The Next Generation Science Standards embody a new vision for science education grounded in the idea that science is both a body of knowledge and a set of linked practices for developing knowledge. The authors describe strategies that they suggest school and district leaders consider when designing strategies to support NGSS implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36 (5), 258–267.
GaretM.S.PorterA.C.DesimoneL.M.BirmanB.F.YoonK.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective?Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 915–945.
4.
HellerJ.I.DaehlerK.R.WongN.ShinoharaM.MiratrixL.W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (3), 333–362.
5.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
National Research Council. (2013a). Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
7.
National Research Council. (2013b). Monitoring progress toward successful STEM education: A nation advancing? Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8.
PenuelW.R.GallagherL.P.MoorthyS. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (4), 996–1025.
9.
RothK.J.GarnierH.E.ChenC.LemmensM.SchwilleK.WicklerN.I.Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (2), 117–148.
10.
SupovitzJ.A.TurnerH.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (2), 963–980.
11.
WeinbaumE.H.SupovitzJ.A. (2010). Planning ahead: Make program implementation more predictable. Phi Delta Kappan, 91 (7), 68–71.
