefore the

NGSS reflect that and the assessment will need to as well. There are groups already

working on this. The College Board in their AP Redesign have integrated

dimensions and the development of PISA 2015 will reflect a similar design (College

Board, 2009; J. Osborne, 2013, Personal conversation).

Of course, there is also a potential danger to an extended implementation

timeline. That danger is that momentum or the sense of urgency is lost. This has

been important in discussions with states. While the NGSS should not compete with

other ongoing education initiatives or pull resources away from them, a thoughtful

and deliberate implementation plan includes a point person and how the work will

proceed and be inclusive of the education community. If the NGSS are adopted and

set on a shelf for 4 years and then implemented, success will be difficult at best.

Conclusion

The NGSS provide the first opportunity in a very long time to include science in the

discussion about a student’s overall college and career readiness. This paper

includes several attempts to clarify issues associated with the NGSS and identify

challenges ahead. Everyone involved with this project understands the road ahead.

There are many issues that must be faced head on if we are to make improvements

in science education. The standards won’t be enough, there will need to be focused

professional development, new policies, and an effort of the whole science

education community, but this is achievable. Time will tell if this initiative and the

efforts of so many has made a difference, I hope that it shows our community dealt

with the issues by focusing on solutions and charging ahead. This will not be easy,

but as my parents used to tell me, nothing worth doing ever is.

Finally, there is an incredible opportunity and need for the science education

research community. The NGSS have been developed using research, but there is so

much more to learn about everything from learning progressions across grades and

within grades to efficacy of teachers regarding the use and understanding of

scientific and engineering practices to state and district-level implementation. I

really appreciate the Journal for Research in Science Teaching dedicating this

edition to the NGSS and the future of science education. I hope that this will be the

first of many articles designed to inform the field on the NGSS. No one associated

with the project felt it was over on April 9, 2013. The research provided by this

community will be critical to future success.

The Next Generation Science Standards 155

123

References

Achieve. (2011). NGSS lead state parnters. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/lead-state-

partners.

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

College Board. (2009). Science college board standards for college success. http://research.collegeboard.

org/services/scas/downloads.

Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based

approach to reform (CPRE #RR-63). Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Centuer on

Continous Instruction Improvement, Teachers’s College, New York, NY: Columbia University.

http://www.cpre.org/.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social

learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first

century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science

Education, 77, 319–338.

Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review

of Educational Research, 65, 93–127.

NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states (vol. 1, The

Standards). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-

generation-science-standards.

NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states (vol. 2,

Appendices). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nextgenscience.org/

next-generation-science-standards.

NRC. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: The National

Academies Press.

NRC. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in

U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: The National

Academies Press.

NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC:

The National Academies Press.

NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Schmidt, W., Wang, H., & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S.

mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 37, 525–559.

Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of

scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

156 S. L. Pruitt

123