NGSS

            For this blog, I went through the DCI that would be relevant to me, step-by-step, and evaluated some of their advantages and disadvantages for promoting learning in the 9-12 physical science classroom (NGSS, “DCI Arrangement of Standards,” http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards-dci?tid_1[]=15&field_idea_tid[]=134). Specifically, I looked at DCI:

•          HS-PS1 Matter and its Interactions
•          HS-PS2 Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions
•          HS-PS3 Energy
•          HS-PS4 Waves and their Applications in Technologies for Information Transfer

            These DCI are very broad, general concepts central to chemistry and physics. I would agree that setting national education standards helps to guide instructors, rather than setting up an assembly line for what to teach and when, despite the criticism being made by some Conservatives (e.g., NPR, Westervelt, E. “Political Rivals Find Common Ground Over Core,” [28 Jan. 2014] http://www.npr.org/2014/01/28/267488648/backlash-grows-against-common-core-education-standards). For full disclosure, I have been following and disagreeing with the Tea Party’s criticisms of having basic educational standards in this country; the more the Tea Party attacks these types of standards, the more attractive the NGSS and the Common Core seem to me. I believe that the limitations established by the DCI will not in themselves significantly constrain what or how I teach, given how general they are.          

            For instance, PS1 covers atomic theory, using valence electrons to predict reactions (we would probably first learn Lewis structures and electron configurations and then types of chemical reactions), intermolecular forces, basic thermodynamic principles, kinetics, conservation of mass (i.e., stoichiometry), and nuclear reactions. I would certainly cover all of these principles in Chemistry A and Chemistry B, besides nuclear reactions, but NGSS also provides suggestions on using models and inquiry to teach the material, as well as how to tie in math and engineering with these concepts.

           Forces and Interactions (PS2) includes the conceptual understanding and mathematical representation of Newton’s Laws, Newton’s Law of Gravity, and Coulomb’s Law. Standards PS2-3 and PS2-5 are wonderful standards that have the students engaging in inquiry, building and testing models, based on their knowledge of collisions and forces and of field theory, respectively. Standard PS2-6 involves the students communicating scientific information. I believe this DCI would be a helpful guide in planning an inquiry-based physics class (communicating ideas and deciding what materials to use would also be appropriate to use in a chemistry class), and the Science and Engineering Practices involved basically take the students through a scientific method.

            Energy (PS3) includes some very broad topics and could also find a home in classes traditionally devoted to physics or chemistry: developing a computational model (mathematical equation) to describe an energetic phenomenon, developing models to describe kinetic molecular theory, developing models or experiments to investigate transfer of heat (i.e., entropy and, possibly, specific heat), and developing models to show electric or magnetic fields. Standard PS3-3 actually has the students designing and building a device to investigate conversion of energy, which could allow for the use of inquiry in the classroom. Equally, PS3-4 (designing an experiment to show entropy) could also incorporate the use of inquiry, which I view as a positive attribute.

            Finally, Waves and their Applications in Technologies for Information Transfer (HS-PS4) includes mathematical descriptions of wave behavior, evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of digital technologies, wave-particle duality, evaluating claims based on the absorption of electromagnetic energy, and communicating technical information on wave behavior used in technology. This DCI keeps students at the upper ends of Bloom’s Taxonomy, evaluating and communicating information (the students are not just memorizing facts they will forget after the test). This type of learning helps to build a solid comprehension (and retention) of the material, helps to build cognitive growth, and helps to build scientific literacy, since students are engaged in evaluating claims made by the industry, using scientific knowledge the students have acquired. These goals are consistent with the stated goals of NGSS and consistent with what we know from learning theory (e.g., children are building models as they transition from concrete operational to formal operational learning).

            Nonetheless, these standards will be ineffective in promoting learning without the cooperation of the school, including the reinforcement of pre-requisites for science and mathematical classes. My classmates and I informally just had a discussion regarding the phenomenon of guidance counselors to fail to properly reinforce pre-requisites and the difficulty this brings to the teacher.  Unfortunately, I have the experience of trying to teach balancing equations and stoichiometry for students who have not had algebra (or who “passed” it with a D); it not only slows up the entire class, the students who do not meet the pre-requisite just become frustrated. It isn’t the fault of the students, but they are the ones who suffer when inappropriately placed in science and math classes. For example, HS-PS4-1 (mathematically representing the relationships among wavelength, speed of waves, and frequency in different media) would be extremely difficult to teach to students who do not understand how to express the relationships among any terms (e.g., x and y) in an equation. It will make it hard for me to follow NGSS when I certainly will have some students in my classes who, through no fault of their own, have been placed in my class without meeting the pre-requisites.

            Additionally, another possible disadvantage that exists in the implementation of NGSS is that autonomy will be taken away from the teacher. The newer editions of Pearson’s high school chemistry textbook have full pages in each chapter devoted to meeting the standards, how to teach to ELLs, and how to prepare students for standardized tests for each particular topic. I take these pages as suggestions on activities, not as requirements on the curriculum I develop, but the attitude of my principal and the parents will affect to what extent I am expected to follow these “suggestions.” What this means is that I will have to be prepared to explain my rational when I deviate from “the program” and to establish lines of communication with the parents at the beginning of the school year.

            A criticism that I have specific to DCI is I believe some rote memorization is in fact necessary, but the paradigms behind NGSS discourage rote memorization. Schema theory teaches us that learners need to build hooks upon which to organize their knowledge; without learning more of the names for things (e.g., following the recommendations of HS-PS1-1), it may be hard for students to learn the concepts. For instance, I think it would be very inconvenient for students to learn about the intermolecular forces without using the appropriate terms; calling dipole-dipole moments “the force in which the polar end of a molecule aligns with a nonpolar end of another molecule” would be very inconvenient and might interfere with the students developing a schema for the forces. That is, I know the point is to get students away from rote memorization without comprehension, but some memorization might be necessary.

            Additionally, I question whether these concepts are pared down enough and that the NGSS went far enough in eliminating material, so that only the “essential” concepts remain. Generally, there are topics taught in chemistry that are only taught out of tradition and not in the context of what is useful in current research; students study the ideal gas because they have always studied the ideal gas law, not because it is useful at all in today's research. Equally, balancing nuclear reactions seem to be just thrown in as standards into PS1; if students are only expected to learn how to balance the reactions (without any context), I don’t see the point in having them discuss nuclear reactions at all. It might be helpful, in terms of building scientific literacy, to have a discussion with the students on the social implications of nuclear power (especially to confront the misconception that the ability to make a nuclear warhead is the same thing as the ability to make a nuclear reactor); however, without adding more expectations to HS-PS1-8, I don’t see the point of including it at all. 

            Overall, the themes that I gather from reading the standards of each DCI related to what I intend to teach are emphases on:

•          Building devices, models, and mathematical relationships to describe and investigate core concepts  related to the physical sciences
•        Collaboration (e.g., building the models) and communication of “scientific” claims and students’ own  findings
•   Interdisciplinary learning, especially including connections made among chemistry, physics, engineering, and mathematics

At the 9^th through 12^th grades, students may have difficulties grasping abstract concepts, but they will develop their ability to engage in abstract thought through the practice of building physical and mathematical models. Building devices and developing their own experiments will allow students to gain mastery of the material and develop their lab techniques, and they will need to develop their logical thinking skills in order to communicate and defend their findings. Besides standardized test scores, a qualitative measure of how successful NGSS is in promoting scientific literacy will be society's reaction (in the form of election poll results, Pearson material, comments to NPR, etc.) to the type of scientifically illiterate claims that make it to the national zeitgeist. I do have reservations about both the implementation of and some of the principles behind NGSS; however, I believe that the above-given emphases will be successful to some extent in promoting inquiry, comprehension of scientific concepts, and students’ cognitive development.