Our past two columns focused on the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Empowered Learner standard and Digital Citizen standard, respectively. This month, we discuss the ISTE’s Knowledge Constructor standard.

When students become a Knowledge Constructor, they should be able to synthesize science information from a variety of resources into a representation of their understanding. Students must meet four performance indicators to achieve this skill.

Meeting the performance indicators
First, students need to “plan and employ effective research strategies to locate information and other resources for their intellectual or creative pursuits” (ISTE 2016) (italics added). Students must be able to find relevant information to a topic or their unit of study, especially as the amount of information on the internet will grow exponentially over time. Google operators can generate specific search results and can help students develop effective research strategies. It is also important for students to cite their resources. Students can use online bookmarking tools such as Diigo and learn how to employ Add-Ons in Google Docs to easily create bibliographies.

Directly related to the prior indicator is the ability to “evaluate the accuracy, perspective, credibility, and relevance of information, media, data, or other resources” (ISTE 2016). Good classroom resources are available to teach students how to evaluate online information. One activity leads students to complete a science project that aims to save a fictional endangered species, known as the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. Scientifically, this creature seems ridiculous. Yet the activity teaches students to filter online information while finding resources to support or refute the validity of the information. Most students quickly realize that the creature is fictional. Some students, however, create an activity comprised of irrelevant facts that seem to support the existence of such an animal. We must reinforce the importance of corroboration.

Once students have collected a set of reliable resources, it is time for them to “curate information from digital resources using a variety of tools and methods to create collections of artifacts that demonstrate meaningful connections or conclusions.” Using graphic organizers, such as Lucid Chart, Mindomo, or Mind 42, students can connect concepts through articulated maps that structure and organize their thoughts in an actionable way.

For example, students could research the environmental impact seen in communities that adopt consistent and reliable recycling methods. By compiling their research, including case studies, scientific research, and reports of new technologies that make recycling more affordable, students can intelligently discuss how their own community can develop better recycling programs. Curation also implies that students will publish their work publicly. The tools mentioned above can all display work online.

The fourth and final indicator ensures that students can “build knowledge by actively exploring real-world issues and problems, developing ideas and theories in pursuing answers and solutions” (ISTE 2016). The class curriculum should foster an environment for students to explore their passions. Teachers need to personalize lessons so students become invested in their own learning, where they construct knowledge in meaningful ways that allow them to explore problems that may not yet exist on a macro scale.

Conclusion
The best way to empower students is to have them solve real-world scientific challenges by focusing on unidentified problems. Authentic work is best for students. In the next issue, we will discuss the Innovative Designer standard.

Ben Smith (ben@edtechinnovators.com) is an educational technology program specialist, and Jared Mader (jared@edtechinnovators.com) is the director of educational technology, for the Lincoln Intermediate Unit in New Oxford, Pennsylvania. They conduct teacher workshops on technology in the classroom nationwide.

Reference
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 2016. The 2016 ISTE standards for students. Arlington, VA: ISTE. www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016

Editor’s Note

This article was originally published in the December 2016 issue of The Science Teacher journal from the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).

Get Involved With NSTA!

Join NSTA today and receive The Science Teacher,
the peer-reviewed journal just for high school teachers; to write for the journal, see our Author Guidelines, Call for Papers, and annotated sample manuscript; connect on the high school level science teaching list (members can sign up on the list server); or consider joining your peers at future NSTA conferences.

I still remember the day Helen Quinn asked if she could visit me at the University of Michigan where I was a professor to discuss the Framework for K–12 Science Education (Framework) and possible roles I might play in its development. I was honored that I was being considered to lead the team on coming up with the big ideas (now called disciplinary core ideas, or DCIs) for physical science. What a privilege and huge responsibility to be part of team to decide the key, big ideas that all students need to know and use to make sense of the world (explain and predict phenomena and find solutions to problems). Not only would our work provide the substance for the Framework, it also would provide the foundation for the development of new K-12 science standards—the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)—released in 2013. The physical science team was one of four; Life Science, Earth and Space Science, and Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science were the other three disciplinary areas. It was a daunting task, particularly because each discipline could pick no more than four big ideas! How could chemistry be boiled down to four big ideas, let alone chemistry and physics? Of course, the core ideas are broken down into component ideas, but it is the disciplinary core ideas that provide the structure and coherence. 

From the start of this effort the disciplinary core ideas were going to be different than the science ideas presented in previous standards documents. Don’t get me wrong, the Framework built on important documents such as the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). These documents have an important place in the development of science education; they helped guide our nation in science education for two decades and still have a powerful influence on what happens in science classrooms. But the vision of Framework, based on what we know about how students learn, was to help learners develop conceptual knowledge of important ideas that could be used throughout life and get richer and deeper with time. The core ideas serve as a conceptual framework that can be further developed, allowing learners to understand critical ideas about the world in which they live. For example, PS 1 Matter and Its Interactions, supports all learners in understanding the structure, properties, and interactions of matter so they can explain important phenomena, such as how there is such diversity of different types of matter (substances) in the world despite there being relatively few types of building blocks (atoms). Of course, a full understanding of this question and explanation of these phenomena also overlap with PS 2: Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions and PS 3:  Energy.  Another example is the Life Science Core Idea LS 1, From Molecules to Organisms: Structure and Process, that provides students with the knowledge to explore questions related to how organisms live, grow, respond to their environment, and reproduce. A deep conceptual understanding of this core idea and its components, allows learners to understand where the energy and matter come from to help us grow. A full understanding of the phenomena, however, also requires understanding of PS 1: Matter and Its Interactions and PS 3: Energy.

This blog and those that follow will provide some reflections about the DCIs, but before I go further I have to acknowledge the important role of all three dimensions in making sense of phenomena. Yes, DCIs are critical, but to make sense of phenomena and find solutions to problems, all three dimensions play a critical role.  Science and engineering practices (SEPs), disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts (CCCs) work together to support students in making sense of phenomena or designing solutions. You cannot learn the ideas of science in isolation from the doing and you cannot learn the practices of science in isolation from the content of science. To develop deep, usable understanding of the DCIs, it is necessary for a learner to use SEPs and CCCs. The basic premise of the Framework is that one cannot learn one without learning the other. The three dimensions work together to help students make sense of phenomena or design solutions to problems, and as students make sense of phenomena they develop deeper, more usable understanding of the dimensions. It basically boils down to “doing science,” or “doing engineering.” Convincing evidence exists that understanding DCIs will only result when core ideas are integrated with SEPs and CCCs, and understanding SEPs will only result when integrated with DCIs and CCCs (NRC, 2007). 

In this blog series, I’m going to explore the DCIs in more depth, including the ideas that DCIs serve as conceptual tools, that they provide explanations for phenomena, and that they develop across time. The first of these follows below and the other two ideas will follow in my next two blogs.

Disciplinary Core Ideas Serve as Conceptual Tools

I’m frequently asked how DCIs differ from science concepts. Energy is energy? Evolution is evolution? Is there a difference in how the Framework presents them and how they were treated in the past? I’ve already mentioned how the DCIs form a conceptual framework; now let’s dig a bit deeper into that idea.

By their very structure, core ideas are different than how standards were previously structured. Each core idea is a conceptual whole that can guide student thinking, but they also link to other core ideas to form even deeper and more meaningful understandings that students can use to make sense of the world.

DCIs support a new vision for science education that moves classroom teaching away from focusing on numerous disconnected science concepts that students memorize, to learning environments where students develop connected understanding of a few powerful ideas that they can use along with SEPs and CCCs to make sense of real-world phenomena or design solutions to problems. The Framework focuses on a limited number of DCIs that students can use to describe and predict phenomena that they experience in their lives. In all, there are 13 DCIs:  4 from Physical Science, 4 from Life Science, 3 from Earth and Space Science, and 2 from Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science.  The list of DCI’s follows. Click here to explore subcomponents.

LS: Life Science

LS1: From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes

LS2: Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics

LS3: Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits

LS4: Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity

ESS: Earth and Space Science

ESS1: Earth’s Place in the Universe

ESS2: Earth’s Systems

ESS3: Earth and Human Activity

PS: Physical Science

PS1: Matter and Its Interactions

PS2: Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions

PS3: Energy

PS4: Waves and Their Applications in Technologies for Information Transfer

ETS: Engineering, Technology and the Application of Science

ETS1: Engineering Design

I like to think of disciplinary core ideas as conceptual tools that learners can use to make sense of phenomena or solve problems. They are conceptual tools because learners can access them when needed to make sense of a situation. Moreover, they are conceptual tools because as a learner uses them to explore and explain phenomena and solve problems throughout their lives, they learn more about these core ideas and they become more deeply connected to other ideas. 

Click here to read What’s So Special about Disciplinary Core Ideas (Part 2)

Click here to read What’s So Special about Disciplinary Core Ideas (Part 3)

I would love to hear your ideas, questions, and feedback on this blog. Tweet me at @krajcikjoe or email krajcik@msu.edu.  If you want to learn more about the disciplinary core ideas take a look at our new book just published by NSTA Press; Disciplinary Core Ideas:  Reshaping Teaching and Learning, edited by myself as well as Ravit Duncan, and Ann Rivet.

Joe Krajcik

Joe Krajcik (Krajcik@msu.edu) is a professor of science education at Michigan State University and director of the Institute for Collaborative Research for Education, Assessment, and Teaching Environments for Science, Technology and Engineering and Mathematics (CREATE for STEM). He served as Design Team Lead for both the Framework and the NGSS.

Editor’s note: This blog is the first in a series of three by Joe Krajcik that explore the NGSS disciplinary core ideas. 

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New  York: Oxford University Press.

National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K – 12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC; National Academies Press.

The mission of NSTA is to promote excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all.

Future NSTA Conferences

2017 National Conference

• Los Angeles: March 30–April 2, 2017

STEM Forum & Expo

• Kissimmee/Orlando: July 12–14, 2017

Follow NSTA

 

 

Our math department wants students in all subjects and grade levels to do more with statistics and graphing. I do graphing with my students in elementary science, but are younger students ready for statistics? —G., Pennsylvania

The science and engineering practices in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) include several that incorporate statistics and graphing: Analyzing and Interpreting Data, Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, and Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information.

I ran your question past a colleague who is data specialist and researcher (and a former elementary teacher). She agreed it’s all in the strategies you use and how you present problems to younger students. Keep it simple to start!

We brainstormed some concepts that younger students could understand and use as part of their science investigations:

• Determine central tendencies—mean, median, mode—using concrete examples such as the length of their hands or the height of plants they are growing. They could calculate the mean (numerical average), the median (list all values from lowest to highest and determine the midpoint value), and mode (the most common value). How close are these to each other? What is the range of values (highest and lowest)?
• Fine-tune (or disaggregate) these values by gender, age, type of plant, etc. The questions they ask will determine how they analyze this. (Are boys’ hands larger than girls’?)
• Doing a scatter plot is a good way to introduce correlation. Do some values increase together (positive correlation)? And emphasize that correlation is not causation!

Many teachers go into panic mode at the beginning of the required statistics class in grad school. But with the apps and websites available today, a lot of the arithmetic is easy. The more important and more interesting challenge continues to be understanding the underlying concepts and choosing the right process.

Resources:

Statistics: By the Numbers

Using and Handling Data

Photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/janih/8541889792/