assignment on class implementation level 1

cppreference.com

Assignment operators.

Assignment operators modify the value of the object.

[ edit ] Definitions

Copy assignment replaces the contents of the object a with a copy of the contents of b ( b is not modified). For class types, this is performed in a special member function, described in copy assignment operator .

For non-class types, copy and move assignment are indistinguishable and are referred to as direct assignment .

Compound assignment replace the contents of the object a with the result of a binary operation between the previous value of a and the value of b .

[ edit ] Assignment operator syntax

The assignment expressions have the form

• ↑ target-expr must have higher precedence than an assignment expression.
• ↑ new-value cannot be a comma expression, because its precedence is lower.

[ edit ] Built-in simple assignment operator

For the built-in simple assignment, the object referred to by target-expr is modified by replacing its value with the result of new-value . target-expr must be a modifiable lvalue.

The result of a built-in simple assignment is an lvalue of the type of target-expr , referring to target-expr . If target-expr is a bit-field , the result is also a bit-field.

[ edit ] Assignment from an expression

If new-value is an expression, it is implicitly converted to the cv-unqualified type of target-expr . When target-expr is a bit-field that cannot represent the value of the expression, the resulting value of the bit-field is implementation-defined.

If target-expr and new-value identify overlapping objects, the behavior is undefined (unless the overlap is exact and the type is the same).

In overload resolution against user-defined operators , for every type T , the following function signatures participate in overload resolution:

For every enumeration or pointer to member type T , optionally volatile-qualified, the following function signature participates in overload resolution:

For every pair A1 and A2 , where A1 is an arithmetic type (optionally volatile-qualified) and A2 is a promoted arithmetic type, the following function signature participates in overload resolution:

[ edit ] Built-in compound assignment operator

The behavior of every built-in compound-assignment expression target-expr   op   =   new-value is exactly the same as the behavior of the expression target-expr   =   target-expr   op   new-value , except that target-expr is evaluated only once.

The requirements on target-expr and new-value of built-in simple assignment operators also apply. Furthermore:

• For + = and - = , the type of target-expr must be an arithmetic type or a pointer to a (possibly cv-qualified) completely-defined object type .
• For all other compound assignment operators, the type of target-expr must be an arithmetic type.

In overload resolution against user-defined operators , for every pair A1 and A2 , where A1 is an arithmetic type (optionally volatile-qualified) and A2 is a promoted arithmetic type, the following function signatures participate in overload resolution:

For every pair I1 and I2 , where I1 is an integral type (optionally volatile-qualified) and I2 is a promoted integral type, the following function signatures participate in overload resolution:

For every optionally cv-qualified object type T , the following function signatures participate in overload resolution:

[ edit ] Example

Possible output:

[ edit ] Defect reports

The following behavior-changing defect reports were applied retroactively to previously published C++ standards.

[ edit ] See also

Operator precedence

Operator overloading

• Recent changes
• Offline version
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Page information
• In other languages
• This page was last modified on 25 January 2024, at 22:41.
• This page has been accessed 410,142 times.
• Privacy policy
• About cppreference.com
• Disclaimers

Welcome.please sign up.

By signing up or logging in, you agree to our Terms of service and confirm that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Already a member? Go to Log In

Welcome.please login.

Forgot your password

Not registered yet? Go to Sign Up

Practice questions on Java Classes and Objects

Rubric Best Practices, Examples, and Templates

A rubric is a scoring tool that identifies the different criteria relevant to an assignment, assessment, or learning outcome and states the possible levels of achievement in a specific, clear, and objective way. Use rubrics to assess project-based student work including essays, group projects, creative endeavors, and oral presentations.

Rubrics can help instructors communicate expectations to students and assess student work fairly, consistently and efficiently. Rubrics can provide students with informative feedback on their strengths and weaknesses so that they can reflect on their performance and work on areas that need improvement.

How to Get Started

Best practices, moodle how-to guides.

• Workshop Recording (Fall 2022)
• Workshop Registration

Step 1: Analyze the assignment

The first step in the rubric creation process is to analyze the assignment or assessment for which you are creating a rubric. To do this, consider the following questions:

• What is the purpose of the assignment and your feedback? What do you want students to demonstrate through the completion of this assignment (i.e. what are the learning objectives measured by it)? Is it a summative assessment, or will students use the feedback to create an improved product?
• Does the assignment break down into different or smaller tasks? Are these tasks equally important as the main assignment?
• What would an “excellent” assignment look like? An “acceptable” assignment? One that still needs major work?
• How detailed do you want the feedback you give students to be? Do you want/need to give them a grade?

Step 2: Decide what kind of rubric you will use

Types of rubrics: holistic, analytic/descriptive, single-point

Holistic Rubric. A holistic rubric includes all the criteria (such as clarity, organization, mechanics, etc.) to be considered together and included in a single evaluation. With a holistic rubric, the rater or grader assigns a single score based on an overall judgment of the student’s work, using descriptions of each performance level to assign the score.

Advantages of holistic rubrics:

• Can p lace an emphasis on what learners can demonstrate rather than what they cannot
• Save grader time by minimizing the number of evaluations to be made for each student
• Can be used consistently across raters, provided they have all been trained

Disadvantages of holistic rubrics:

• Provide less specific feedback than analytic/descriptive rubrics
• Can be difficult to choose a score when a student’s work is at varying levels across the criteria
• Any weighting of c riteria cannot be indicated in the rubric

Analytic/Descriptive Rubric . An analytic or descriptive rubric often takes the form of a table with the criteria listed in the left column and with levels of performance listed across the top row. Each cell contains a description of what the specified criterion looks like at a given level of performance. Each of the criteria is scored individually.

Advantages of analytic rubrics:

• Provide detailed feedback on areas of strength or weakness
• Each criterion can be weighted to reflect its relative importance

Disadvantages of analytic rubrics:

• More time-consuming to create and use than a holistic rubric
• May not be used consistently across raters unless the cells are well defined
• May result in giving less personalized feedback

Single-Point Rubric . A single-point rubric is breaks down the components of an assignment into different criteria, but instead of describing different levels of performance, only the “proficient” level is described. Feedback space is provided for instructors to give individualized comments to help students improve and/or show where they excelled beyond the proficiency descriptors.

Advantages of single-point rubrics:

• Easier to create than an analytic/descriptive rubric
• Perhaps more likely that students will read the descriptors
• Areas of concern and excellence are open-ended
• May removes a focus on the grade/points
• May increase student creativity in project-based assignments

Disadvantage of analytic rubrics: Requires more work for instructors writing feedback

Step 3 (Optional): Look for templates and examples.

You might Google, “Rubric for persuasive essay at the college level” and see if there are any publicly available examples to start from. Ask your colleagues if they have used a rubric for a similar assignment. Some examples are also available at the end of this article. These rubrics can be a great starting point for you, but consider steps 3, 4, and 5 below to ensure that the rubric matches your assignment description, learning objectives and expectations.

Step 4: Define the assignment criteria

Make a list of the knowledge and skills are you measuring with the assignment/assessment Refer to your stated learning objectives, the assignment instructions, past examples of student work, etc. for help.

  Helpful strategies for defining grading criteria:

• Collaborate with co-instructors, teaching assistants, and other colleagues
• Brainstorm and discuss with students
• Can they be observed and measured?
• Are they important and essential?
• Are they distinct from other criteria?
• Are they phrased in precise, unambiguous language?
• Revise the criteria as needed
• Consider whether some are more important than others, and how you will weight them.

Step 5: Design the rating scale

Most ratings scales include between 3 and 5 levels. Consider the following questions when designing your rating scale:

• Given what students are able to demonstrate in this assignment/assessment, what are the possible levels of achievement?
• How many levels would you like to include (more levels means more detailed descriptions)
• Will you use numbers and/or descriptive labels for each level of performance? (for example 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and/or Exceeds expectations, Accomplished, Proficient, Developing, Beginning, etc.)
• Don’t use too many columns, and recognize that some criteria can have more columns that others . The rubric needs to be comprehensible and organized. Pick the right amount of columns so that the criteria flow logically and naturally across levels.

Step 6: Write descriptions for each level of the rating scale

Artificial Intelligence tools like Chat GPT have proven to be useful tools for creating a rubric. You will want to engineer your prompt that you provide the AI assistant to ensure you get what you want. For example, you might provide the assignment description, the criteria you feel are important, and the number of levels of performance you want in your prompt. Use the results as a starting point, and adjust the descriptions as needed.

Building a rubric from scratch

For a single-point rubric , describe what would be considered “proficient,” i.e. B-level work, and provide that description. You might also include suggestions for students outside of the actual rubric about how they might surpass proficient-level work.

For analytic and holistic rubrics , c reate statements of expected performance at each level of the rubric.

• Consider what descriptor is appropriate for each criteria, e.g., presence vs absence, complete vs incomplete, many vs none, major vs minor, consistent vs inconsistent, always vs never. If you have an indicator described in one level, it will need to be described in each level.
• You might start with the top/exemplary level. What does it look like when a student has achieved excellence for each/every criterion? Then, look at the “bottom” level. What does it look like when a student has not achieved the learning goals in any way? Then, complete the in-between levels.
• For an analytic rubric , do this for each particular criterion of the rubric so that every cell in the table is filled. These descriptions help students understand your expectations and their performance in regard to those expectations.

Well-written descriptions:

• Describe observable and measurable behavior
• Use parallel language across the scale
• Indicate the degree to which the standards are met

Step 7: Create your rubric

Create your rubric in a table or spreadsheet in Word, Google Docs, Sheets, etc., and then transfer it by typing it into Moodle. You can also use online tools to create the rubric, but you will still have to type the criteria, indicators, levels, etc., into Moodle. Rubric creators: Rubistar , iRubric

Step 8: Pilot-test your rubric

Prior to implementing your rubric on a live course, obtain feedback from:

• Teacher assistants

Try out your new rubric on a sample of student work. After you pilot-test your rubric, analyze the results to consider its effectiveness and revise accordingly.

• Limit the rubric to a single page for reading and grading ease
• Use parallel language . Use similar language and syntax/wording from column to column. Make sure that the rubric can be easily read from left to right or vice versa.
• Use student-friendly language . Make sure the language is learning-level appropriate. If you use academic language or concepts, you will need to teach those concepts.
• Share and discuss the rubric with your students . Students should understand that the rubric is there to help them learn, reflect, and self-assess. If students use a rubric, they will understand the expectations and their relevance to learning.
• Consider scalability and reusability of rubrics. Create rubric templates that you can alter as needed for multiple assignments.
• Maximize the descriptiveness of your language. Avoid words like “good” and “excellent.” For example, instead of saying, “uses excellent sources,” you might describe what makes a resource excellent so that students will know. You might also consider reducing the reliance on quantity, such as a number of allowable misspelled words. Focus instead, for example, on how distracting any spelling errors are.

Example of an analytic rubric for a final paper

Example of a holistic rubric for a final paper, single-point rubric, more examples:.

• Single Point Rubric Template ( variation )
• Analytic Rubric Template make a copy to edit
• A Rubric for Rubrics
• Bank of Online Discussion Rubrics in different formats
• Mathematical Presentations Descriptive Rubric
• Math Proof Assessment Rubric
• Kansas State Sample Rubrics
• Design Single Point Rubric

Technology Tools: Rubrics in Moodle

• Moodle Docs: Rubrics
• Moodle Docs: Grading Guide (use for single-point rubrics)

Tools with rubrics (other than Moodle)

• Google Assignments
• Turnitin Assignments: Rubric or Grading Form

Other resources

• DePaul University (n.d.). Rubrics .
• Gonzalez, J. (2014). Know your terms: Holistic, Analytic, and Single-Point Rubrics . Cult of Pedagogy.
• Goodrich, H. (1996). Understanding rubrics . Teaching for Authentic Student Performance, 54 (4), 14-17. Retrieved from   
• Miller, A. (2012). Tame the beast: tips for designing and using rubrics.
• Ragupathi, K., Lee, A. (2020). Beyond Fairness and Consistency in Grading: The Role of Rubrics in Higher Education. In: Sanger, C., Gleason, N. (eds) Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)

Chapter: 10 implementation: curriculum, instruction, teacher development, and assessment.

IMPLEMENTATION Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment

I n this chapter, we consider the changes needed across the K-12 science education system so that implementation of the framework and related standards can more readily occur. Standards provide a vision for teaching and learning, but the vision cannot be realized unless the standards permeate the education system and guide curriculum, instruction, teacher preparation and professional development, and student assessment.

By “system” we mean the institutions and mechanisms that shape and support science teaching and learning in the classroom. Thus the system includes organization and administration at state, district, and school levels as well as teacher education, certification requirements, curriculum and instructional resources, assessment policies and practices, and professional development programs. Our use of the term “system,” however, does not necessarily imply that all the components of the science education system are well aligned and work together seamlessly. Rather, adopting the idea of a system (1) acknowledges the complex and interacting forces that shape learning and teaching at the classroom level and (2) provides an analytic tool for thinking about these various forces.

The next section is an overview of four major components of the K-12 science education system, and in succeeding sections we consider each of them in turn. For each component, we discuss what must be in place in order for it to align with the framework’s vision.

These discussions do not include formal recommendations and are not framed as standards for each component, because the committee was not asked to undertake the kind of extensive review—of the research on teacher education,

curriculum, instruction, professional development, and assessment—that would be required in order to make explicit recommendations for related sets of standards for each component. Indeed, the committee and the timeline for our work would have required considerable expansion in order to give such an endeavor adequate treatment.

The committee instead relied on a number of recent reports from the National Research Council (NRC) that did examine research related to each of the components discussed in this chapter. They include Knowing What Students Know [ 1 ], Investigating the Influence of Standards [ 2 ], Systems for State Science Assessment [ 3 ], America’s Lab Report [ 4 ], Taking Science to School [ 5 ], and Preparing Teachers [ 6 ]. The discussions in the following sections are based primarily on these reports.

Explicit standards for teaching, professional development, education programs, and the education system were included in the original National Science Education Standard s ( NSES ) published by the NRC in 1996 [ 7 ]. Although many of these standards are still relevant to K-12 science education today, the committee did not undertake a thorough review of these portions of the NSES . Instead, given our charge, we focused on the NSES standards that describe science content. For future efforts, we suggest that a review of the other NSES standards, in light of the research and development that has taken place since 1996, would be very valuable; such a review could serve as an important complement to the current effort.

KEY COMPONENTS OF K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION

The key components of science education that we consider in this chapter are curriculum, instruction, teacher development, and assessment. It is difficult to focus on any particular component without considering how it is influenced by—and how it in turn influences—the other components. For example, what students learn is clearly related to what they are taught, which itself depends on many things: state science standards; the instructional materials available in the commercial market and from organizations (such as state and federal agencies) with science-related missions; the curriculum adopted by the local board of education; teachers’ knowledge and practices for teaching; how teachers elect to use the curriculum; the kinds of resources, time, and space that teachers have for their instructional work; what the community values regarding student learning; and how local, state, and national standards and assessments influence instructional practice.

We are not attempting to provide a full discussion of all possible influences on science education; rather, we focus on four major components that have critical roles to play and how they will need to evolve in order to implement the kind of science education envisaged by this framework. Our discussion also does not include detailed consideration of the process of gaining support for adoption of standards—for example, developing public will and engaging with state and local policy makers. We also do not discuss informal settings for science education, which provide many opportunities for learning science that complement and extend students’ experiences in school [ 8 ].

A Complex System

Much of the complexity of science education systems derives from the multiple levels of control—classroom, school, school district, state, and national—across which curriculum, instruction, teacher development, and assessment operate; thus what ultimately happens in a classroom is significantly affected by decision making distributed across the levels and multiple channels of influence.

Each teacher ultimately decides how and what to teach in his or her classroom, but this decision is influenced by decisions at higher levels of the system. First, there is the effect of decisions made at the school level, which include the setting of expectations and sequences in certain content areas as well as the principal’s, department chairs’, or team leaders’ explicit and implicit signals about teaching and learning priorities [ 9 ]. Leaders at the school level may also make decisions about the time and resources [ 10 ] allocated to different subjects within guidelines and requirements set by the state, teacher hiring and assignments, the usage of science labs, and, in some cases, the presence of a school building’s laboratory space in the first place. The school leaders’ expectations, priorities, and decisions establish a climate that encourages or discourages particular pedagogical approaches, collegial interactions, or inservice programs [ 11 , 12 ]. Furthermore, a school’s degree of commitment to equity—to providing opportunities for all students to learn the same core content—can influence how students are scheduled into classes, which teachers are hired, how they are assigned to teach particular classes, and how instructional resources are identified and allocated [ 13 , 14 ].

At the next level of the system, school districts are responsible for (1) ensuring implementation of state and federal education policies; (2) formulating additional local education policies; and (3) creating processes for selecting curricula, purchasing curriculum materials, and determining the availability of instructional resources. District leaders develop local school budgets, set instructional priorities,

provide instructional guidance, create incentive structures, and influence the willingness and capacity of schools and teachers to explore and implement different instructional techniques. Teacher hiring and school assignment may also occur at the district level. Districts may provide support structures and professional development networks that enhance the capacity of schools and teachers to implement effective science curriculum, instruction, and formative assessments.

The state level is a particularly important one for schools. States, being constitutionally responsible for elementary and secondary education, play major roles in regulating and funding education—they provide nearly half of all public school revenues [ 15 ], with most of the remainder coming from local property taxes. Each state must develop and administer its own policies on standards, curriculum, materials selection and adoption, teacher licensure, student assessment, and educational accountability. Across states, the authority of schools and districts to formulate policy varies considerably. Some states have relatively high “local control,” with more power residing at the district level; others states have more centralized control, with more influence exerted by the state.

Finally, although the federal government contributes less than 10 percent of all funds invested by states and local districts in education [ 16 ], it influences education at all levels through a combination of regulations, public advocacy, and monetary incentives. For example, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind Act) requires the testing of students at specific grade levels.

There are also influences from the other stakeholders that have an interest in science education, such as parents, businesses, local communities, and professional societies. These stakeholders can become engaged at all levels—national, state, local—and often have a significant influence on what is taught and how it is taught.

Clearly, a science education system must be responsive to a variety of influences—some that emanate from the top down, some from the bottom up, and some laterally from outside formal channels. States and school districts generally exert considerable influence over science curricula, and they set policies for time

spent on science. However, classroom teachers in the lower grades may have some latitude in how they use instructional time to meet district and state mandates. In high school, by contrast, district and state graduation requirements affect the types and numbers of science courses that all students are required to take. Beyond such minimum requirements, students and their parents determine the overall science course load that each student takes.

The Importance of Coherence in the System

The complexity of the system—with several components that are affected by or operate at different levels—presents a challenge to implementation of the framework and its related standards. Successful implementation requires that all of the components across the levels cohere or work together in a harmonious or logical way to support the new vision. This kind of system-wide coherence is difficult to achieve, yet it is essential to the success of standards-based science education.

In the literature on education policy, the term “coherence” is often used interchangeably with another term—“alignment” [ 17-19 ]—although others have suggested that alignment alone is not sufficient to make a system coherent [ 20 ]. For example, not only would a coherent curriculum be well aligned across the grades or across subjects, it would also be logically organized, integrated, and harmonious in its internal structure. Here we treat coherence as the broader concept and alignment as only one of its dimensions.

A standards-based system of science education should be coherent in a variety of ways [ 3 ]. It should be horizontally coherent, in the sense that the curriculum-, instruction-, and assessment-related policies and practices are all aligned with the standards, target the same goals for learning, and work together to support students’ development of the knowledge and understanding of science. The system should be vertically coherent, in the sense that there is (a) a shared understanding at all levels of the system (classroom, school, school district, state, and national) of the goals for science education (and for the curriculum) that underlie the standards and (b) that there is a consensus about the purposes and

uses of assessment. The system should also be developmentally coherent, in the sense that there is a shared understanding across grade levels of what ideas are important to teach and of how children’s understanding of these ideas should develop across grade levels.

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

Curriculum refers to the knowledge and practices in subject matter areas that teachers teach and that students are supposed to learn. A curriculum generally consists of a scope, or breadth of content, in a given subject area and of a sequence of concepts and activities for learning. While standards typically outline the goals of learning, curricula set forth the more specific means—materials, tasks, discussions, representations—to be used to achieve those goals.

Curriculum is collectively defined by teachers, curriculum coordinators (at both the school and the district levels), state agencies, curriculum development organizations, textbook publishers, and (in the case of science) curriculum kit publishers. Although standards do not prescribe specific curricula, they do provide some criteria for designing curricula. And in order to realize the vision of the framework and standards, it is necessary that aligned instructional materials, textbooks, and computer or other media-based materials be developed as well.

Curricula based on the framework and resulting standards should integrate the three dimensions—scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas—and follow the progressions articulated in this report. In order to support the vision of this framework, standards-based curricula in science need to be developed to provide clear guidance that helps teachers support students engaging in scientific practices to develop explanations and models [ 5 , 21-24 ]. In addition, curriculum materials need to be developed as a multiyear sequence that helps students develop increasingly sophisticated ideas across grades K-12 [ 5 , 25 , 26 ]. Curriculum materials (including technology) themselves are developed by a multicomponent system that includes for-profit publishers as well as grant-funded work in the nonprofit sectors of the science education community. The adoption of standards based on this framework by multiple states may help drive publishers to align with it. Such alignment may at first be superficial, but schools, districts, and states can influence publishers if enough of them are asking for serious alignment with the framework and the standards it engenders.

Integration of the Three Dimensions

The framework’s vision is that students will acquire knowledge and skill in science and engineering through a carefully designed sequence of learning experiences. Each stage in the sequence will develop students’ understanding of particular scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas while also deepening their insights into the ways in which people from all backgrounds engage in scientific and engineering work to satisfy their curiosity, seek explanations about the world, and improve the built world.

A major question confronting each curriculum developer will be which of the practices and crosscutting concepts to feature in lessons or units around a particular disciplinary core idea so that, across the curriculum, they all receive sufficient attention [ 27 ].

Every science unit or engineering design project must have as one of its goals the development of student understanding of at least one disciplinary core idea. In addition, explicit reference to each crosscutting concept will recur frequently and in varied contexts across disciplines and grades. These concepts need to become part of the language of science that students use when framing questions or developing ways to observe, describe, and explain the world.

Similarly, the science and engineering practices delineated in this framework should become familiar as well to students through increasingly sophisticated experiences with them across grades K-8 [ 28 , 29 ]. Although not every such practice will occur in every context, the curriculum should provide repeated opportunities across various contexts for students to develop their facility with these practices and use them as a support for developing deep understanding of the concepts in question and of the nature of science and of engineering. This will require substantial redesign of current and future curricula [ 30 , 31 ].

Important Aspects of Science Curriculum

In addition to alignment with the framework, there are many other aspects for curriculum designers to consider that are not addressed in the framework. This section highlights some that the committee considers important but decided would

be better treated at the level of curriculum design than at the level of framework and standards. Considerations of the historical, social, cultural, and ethical aspects of science and its applications, as well as of engineering and the technologies it develops, need a place in the natural science curriculum and classroom [ 32 , 33 ]. The framework is designed to help students develop an understanding not only that the various disciplines of science and engineering are interrelated but also that they are human endeavors. As such, they may raise issues that are not solved by scientific and engineering methods alone.

For example, because decisions about the use of a particular technology raise issues of costs, risks, and benefits, the associated societal and environmental impacts require a broader discussion. Perspectives from history and the social and behavioral sciences can enlighten the consideration of such issues; indeed, many of them are addressable either in the context of a social studies course, a science course, or both. In either case, the importance of argument from evidence is critical.

It is also important that curricula provide opportunities for discussions that help students recognize that some science- or engineering-related questions, such as ethical decisions or legal codes for what should or should not be done in a given situation, have moral and cultural underpinnings that vary across cultures. Similarly, through discussion and reflection, students can come to realize that scientific inquiry embodies a set of values. These values include respect for the importance of logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, and a requirement for transparent research procedures and honest reporting of findings.

Students need opportunities, with increasing sophistication across the grade levels, to consider not only the applications and implications of science and engi-neering in society but also the nature of the human endeavor of science and engineering themselves. They likewise need to develop an awareness of the careers made possible through scientific and engineering capabilities.

Discussions involving the history of scientific and engineering ideas, of individual practitioners’ contributions, and of the applications of these endeavors are important components of a science and engineering curriculum. For many students, these aspects are the pathways that capture their interest in these fields and build their identities as engaged and capable learners of science and engineering [ 34 , 35 ]. Teaching science and engineering without reference to their rich variety of human stories, to the puzzles of the past and how they were solved, and to the issues of today that science and engineering must help address would be a major omission. It would isolate science and engineering from their human roots, undervalue their intellectual and creative contributions, and diminish many students’ interest.

Finally, when considering how to integrate these aspects of learning into the science and engineering curriculum, curriculum developers, as well as classroom teachers, face many further important questions. For example, is a topic best addressed by invoking its historical development as a story of scientific discovery? Is it best addressed in the context of a current problem or issue? Or is it best conveyed through an investigation? What technology or simulation tools can aid student learning? In addition, how are diverse student backgrounds explicitly engaged as resources in structuring learning experiences [ 36 , 37 ]? And does the curriculum offer sufficiently varied examples and opportunities so that all students may identify with scientific knowledge-building practices and participate fully [ 38 , 39 ]? These choices occur both in the development of curriculum materials and, as we discuss in the following section, in decisions made by the teacher in planning instruction.

LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION

Instruction refers to methods of teaching and the learning activities used to help students master the content and objectives specified by a curriculum. Instruction encompasses the activities of both teachers and students. It can be carried out by a variety of pedagogical techniques, sequences of activities, and ordering of topics. Although the framework does not specify a particular pedagogy, integration of the three dimensions will require that students be actively involved in the kinds of learning opportunities that classroom research suggests are important for (1) their understanding of science concepts [ 5 , 40-42 ], (2) their identities as learners of science [ 43 , 44 ], and (3) their appreciation of scientific practices and crosscutting concepts [ 45 , 46 ].

Several previous NRC committees working on topics related to science education have independently concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to make prescriptive recommendations about which approaches to science instruction are most effective for achieving particular learning goals [ 3 - 5 ]. However, the recent report Preparing Teachers noted that “there is a clear inferential link between the nature of what is in the standards and the nature of classroom instruction. Instruction throughout K-12 education is likely to develop science proficiency if it provides students with opportunities for a range of scientific activities and scientific thinking, including, but not limited to: inquiry and investigation, collection and analysis of evidence, logical reasoning, and communication and application of information” [ 6 ].

For example, researchers have studied classroom teaching interventions involving curriculum structures that support epistemic practices (i.e., articulation and evaluation of one’s own knowledge, coordination of theory and evidence) [ 47 ]; instructional approaches for English language learners [ 48 ]; the effects of project-based curricula and teaching practices [ 49 ]; the effects of instruction on core ideas, such as the origin of species [ 50 ]; and the influence of multiple representations of learning [ 51 ]. Others have investigated curricular approaches and instructional practices that are matched to national standards [ 52 ] or are focused on model-based inquiry [ 24 ]. In some work, there is a particular interest in the role of students’ learning of scientific discourses, especially argumentation [ 33 , 53 , 54 ]. Taken together, this work suggests teachers need to develop the capacity to use a variety of approaches in science education.

Much of this work has examined pedagogical issues related to the “strands” of scientific proficiency outlined in Taking Science to School [ 5 ], and we next turn to those strands.

What It Means to Learn Science

The NRC report Taking Science to School [ 5 ] concluded that proficiency in science is multifaceted and therefore requires a range of experiences to support students’ learning. That report defined the following four strands of proficiency, which it maintained are interwoven in successful science learning:

1. Knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world.

2. Generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations.

3. Understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge.

4. Participating productively in scientific practices and discourse.

Strand 1 includes the acquisition of facts, laws, principles, theories, and models of science; the development of conceptual structures that incorporate them; and the productive use of these structures to understand the natural world. Students grow in their understanding of particular phenomena as well as in their appreciation of the ways in which the construction of models and refinement of arguments contribute to the improvement of explanations [ 29 , 55 ].

Strand 2 encompasses the knowledge and practices needed to build and refine models and to provide explanations (conceptual, computational, and mechanistic) based on scientific evidence. This strand includes designing empirical investigations and measures for data collection, selecting representations and ways of analyzing the resulting data (or data available from other sources), and using empirical evidence to construct, critique, and defend scientific arguments [ 45 , 56 ].

Strand 3 focuses on students’ understanding of science as a way of knowing. Scientific knowledge is a particular kind of knowledge with its own sources, justifications, ways of dealing with uncertainties [ 40 ], and agreed-on levels of certainty. When students understand how scientific knowledge is developed over systematic observations across multiple investigations, how it is justified and critiqued on the basis of evidence, and how it is validated by the larger scientific community, the students then recognize that science entails the search for core explanatory constructs and the connections between them [ 57 ]. They come to appreciate that alternative interpretations of scientific evidence can occur, that such interpretations must be carefully scrutinized, and that the plausibility of the supporting evidence must be considered. Thus students ultimately understand, regarding both their own work and the historical record, that predictions or explanations can

be revised on the basis of seeing new evidence or of developing a new model that accounts for the existing evidence better than previous models did.

Strand 4 includes students’ effective engagement in science practices with an understanding of the norms for participating in science, such as norms for constructing and presenting scientific models and explanations, for critiquing and defending a claim while engaged in scientific debates, and for students’ motivation and attitudes toward science. For example, over time, students develop more sophisticated uses of scientific talk—which includes making claims and using evidence—and of scientific representations, such as graphs [ 58 ], physical models [ 59 ], and written arguments [ 60 , 61 ]. They come to see themselves as members of a scientific community in which they test ideas, develop shared representations and models, and reach consensus. Students who see science as valuable and interesting and themselves as capable science learners also tend to be capable learners as well as more effective participants in science [ 8 ]. They believe that steady effort in understanding science pays off—as opposed to erroneously thinking that some people understand science and other people never will. To engage productively in science, however, students need to understand how to participate in scientific discussions, how to adopt a critical stance while respecting the contributions of others, and how to ask questions and revise their own opinions [ 62 ].

The four strands imply that learning science involves learning a system of thought, discourse, and practice—all in an interconnected and social context—to accomplish the goal of working with and understanding scientific ideas. This perspective stresses how conceptual understanding is linked to the ability to develop explanations of phenomena and to carry out empirical investigations in order to develop or evaluate those knowledge claims. Furthermore, it recognizes the conceptual effort needed for students’ naive conceptions of the world to be modified as they learn science, rather than maintained with little change even as they contradict the material being taught. These strands are not independent or separable in the practice of science, nor in the teaching and learning of science. Rather, they are mutually supportive—students’ advances in one strand tend to leverage or promote advances in other strands. Furthermore, students use them together when engaging in scientific tasks.

The NRC report Learning Science in Informal Environments [ 8 ] built on these proficiencies by including two additional strands. The first highlighted the importance of personal interests related to science, and the second noted the importance of helping learners come to identify with science as an endeavor they want to seek out, engage in, and perhaps contribute to. Science-linked interests

and identity are important aspects of the science proficiencies of all learners, and we have discussed them specifically in other parts of the framework (see Chapters 2 and 11 ).

Although the strands are useful for thinking about proficiencies that students need to develop, as framed they do not describe in any detail what it is that students need to learn and practice. Thus they cannot guide standards, curricula, or assessment without further specification of the knowledge and practices that students must learn. The three dimensions that are developed in this framework—practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas—make that specification and attempt to realize the commitments to the strands of scientific literacy in the four strands. There is not a simple one-to-one mapping of strands to the dimensions, because the strands are interrelated aspects of how learners engage with scientific ideas. Table 10-1 summarizes how the strands of scientific literacy guided the design of the dimensions in the framework.

Implications for Instruction

As the report Taking Science to School concludes, “a range of instructional approaches is necessary as part of a full development of the four strands of proficiency. All students need to experience these different approaches” [ 5 ]. “Approaches” here refer to the wide range of instructional strategies—from those that are led exclusively by the teacher to those that are led primarily by the student—that teachers can employ in science classrooms. Instruction may involve teacher talk and questioning, or teacher-led activities, or collaborative small-group investigations [ 63 ], or student-led activities. The extent of each alternative varies, depending on the initial ideas that students bring to learning (and their consequent needs for scaffolding), the nature of the content involved, and the available curriculum support.

Current research in K-12 science classrooms reveals that earlier debates about such dichotomies as “direct instruction” and “inquiry” are simplistic, even mistaken, as a characterization of science pedagogy [ 5 ]. This research focuses on particular aspects of teaching methods, such

TABLE 10-1 Relationship of Strands and Dimensions

as teachers’ oral strategies in guided science inquiry [ 64 ] and how they influence students’ progress in scientific practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. For example, McNeill and Krajcik [ 22 ] studied how teachers’ instructional practices affected students’ scientific explanations; Kanter and Konstantopoulos [ 32 ] reported on the effects of teachers’ content knowledge and instructional practices on minority students’ achievements, attitudes, and careers. Other research has tracked how students’ learning of scientific argumentation related to their development of scientific knowledge [ 65 , 66 ]. Technological resources for science learning offer another instructional option [ 67-69 ].

Engagement in the scientific and engineering practices and the undertaking of sustained investigations related to the core ideas and crosscutting concepts provide the strategies by which the four strands can be developed together in instruction. The expectation is that students generate and interpret evidence and develop explanations of the natural world through sustained investigations. However, such investigations must be carefully selected to link to important scientific ideas, and they must also be structured with attention to the kinds of support that students will need, given their level of proficiency. Without support, students may have difficulty finding meaning in their investigations, or they may fail to see how the investigations are relevant to their other work in the science classroom, or they may not understand how their investigations’ outcomes connect to a given core idea or crosscutting concept [ 70 ]. Finally, sufficient time must be allocated to science so that sustained investigations can occur.

TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

Ultimately, the interactions between teachers and students in individual classrooms are the determining factor in whether students learn science successfully. Thus teachers are the linchpin in any effort to change K-12 science education. And it stands to reason that in order to support implementation of the new standards and the curricula designed to achieve them, the initial preparation and professional development of teachers of science will need to change.

Schools, districts, institutions of higher education, state agencies, and other entities recruit, prepare, license, and evaluate teachers and provide an array of opportunities for their continued professional learning. A coherent approach to implementing standards would require all of these entities to work toward common goals and to evaluate the effectiveness of their requirements, procedures, teaching experiences, and courses in supporting the desired

approaches. (A common response from state science supervisors who reviewed the framework’s draft version was to recognize the professional development demands it would place on the education systems in which they operate.) Alignment of teacher preparation and professional development with the vision of science education advanced in this framework is essential for eventual widespread implementation of the type of instruction that will be needed for students to achieve the standards based on it.

Teaching science as envisioned by the framework requires that teachers have a strong understanding of the scientific ideas and practices they are expected to teach, including an appreciation of how scientists collaborate to develop new theories, models, and explanations of natural phenomena. Rarely are college-level science courses designed to offer would-be science teachers, even those who major in science, the opportunity to develop these understandings. Courses designed with this goal are needed.

Teachers also need to understand what initial ideas students bring to school and how they may best develop an understanding of scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas across multiple grades [ 71 ]. Furthermore, in order to move students along the developmental progression of practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, teachers need science-specific pedagogical content knowledge [ 72-74 ]—such as the ability to recognize common prescientific notions that underlie a student’s questions or models—in order to choose the pedagogical approaches that can build on those notions while moving students toward greater scientific understanding of the topics in question. In sum, teachers at all levels must understand the scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas; how students learn them; and the range of instructional strategies that can support their learning. Furthermore, teachers need to learn how to use student-developed models, classroom discourse, and other formative assessment approaches to gauge student thinking and design further instruction based on it. A single “science methods” course cannot develop this knowledge in

any depth across all subjects for high school science teachers, nor across all grades for elementary school teachers. Furthermore, many teachers now enter the system through alternative paths that may not include coursework in science teaching.

The research base related to strategies for science teacher preparation has been growing in the past decades [ 75-77 ]. Recent research has focused on the kinds of teacher knowledge to be addressed [ 78-82 ], particular programs and courses for prospective teachers [ 83 ], and how induction programs (which provide early mentoring and evaluation experiences, for example) can support new teachers [ 84 ]. However, an NRC committee charged with reviewing teacher preparation programs concluded that there is virtually “no systematic information on the content or practices of preparation programs or requirements for science teachers across states” [ 6 ]. In other words, while there is some research on what might be effective in preservice education little is known about what is actually offered.

State licensure requirements and the content of state licensing exams suggest that the requirements in science are fairly weak for elementary teachers and probably inadequate for middle school teachers. Although there is some evidence about approaches to professional development for K-12 science teachers [ 85-93 ], the research base needs further evidence from studies across K-12 teachers at different grade levels and across different disciplines [ 94-96 ]. Given these circumstances, the discussion in the following subsections is based on the information available, the committee’s professional judgments, and logical inferences about what knowledge and skills teachers need to have in order to provide the learning experiences implied by the framework.

Preservice Experiences

Prospective science teachers will need science courses and other experiences that provide a thorough grounding in all three of the framework’s dimensions [ 97 ]. Thus science teacher preparation must develop teachers’ focus on, and deepen their understanding of the crosscutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas [ 98 , 99 ], and scientific and engineering practices [ 100 ] so as to better engage their students in these dimensions [ 101 , 102 ]. The goal of building students’ understanding of the core ideas over multiple grades means that teachers will need to appreciate both the current intellectual capabilities of their students and their developmental trajectories [ 103 ]. Toward this end, preservice teachers will need experiences that help them understand how students think, what they are capable of doing, and what they might reasonably be expected to do under supportive instructional conditions [81].

Ensuring that teachers incorporate the full range of scientific and engineering practices described in the framework is likely to be a challenge, but science methods courses will need revision to support prospective teachers’ eventual facility with that range in their classrooms. This means introducing prospective teachers to a spectrum of scientific investigations, including simple investigations in the classroom using everyday materials, field studies outside the classroom [ 6 ], formal experiments carried out in the laboratory [ 104 ], and student-designed investigations [ 54 ]. Teachers also need opportunities to develop the knowledge and practices to support these investigations, including how to prepare, organize, and maintain materials; implement safety protocols; organize student groups; and guide students as they collect, represent, analyze, discuss data, argue from evidence, and draw conclusions [ 80 ].

Given that prospective teachers often rely heavily on curricular materials to guide their preparation and teaching, they will also need experiences in analyzing and revising curricular materials using standards- and research-based criteria [ 105 , 106 ]. In addition, in this age of accountability, new teachers will need support in developing their knowledge of forms of assessment [ 79 ].

Beyond investigations, the discourse practices also are an important component of the framework [ 82 , 107 ]; teachers will need support to learn how to facilitate appropriate and effective discourse in their classrooms [ 108 , 109 ]. The emphasis on modeling is also new and will need to be an explicit element of teacher preparation [ 75 , 110 ].

Moreover, preservice experiences will need to help teachers develop explicit ways to bring the crosscutting concepts into focus as they teach disciplinary content ideas. In effect, the framework calls for using a common language across grade levels for both scientific and engineering practices and crosscutting concepts. Engaging teachers in using this language during their preparation experiences is one strategy for ensuring that they develop facility and comfort with using it in the classroom.

The practices of obtaining, representing, communicating, and presenting information pose a particular challenge. Although elementary science teachers are usually also teachers of reading and writing and have experience in that

realm, this is not the case for most secondary science teachers. Even for elementary teachers, their experience as literacy teachers rarely stresses science-specific issues, such as developing understanding based on integrating text with pictures, diagrams, and mathematical representations of information. For science teachers to embrace their role as teachers of science communication and of practices of acquiring, evaluating, and integrating information from multiple sources and multiple forms of presentation, their preparation as teachers will need to be strong in these areas [ 111 ].

The committee recognizes that incorporating the elements identified above will place significant demands on existing teacher preparation programs and on science teaching in college-level science departments. This may be particularly the case for the preparation of elementary teachers, who are typically required to take only a limited number of science courses and a single science methods course. A variety of mechanisms for integrating these elements will probably need to be considered, including modification of courses, addition of courses, and changes in licensing requirements. Any such redesigns should be oriented to the framework’s three dimensions while incorporating research-based knowledge of what is most effective in teacher preparation.

Inservice Professional Development

Preservice preparation alone cannot fully prepare science teachers to implement the three dimensions of the framework as an integrated and effective whole. Inservice professional development will also be necessary to support teachers as they move into classrooms and teach science education curricula based on the framework [ 19 , 112 ] and to introduce current teachers to the elements of the framework and the teaching practices that are needed to support them. Science-specific induction, and mentoring, and ongoing professional development for teachers at all stages of their careers, are needed.

This professional development should not only be rich in scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas but also be closely linked to teachers’ classroom practices and needs [ 113 ]. Such professional development will thus need to be closely tied to the standards and curricula specific to the school, district, and state in which a particular teacher is teaching [ 64 ]. This burden will fall at local and state levels, but the capacity to meet it could be improved by coordinated development of teacher inservice programs capable of serving multiple states that choose to adopt the same set of standards. The capacity of the informal science learning sector to support effective teacher development

will also need attention to ensure that the work that such institutions as science museums do in teacher professional development is likewise aligned to the framework’s vision.

Because elementary teachers teach several subjects, it will be especially important to consider how best to meet their combined needs through teacher preparation, early- career induction support, and ongoing professional development [ 114 ]. Some exploration of alternate models of teacher assignment, particularly at the upper elementary and middle school grades, may be needed. Even for secondary science teachers, facility with conceptual understanding of the framework [ 115 , 116 ] and with the practices described here [ 80 , 117 ] will require continuing professional development.

It should be understood that effective implementation of the new standards may require ongoing professional development support and that this support may look different from earlier versions. For example, the use of technology-facilitated approaches—such as teachers’ video clubs to study their practices collaboratively [ 118 ] or the use of geospatial or modeling technology—while rare today, may become commonplace [ 119 ].

Assessment refers to the means used to measure the outcomes of curriculum and instruction—the achievements of students with regard to important competencies. Assessment may include formal methods, such as large-scale standardized state testing, or less formal classroom-based procedures, such as quizzes, class projects, and teacher questioning. In the brief subsections that follow, we discuss some of the more challenging issues related to assessment that are part of the landscape for implementing the framework and its resulting standards.

Purposes of Assessments

As discussed in Knowing What Students Know [ 1 ], there are at least three purposes for educational assessment:

1. Formative assessment for use in the classroom to assist learning . Such assessment is designed to provide diagnostic feedback to teachers and students during the course of instruction. Teachers need assessment information about their individual students to guide the instructional process.

2. Summative assessment for use at the classroom, school, or district level to determine student attainment levels. Such assessment includes tests, given at the end of a unit or a school year, that are designed to determine what individual students have achieved.

3. Assessment for program evaluation , used in making comparisons across classrooms, schools, districts, states, or nations. Such assessment often includes standardized tests designed to measure variation in the outcomes of different instructional programs.

Schools, districts, and states typically employ assessments for all three purposes and sometimes today for a fourth purpose—evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Often the multiple forms of assessment have been designed separately and may not be well aligned with each other [ 3 ]. But just as the education system as a whole needs to function coherently to support implementation of the framework and related standards, the multiple forms of assessment need to function coherently as well. That is, the various forms of assessment should all be linked to the shared goals outlined by the framework and related standards while at the same time be designed to achieve the specific purpose at hand.

In addition, designers of assessments need to consider the diverse backgrounds that students bring with them to science class. For example, from an analysis of the language demands faced by English language learners on science performance assessments, Shaw, Bunch, and Geaney [ 120 ] concluded that assessment developers need to eliminate barriers of language, gender-biased examples, and other forms of representation that preclude some students’ useful participation.

More fundamentally, the education system currently lacks sophistication in understanding and addressing the different purposes of assessment and how they relate to each other and to the standards for a particular subject. For example, a glaring and frequent mistake is to assume that current standardized tests of the type

used by most states to assess academic achievement for accountability purposes can also suffice to fulfill the other purposes of assessment. Such a “one-size-fits-all” notion of assessment is demonstrably inadequate. No single assessment, regardless of how well it might be designed, can possibly meet the range of information needs that operate from the classroom level on up [ 1 , 3 ].

Assessment Contexts: Classroom and Large-Scale Uses

In addition to differences in purpose, there are differences among assessments (and similarities) in their contexts of use, which range from the classroom level to the national level. As discussed in the NRC report Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning: Bridging the Gap Between Large-Scale and Classroom Assessment [ 121 ], there are many desirable design features that should be shared by assessments, whether intended for use at the classroom level (for formative or summative purposes) or intended for large-scale use by states and nations (typically for accountability purposes). There are also some unique design characteristics that apply separately to each context. Many of the desirable design characteristics, shared or unique (to each context of use) alike, are currently unmet by the current generation of science assessment tools and resources.

Most science assessments, whether intended for classroom or large-scale use, still employ paper-and-pencil presentation and response formats that are amenable only to limited forms of problem types. In fact, most large-scale tests are composed primarily of selected-response (multiple-choice) tasks, and the situation is often not much better at the classroom level. Assessments of this type can measure some kinds of conceptual knowledge, and they also can provide a snapshot of some science practices. But they do not adequately measure other kinds of achievements, such as the formulation of scientific explanations or communication of scientific understanding [ 122 ]. They also cannot assess students’ ability to design and execute all of the steps involved in carrying out a scientific investigation [ 4 ] or engaging in scientific argumentation. A few states have developed standardized classroom assessments of science practices by providing uniform kits of materials that students use to carry out laboratory tasks; this approach has also been used in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science test. However, administering and scoring these hands-on tasks can be cumbersome and expensive [ 3 ].

Computer-based assessment offers a promising alternative [ 6 , 123 ]. Simulations are being designed to measure not only deep conceptual understanding but also the science practices that are difficult to assess using paper-and-pencil tests or hands-on laboratory tasks [ 124 ]. In 2006 and 2009, the Programme

for International Student Assessment (PISA) pilot-tested the Computer-Based Assessment of Science (CBAS), designed to measure science knowledge and inquiry processes. The 2009 NAEP science test included interactive computer tasks designed to test students’ ability to engage in science inquiry practices. And the 2012 NAEP Technological Literacy Assessment will include simulations for assessing students’ facility with information and communications technology tools and their ability to engage in the engineering design process. At the state level, Minnesota has an online science test with tasks that engage students in simulated laboratory experiments or in investigations of such phenomena as weather and the solar system. There is hope that some of these early developments in large-scale testing contexts can be used as a springboard for the design and deployment of assessments, ranging down to the classroom level, that support aspects of the framework.

Designing Assessments

Designing high-quality science assessments that are consistent with the framework, that satisfy the different purposes of assessment, and that function in the varying contexts of use is an important goal, which will require attention and investment to achieve. Such science assessments must target the full range of knowledge and practices described in this report. They must test students’ understanding of science as a content domain and their understanding of science as an approach. And they must provide evidence that students can apply their knowledge appropriately and are building on their existing knowledge and skills in ways that lead to deeper understanding of the scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Science assessments must address all of these pedagogical goals while also meeting professional educators’ standards for reliability, validity, and fairness.

Although we have distinguished three purposes of assessment and different contexts of use, quality instruments for each purpose and context depend on the

same three basic components: (1) theories and data about content-based cognition that indicate the knowledge and practices that should be tested, (2) tasks and observations that can provide information on whether the student has mastered the knowledge and practices of interest, and (3) qualitative and quantitative techniques for scoring student performance that capture fairly the differences in knowledge and practice [ 1 ].

Every assessment has to be specifically designed to serve its intended purpose and context of use. An assessment designed to provide information about students’ difficulties with a single concept so that it can be addressed with instruction would be designed differently from an assessment meant to provide information to policy makers for evaluating the effectiveness of the overall education system. Details about the design of assessments for any given purpose or context are beyond the scope of the framework, as are the principles for designing systems of assessments that operate across the classroom, district, and state levels. However, guidance to states for developing a coherent system of assessments can be found in the NRC report Systems for State Science Assessment [ 3 ].

As this chapter’s discussion suggests, the committee’s work on the framework and resulting standards is only the beginning. In order for students to experience and engage in the opportunities needed for understanding the three dimensions of scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas described in the framework, many other players and components of the system will need to change, often in dramatic ways. And these changes will need to occur in parallel, driven by a common vision, as well as iteratively, because each affects the capacity of other components of the system to implement the framework and standards. It is the committee’s vision that the framework and standards based on it can help drive ongoing evolutionary change in science instruction through parallel and interlocking developments across the multiple components of the system.

Curriculum developers will need to design K-12 science curricula based on research and on learning progressions across grade levels that incorporate the framework’s three dimensions. Teacher preparation programs and professional development programs will need to provide learning opportunities for teachers themselves in order to deepen their conceptual understanding, engage in scientific and engineering practices, and develop an appreciation of science as a way of knowing in a community of knowledge builders. These programs will also need to

enhance teachers’ skills in investigating students’ ideas, selecting effective teaching practices, assessing students’ progress, and developing classroom communities and discourses in which all students and their ways of knowing are valued and respected. College science departments will need to attend to the needs of prospective science teachers. Assessment developers will need to develop creative, valid, and reliable ways of gathering evidence about students’ progress across the domains and grade levels to satisfy different purposes at different levels of the science education system.

Furthermore, because these changes are needed across the entire science education system—involving not only the educators at the front lines but also those who make and implement policies—professional development for state-level science supervisors, school boards, district-level leaders, principals, and curriculum specialists will be necessary as well. In that way, all components and players in the science education system can mesh coherently with the framework’s vision for a more inclusive, focused, and authentic science education experience for all students.

1 . National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Education Assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J.W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

2 . National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the Influence of Standards: A Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education . I.R. Weiss, M.S. Knapp, K.S. Hollweg, and G. Burrill (Eds.). Committee on Understanding the Influence of Standards in K-12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

3 . National Research Council. (2006). Systems for State Science Assessment . Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

4 . National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science . Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

5 . National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 . Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

6 . National Research Council. (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy . Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

7 . National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

8 . National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits . Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

9 . Shen, J., Gerard, L., and Bowyer, J. (2010). Getting from here to there: The roles of policy makers and principals in increasing science teacher quality. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21 (3), 283-307.

10 . Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K.G., and Ritchie, S. (2008) Time and temporality as mediators of science learning. Science Education, 92 (1), 115-140.

11 . McLaughlin, M.W., and Talbert, J.E. (1993). Contexts That Matter for Teaching and Learning: Strategic Opportunities for Meeting the Nation’s Educational Goals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.

12 . Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 129-151.

13 . Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., and Seiler, G. (2005). Improving Urban Science Education: New Roles for Teachers, Students, and Researchers. New York: Rowman &Littlefield.

14 . Lee, O., and Buxton, C. (2010). Diversity and Equity in Science Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

15 . National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Highlights from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat . NCES 2001-027. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

16 . U.S. Department of Education. (2000). The Federal Role in Education . Washington, DC: Author.

17 . Smith, M.S., and O’Day, J. (1991). Putting the Pieces Together: Systemic School Reform . CPRE Policy Brief, RB-06-4/91. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

18 . Fuhrman, S. (1993). Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19 . Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B., Gallagher, L., Korbak, C., and Lopez-Prado, B. (2009). Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93 (4), 656-677.

20 . Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37 (5), 525-559.

21 . Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994-1,020.

22 . McNeill, K.L., and Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 53-78.

23 . Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., and Krajcik, J.S. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 632-654.

24 . Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26 (3), 310-378.

25 . Duncan, R.G., Rogat, A.D., and Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 655-674.

26 . Stevens, S.Y., Delgado, C., and Krajcik, J.S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (6), 687-715.

27 . Bybee, R. (2009). K-12 Engineering Education Standards: Opportunities and Barriers. Paper presented at the National Academy of Engineering Workshop on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education, July 8, Washington, DC. Available: http://www.nae.edu/Programs/TechLit1/K12stds/WorkshoponStandardsforK-12EngineeringEducation/15165.aspx [January 2010].

28 . Metz, K.E. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67 , 151-163.

29 . Metz, K.E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22 (2), 219-290.

30 . Kesidou, S., and Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle schools science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s Curriculum Review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 522-549.

31 . Enfield, M., Smith, E.L., and Grueber, D.J. (2008). “A sketch is like a sentence”: Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science Education, 92 (4), 608-630.

32 . Kanter, D., and Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of project-based science on minority student achievement, attitudes, and career plans: An examination of the effects of teacher content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and inquiry-based practices. Science Education, 94 , 855-887.

33 . Varelas, M., Pappas, C.C., Kane, J.M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., and Cowan, B.M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92 (1), 65-95.

34 . Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., and Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10- and 11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94 (4), 617-639.

35 . Tan, E., and Barton, A.C. (2010). Transforming science learning and student participation in sixth grade science: A case study of a low-income, urban, racial minority classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43 (1), 38-55.

36 . Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F., Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., Gutiérrez, K., Heath, S.B., Lee, C.D., Lee, Y., Mahiri, J., Nasir, N.S., Valdes, G., and Zhou, M. (2007). Learning In and Out of School in Diverse Environments: Lifelong, Life-wide, Life-deep. Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.

37 . Santau, A.O., Secada, W., Maerten-Rivera, J., Cone, N., and Lee, O. (2010). U.S. urban elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners: Results from the first year of a professional development intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (15), 2,007-2,032.

38 . Calabrese Barton, A., and Brickhouse, N.W. (2006). Engaging girls in science. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of Gender and Education (pp. 221-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39 . Tan, E., and Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3 (1), 43-71.

40 . Kirch, S. (2010). Identifying and resolving uncertainty as a mediated action in science: A comparative analysis of the cultural tools used by scientists and elementary science students at work. Science Education, 94 (2), 308-335.

41 . Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2010). Seeding Evolutionary Thinking by Engaging Children in Modeling Its Foundations . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

42 . Metz, K. (2006). The knowledge-building enterprises in science and elementary school science classrooms. In L.B. Flick and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (pp. 105-130). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

43 . Olitsky, S., Flohr, L.L., Gardner, J., and Billups, M. (2010). Coherence, contradiction, and the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (10), 1,209-1,228.

44 . Polman, J.L., and Miller, D. (2010). Changing stories: Trajectories of identification among African American youth in a science outreach apprenticeship. American Educational Research Journal, 47 (4), 879-918.

45 . Akerson, V., and Donnelly, L.A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-12 students: What understanding can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32 (1), 97-124.

46 . Berland, L.K., and McNeill, K.L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94 (1), 765-793.

47 . Enfield, M., Smith, E.L., and Grueber, D. (2007). “A sketch is like a sentence”: Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science Education, 92 (4), 608-630.

48 . Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., and Secada, W. (2007). Urban elementary school teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners. Science Education, 92 (4), 733-758.

49 . Kanter, D.E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94 (3), 525-551.

50 . Berti, A.E., Toneatti, L., and Rosati, V. (2010). Children’s conceptions about the origin of species: A study of Italian children’s conceptions with and without instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (4), 506-538.

51 . Adadan, E., Irving, K.E., and Trundle, K.C. (2009). Impacts of multi-representational instruction on high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (13), 1,743-1,775.

52 . Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., and Reiser, B.J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92 (1), 1-32.

53 . Brown, B.A., and Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92 (4), 708-732.

54 . Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94 (5), 810-824.

55 . Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., and Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23 (4), 512-529.

56 . Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In J. Byrnes and E. Amsel (Eds.), Language, Literacy, and Cognitive Development: The Development and Consequences of Symbolic Communication (pp. 167-192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

57 . Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., and Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18 (1), 7-44.

58 . Bowen, G., Roth, W-M, and McGinn, M. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (9), 1,020-1,043.

59 . Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., and Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’ conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 132-152.

60 . Furtak, E.M., and Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (2008). Making students’ thinking explicit in writing and discussion: An analysis of formative assessment prompts. Science Education, 92 (5), 798-824.

61 . Zhang, M., Passalacqua, S., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M.J., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J., Urban Lurain, M., Zhang, T., and Paik, S. (2010). “Science talks” in kindergarten classrooms: Improving classroom practice through collaborative action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21 (2), 161-179.

62 . Chin, C., and Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (2), 230-284.

63 . Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., and Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (1), 69-95.

64 . Oliveira, A. (2009). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 422-453.

65 . Simon, S., Erduran, S., and Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2-3), 235-260.

66 . Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80 (3), 336-371.

67 . Hsu, Y-S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students’ conceptual change. Science Education, 92 (2), 320-344.

68 . McDonald, S., and Songer, N.B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Science Education, 92 (6), 973-993.

69 . Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., and Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (2), 221-243.

70 . Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37 (5), 525-559.

71 . Rivet, A.E., and Krajcik, J.S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 79-100.

72 . Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

73 . Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57 , 1-22.

74 . Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., and Richert, A. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teacher Thinking (pp. 104-124). Sussex, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

75 . Schwarz, C.V. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93 (4), 720-744.

76 . National Science Teachers Association. (2008). Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting . J. Gess-Newsome, J. Luft, and R.L. Bell (Eds.). Washington, DC: Author.

77 . Luft, J.A., Roehrig, G.H., and Patterson, N.C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (1), 77-97.

78 . Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G. (2007). Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

79 . Buck, G.A., Trauth-Nare, A., and Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment discernable to preservice teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 402-421.

80 . Taylor, J.A., and Dana, T.M. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers’ conceptions of scientific evidence: An exploratory case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (8), 721-736.

81 . De Jong, O., and van Driel, J.H. (2001). Developing Preservice Teachers’ Content Knowledge and PCK of Models and Modelling . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

82 . Kelly, G. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. Abell and N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching (pp. 443-470). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

83 . Davis, E.A., and Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93 (4), 745-770.

84 . Saka, Y., Southerland, S.A., and Brooks, J.S., (2009). Becoming a member of a school community while working toward science education reform: Teacher induction from a Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) perspective. Science Education, 93 (6), 996-1,025.

85 . Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., and Hewson, P.W. (2003). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

86 . Hewson, P.W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

87 . Metz, K. (2009). Elementary school teachers as “targets and agents of change”: Teachers’ learning in interaction with reform science curriculum. Science Education, 93 (5), 915-954.

88 . Penuell, W., Fishman, B., Gallagher, L., Korbak, C., and Lopez-Prado, B. (2009). Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93 (4), 656-677.

89 . Rogers, M.A., Abell, S.K., Marra, R.M., Arbaugh, F., Hutchins, K.L., and Cole, J.S. (2010). Orientations to science teacher professional development: An exploratory study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21 (3), 309-328.

90 . Supovitz, J.M., and Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9), 963-980.

91 . Weiss, I.R., Pasley, J.D., Smith, P.S., Banilower, E.R., and Heck, D.J. (2003). Looking Inside the Classroom: A Study of K-12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States . Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

92 . Garet, M., Birman, B.F., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Herman, R., and Yoon, K.S. (1999). Does Professional Development Change Teaching Practice? Results from a Three-Year Study. Prepared by American Institutes for Research for the U.S. Department of Education Office of the Under Secretary. Available: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/epdp/index.html [June 2011].

93 . National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC Standards for Staff Development . Available: http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm [June 2011].

94 . De Jong, O., and Taber, K.S. (2007). Teaching and learning the many faces of chemistry. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 631-652). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

95 . Duit, R., Niedderer, H., and Schecker, H. (2007). Teaching physics. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 599-629). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

96 . Lazarowitz, R. (2007). High school biology curricula development: Implementation, teaching, and evaluation from the 20th to the 21st century. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education (Part III: Science Teaching). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

97 . Akcay, H., and Yager R.E. (2010). The impact of a science/technology/society teaching approach on student learning in five domains. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19 (6), 602-611.

98 . Arzi, H.J., and White R.T. (2008). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17-year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92 (2), 221-251.

99 . Mikeska, J.N., Anderson, C.W., and Schwarz, C.V. (2009). Principled reasoning about problems of practice. Science Education, 93 (4), 678-686.

100 . Van Rens, L., Pilot, A., and Van der Schee, J. (2010). A framework for teaching scientific inquiry in upper secondary school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (7), 788-806.

101 . Luft, J.A. (2009). Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction programmes: The first year of teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (17), 2,355-2,384.

102 . Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93 (4), 687-719.

103 . Plummer, J.D., and Krajcik, J.S. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (7), 768-787.

104 . Lunetta, V.N., Hofstein, A., and Clough, M.P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 393-441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

105 . Duncan, R.G., Pilitsis, V., and Piegaro, M. (2010). Development of preservice teachers’ ability to critique and adapt inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21 (1), 81-102.

106 . Schwarz, C.V., Gunckel, K.L., Smith, E.L., Covitt, B.A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., and Tsurusaki, B.K. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92 (2), 345-377.

107 . Carlsen, W.S. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching: Volume 2. Teachers’ Knowledge of Subject Matter as It Relates to Their Teaching Practice (pp. 115-143). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

108 . Rosebery, A.S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., and Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (3), 322-357.

109 . Roychoudhury, A., and Rice, D. (2010). Discourse of making sense of data: Implications for elementary teachers’ science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21 (2), 181-203.

110 . Danusso, L., Testa, I., and Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers’ knowledge about scientific models and modelling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (7), 871-905.

111 . Lee, V. (2010). How different variants of orbit diagrams influence student explanations of the seasons. Science Education, 94 (6), 985-1,007.

112 . Donnelly, L.A., and Sadler, T.D. (2009). High school science teachers’ views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93 (6), 1,050-1,075.

113 . Smith, D.C., and Neale, D.C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching: Volume 2. Teachers Subject Matter Knowledge and Classroom Instruction . New York: JAI Press.

114 . Howes, E.V., Lim, M., and Campos, J. (2009). Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science: Literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93 (2), 189-217.

115 . Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I., and Koulaidis V. (1998), Teaching the topic of the particulate nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (3), 291-303.

116 . Krall, R.M., Lott, K.H., and Wymer, C.L. (2009). Inservice elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20 (1), 41-55.

117 . Wee, B., Shepardson, B., Fast, J., and Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18 (1), 63-89.

118 . van Es, E.A. (2009). Participants’ roles in the context of a video club. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18 (1), 100-137.

119 . Trautmann, N.M., and MaKinster, J.G. (2010). Flexibly adaptive professional development in support of teaching science with geospatial technology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21 (3), 351-370.

120 . Shaw, J.M., Bunch, G.C., and Geaney, E.R. (2010). Analyzing language demands facing English learners on science performance assessments: The SALD framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 , 909-928.

121 . National Research Council. (2003). Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning: Bridging the Gap Between Large-Scale and Classroom Assessment . Committee on Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning. Board on Testing and Assessment, Committee on Science Education K-12, Mathematical Sciences Education Board. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

122 . Quellmalz, E., Timms, M., and Buckley, B. (2005). Using Science Simulations to Support Powerful Formative Assessments of Complex Science Learning. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

123 . Quellmalz, E., Timms, M.J., and Scheider, S. (2009). Assessment of Student Learning in Science Simulations and Games. Paper prepared for the National Research Council’s Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education Workshop, October, Washington, DC.

124 . Quellmalz, E.S., and Pellegrino, J.W. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323 , 75-79.

This page intentionally left blank.

Science, engineering, and technology permeate nearly every facet of modern life and hold the key to solving many of humanity's most pressing current and future challenges. The United States' position in the global economy is declining, in part because U.S. workers lack fundamental knowledge in these fields. To address the critical issues of U.S. competitiveness and to better prepare the workforce, A Framework for K-12 Science Education proposes a new approach to K-12 science education that will capture students' interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education outlines a broad set of expectations for students in science and engineering in grades K-12. These expectations will inform the development of new standards for K-12 science education and, subsequently, revisions to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development for educators. This book identifies three dimensions that convey the core ideas and practices around which science and engineering education in these grades should be built. These three dimensions are: crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science through their common application across science and engineering; scientific and engineering practices; and disciplinary core ideas in the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences and for engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The overarching goal is for all high school graduates to have sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, be careful consumers of scientific and technical information, and enter the careers of their choice.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education is the first step in a process that can inform state-level decisions and achieve a research-grounded basis for improving science instruction and learning across the country. The book will guide standards developers, teachers, curriculum designers, assessment developers, state and district science administrators, and educators who teach science in informal environments.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Our Mission

5 Steps for Implementing a Successful 1:1 Environment

Have you ever wondered what it really means to transform your district, school, or classroom to a 1:1 environment? It is a term we hear a lot about, but not all can see it or experience it. With the takeoff of the iPad and its successor, the iPad 2, the education world is abuzz with the idea of moving towards a 1:1 environment. But is it practical? For some, it is a dream, a wish; for others, it is slowly becoming a reality. So what does a 1:1 environment look like? How will the students and teachers react? Is it the right direction to go?

Step 1: Define the Goals of your 1:1 Program

A 1:1 environment should be the goal of every learning institution; however, this is not about devices, it's about access. I imagine every school superintendent, principal, and teacher would agree that it is in their best interest to provide their students with the best access to the most current, scholarly information available. There is no doubt that this idea is embedded in every school's mission statement. So let's dig a little into the question of what a 1:1 environment looks like.

Step 2: Define the Role of the Device in Your Classroom

Some may argue that a 1:1 environment should focus solely on the device; however, this is not the case. While selecting the right device for your school is essential, making it the focal point is not the best way to deliver it. The device is simply a device. It is not coming to take over your classroom, nor is it replacing your quality teaching. Teachers must welcome the device like their predecessors welcomed the chalk board, the calculator and the CD-ROM. They must understand that this device will give their students a better opportunity to share, connect, and seek out information. This device will not be a distraction, but another arm of the classroom.

Step 3: Model How to Harness the Device's Power

Once you have welcomed the device and take the time to understand it, you must model for your students how to harness its power. If you are still a bit unsure, you can seek out a student who is skilled on the device or your Instructional Technology Coach. If neither of these options is a reality for you, then find a colleague(s) who understands the device and how it can work for you in your classroom. Demand good professional development that not only presents the device's functionality, but displays examples of it in use. This professional development should also be tiered by experience level. Differentiating your professional development will create happy teachers and increase the acceptance of the device or tool being displayed. Above all, knowing the basic functionality of any device, whether it be a TI-84 calculator or a piece of chalk, will ease your worries going forward.

Step 4: Put It Away When Appropriate

A 1:1 environment will not always have a device on display. There will be times when your best lesson is done in the absence of technology. Similarly, your students shouldn't become attached to the device, but understand when it should be accessed. Administrators should not demand that device always be used as well. Allow your teachers some learning and growing time as they begin to integrate the device. Continually follow up with them and ask them how they have incorporated technology and if they need any further professional development. The goal should never be to rush technology integration, but segue but creating clear objectives and goals for each teacher.

Step 5: Teach, Model and Support Information Literacy

Students should understand that a device is an avenue for learning and discovery, but it cannot replace their own ability to think critically and question. The device will give them access to a plethora of information and potential answers, but it will not always give them a clear course to follow. Also, as teachers, we must never assume that our students know the best way around technology. While some of our students could proudly display the badge of "Digital Native," many will need coaching. Simply accessing Google or finding the hilarious video of the singing Cat does not make you a digital native.

Filtering information and knowing the most efficient route to a solution is an invaluable skill. While students have access to more information than any generation, their ability to filter is much more challenging. Once your students understand that it is time to access the device, they must begin to filter through a vast field of weeds. Students must realize that Google is a great start, but not always going to provide them the best direction. The ability to call upon key search terms and look beyond Google are two skills every student must learn.

A 1:1 environment should not be intimidating. It should be our ally in the daily task to provide our students with the best access to information and promote learning. There is no denying the rapid pace of our world and its ever-changing economy. It is our responsibility as educators - at every level - to prepare our students for this environment. The environment will not adapt to them, they must adapt to the demand of the market. A 1:1 environment is simply a start.

Navigation Menu

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests..., provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

• Notifications

Solution of all InfyTQ Assignments, Exercise, Quiz

SUDARSHANTADAGE/InfyTQ-Answers

Folders and files, repository files navigation.

I am Sudarshan Tadage and this repository consist of solution of InfyTQ python course. InfyTQ is best platform provided by Infosys to learn python. My request to all of you please dont copy and paste solution directly from here, first try it yourself and just refer these solutions in case of any doubt. For quiz exercise and assignments from Day 1 and Day 6 visit below link: https://youtu.be/5nxoUhpu6cU

All the Best

• Python 98.0%