7

Curriculum and Instructional Materials

Public opinion of the NGSS is high, said Sam Shaw (EdReports.org). A study published by the American Educational Research Association found that the NGSS is popular with educators and the feelings of positivity increase year after year (EdReports, 2021). However, he said, not all materials in the field are aligned with the vision of the Framework. For the innovations in the Framework and the NGSS to take hold, teachers need high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) that help students solve problems using ideas and practices rather than merely teaching an isolated topic (EdReports, 2021). In addition, said Shaw, it is critical that materials attend to student diversity and equity, while at the same time support teacher professional learning (Campbell and Lee, 2021).

Shaw shared data about the materials that are currently available and in use. The majority of materials used in science classrooms are commercially published textbooks, which include supplementary materials such as worksheets and laboratory handouts. Classrooms may also use materials that are developed by states, counties, districts, and dioceses; resources from free or subscription-based websites; commercially published kits and online courses (see Table 7-1).

A survey of educators found that 20 percent of science teachers regularly use materials that pre-date the NGSS, and 42 percent of science teachers regularly use materials that they created themselves. More than half of teachers reported that they had never participated in workshops, trainings, or coaching that was focused on use of science materials, although 65 percent said that they did engage in collaborative learning with other teachers around materials (EdReports, 2021).

TABLE 7-1 Science Classes for Which Various Types of Instructional Resources Are Designated, by Grade Range

NOTE: Includes only those teachers who indicated that their randomly selected science class had an instructional material designated by the state, district, or diocese.

SOURCE: Banilower et al. (2018).

Past work has informed this session of the workshop, said Shaw. For example, at a previous National Academies workshop, Design, Selection, and Implementation of Instructional Materials for the Next Generation Science Standards (NASEM, 2018), speakers discussed the next steps for ensuring that materials aligned with the NGSS were developed and made available to educators. These next steps, said Shaw, included improving the review process with a broad coalition of stakeholders, and increasing interconnection among supply, demand, and implementation. More recently, a special issue of the Journal of Science Teacher Education (Volume 32, Issue 7) featured commentary and research on topics including project-based learning, large-scale transformation, and the role of professional learning. Specific programs were highlighted for the progress they have made in policies, practices, and programs.

With this and other previous work in mind, this session of the workshop was designed to talk about the current state of curriculum and instructional materials implementation and opportunities moving forward, as well as to identify tools and resources needed to advance a more just, equitable, and inclusive learning experience. Shaw moderated the session by asking questions of the six panelists:

• Philip Bell, University of Washington
• Cory Epler, Nebraska Department of Education
• Dora Kastel, New Visions for Public Schools
• Spencer Martin, Kansas City Public Schools
• Carol O’Donnell, Smithsonian Science Education Center
• Jamie Rumage, Oregon Department of Education

THE ROLE OF HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

O’Donnell said that from the perspective of curriculum developers, she believes that materials should not only respond to the needs of schools (i.e., be aligned with the standards) but also provide point of view support for teachers to respond to students’ current contexts. That is, she explained, they be “nimble, adaptable to local contexts, responsive to cultural needs, and place based.” Importantly, equity should be at the forefront in the creation of materials, said O’Donnell. Bell said that a broadly developed curriculum can provide a platform for teachers and students to make science learning relevant to their lives. “The cultural lives of learners have not been deeply centered in instructional experience” as they need to be, he said, and HQIM can serve to help center learners and provide openings for the assets that learners bring to the table. Rumage added that it is critical to consider “who is and who is not written into our instructional materials” and “whose contributions, whose histories, whose ways of knowing” are being privileged. She said that this goes beyond diverse pictorial representation and into whether materials intentionally create space to study localized and relevant phenomena, or problems that foster students’ interests, identity, culture, and agency. “Every student wants to be seen and valued,” she said, “and if that student can’t see themselves, their families, or their communities in the materials they often feel like they don’t belong.”

Several speakers noted the importance of teacher support and training in the use of HQIM. Epler said that HQIM are enormously important, but there are multiple other pieces that are necessary for their implementation, including teacher professional learning. Martin agreed with this perspective and said that while quality materials are necessary to realize the vision of the NGSS, they are not sufficient without teacher development, teacher support, and teacher capacity building. He added that teachers need time

to practice their craft, and administrators need to acknowledge and address this need. “Time is something that all the teachers we work with always say we don’t have enough of,” said Kastel. Teachers are expected to become experts on multiple topics, she said, including virtual and hybrid teaching, culturally responsive education, various models and frameworks, and designing classroom materials. This is “too much,” said Kastel; providing high-quality materials, along with professional learning, can free teachers up to focus on their students.

TRADEOFFS BETWEEN GOALS

Local vs. Global Phenomena

When designing curriculum, said Kastel, “anchor phenomena” are used to give students an entry point into the subject matter. The challenge, she said, is determining whether these phenomena be locally relevant or globally relevant. Furthermore, “what does local mean” in a place like New York, where students may have different experiences and perspectives in the Bronx versus Manhattan versus Brooklyn? To address this challenge, said Kastel, students begin the unit with a “related phenomena routine” where they have an opportunity to make connections with the anchor phenomena to make it relevant to them.

Bell said that this issue with anchor phenomena is something that he and his colleagues “think about pretty deeply and carefully,” and that the field is building collective capacity to address the challenge. He offered a metaphor of materials being like the base recipe for a main dish. The recipe encapsulates the “educationally nutritious and tasty” parts, but it is intended to be modified and adapted based on local expertise, ingredients, and context, and perhaps to be supplemented with other “tasty dishes.” However, when considering anchor phenomena, it is critical to think about whose interests are being served by the selection of phenomena. If the interests and perceptions of students who have been historically disenfranchised are different than the interests and perceptions of students who have historically been better served, Bell said, “we should be choosing the phenomena for the students that have been historically disenfranchised.” Bell

gave an example of this type of decision making. A unit that was developed for middle schoolers to study light included justice-centered dimensions of light, such as medical imaging devices and facial recognition devices that have racial bias that would impact students and community members. Bell said that this type of approach allows students to critically engage in an analysis of injustice, and to explore how tools could be designed that are more fair and just. These types of justice-centered phenomena are a growing focus, he said, and he is excited to see how the field centers this and other dimensions of learning in relation to science and engineering.

The use of localized phenomena, said Rumage, can help students see concepts as relevant to their everyday lives, particularly students who may not see themselves as scientists. However, it is challenging for material developers to deeply understand the regional and localized contexts, so there is flexibility for educators to adjust or manipulate the materials based on their immediate localized learning needs. Rumage shared an example of a school in Oregon that was using instructional materials that were not reflective of their student population, nor coherent across multiple years and subjects. The students who were particularly impacted by this situation, she said, were those with disabilities and students of color. The school responded by developing an intentional three-year high school course sequence that utilizes open-license materials that are built for educators by educators within the localized context. This provided opportunities, said Rumage, for hyperlocalized materials, for professional learning, and for integrated curriculum. Although courses and materials “won’t undo the deeply historic and systematic oppression our students experience,” she said, it is an example of how a school can leverage funds to create effective learning opportunities for students.

Alignment vs. Usability

There is a tradeoff, said Kastel, between making materials that meet every criterion for alignment with the NGSS and making materials that are usable and accessible for teachers. She said that when trying to “check off every box,” materials end up being “incredibly dense and incredibly bulky.” These types of materials can be a barrier, particularly for novice teachers, teachers who are new to the NGSS, and teachers who don’t have access to professional learning to support using materials. When we are asking teachers to shift roles from instructor to facilitator, she said, it is critical that they have materials and support to help them in this shift. Relatedly, there is a tension for teachers between fidelity to the materials versus adapting them to their particular needs and context. For example, materials that were created before 2020 were designed to build on grade standards, but due to the pandemic, many students may not be at these levels. It is essential that

teachers have ways to modify materials to be useful for their students. The bottom line, said Kastel, is that professional learning and coaching are essential to support the decision making and adapting that teachers need to do, and we cannot “truly be successful at scale without it.”

Martin agreed that the development of materials to meet all the criteria can sometimes result in a “500-page unit guide that no one is ever going to read.” In his first few years as an instructional coach, he said, he made the mistake of simply handing teachers materials and resources rather than “rolling up [his] sleeves” and working with teachers to figure out how to actually use them in the classroom. The tension between alignment and usability is very real; it is difficult to develop a resource that can scaffold and support teachers, while still being doable for teachers with little planning time. It is important to design resources with the NGSS goals in mind, yet also allow for the autonomy and professional experience of teachers. If this tension is not acknowledged, the standards will “live up in the ivory tower” rather than be implemented in classrooms. Part of the challenge, said Martin, is in facilitating autonomy, mastery, and purpose for teachers; the teaching profession has been systematically deprofessionalized over the past several decades, and “reprofessionalization” is critical to the realization of the NGSS and the Framework.

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL REVIEW PROCESS

Transitional Materials

New York state adopted its version of the standards in 2016, and New Visions for Public Schools was able to get funding to begin developing immediately usable transitional materials, said Kastel. One challenge, she said, was that state assessments hadn’t changed, but teachers needed materials to get started with the transition. These first materials were intended to be three-dimensional, but not necessarily fully aligned to all the standards. She noted that they leveraged and built on models that teachers were already familiar with to mitigate the “re-novicing” effect of the NGSS. Professional learning and coaching were offered to support these transitional materials, Kastel said. As teachers began to develop expertise and comfort with the NGSS, the organization began developing fully aligned materials for the high school level.

New York is still in a transition zone, as state exams will not change until at least 2025. However, this time is critical for piloting, testing, and revising materials before everyone is held accountable to the new standards, she said. Both the transitional materials and the fully aligned materials are being supported simultaneously, to meet people where they are right now. Because implementation of new standards and materials does not work if teachers are doing it in isolation, the organization has been hosting ongoing leadership convenings to build support on all levels. To build capacity for wider-spread adoption of new materials, said Kastel, they are reaching past early adopters to build broader excitement and interest, and to help schools understand how the materials can support current state standards and exams.

Formal Review

In Oregon, said Rumage, the Department of Education conducts a formalized review of standards and instructional materials every seven years. These reviews are intended to ensure access to HQIM and reduce the time and financial burdens on districts. The Department works with an advisory panel to develop review criteria and a review process; the advisory panel is a mechanism for leveraging the expertise and professionalism of the state’s educators. The review process is grounded in the Department’s equity stance, as well as nationally developed science review criteria (e.g., EQuIP). Moving forward, said Rumage, there is an effort to focus on cultural relevance and cultural responsiveness of curricula and materials, so that “students are able to see themselves” in the work. It is critically important, she said, for students to see themselves in classroom materials, and also be able to peek into other worlds and see what it’s like from someone else’s perspective or lived experience.

Instructional Vision

Understanding the criteria for quality instructional materials, said Epler, begins with understanding the instructional vision for science education. It is critical, he said, that people at all layers in the system—from the superintendent to teachers—can understand and articulate the vision to make the best decisions. Martin added that teachers need the time and space not only to understand the vision but also to process, push back, debate, and dive into the issues around materials development and implementation. Any kind of implementation effort requires giving teachers the opportunity to have conversations, reflect, and plan collaboratively. In addition to these considerations, Bell said when decisions are being made about what materials to use or how to adapt them, it “matters who is at the table, who is in the room.” Without a solid understanding of equity and the history

of injustice, choices can “re-inscribe dominant views that have been in the field for far too long.”

LASER Model

O’Donnell introduced workshop participants to the five pillars of the Smithsonian’s Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) model. The first pillar, she said, is identifying and building off of the local vision for instructional improvement. Second is selecting curricular or instructional materials that will support student learning experiences, and third is providing differentiated professional learning opportunities to educators. Fourth is providing leadership development opportunities and community engagement to build sustainable infrastructure. Finally, the fifth pillar is ensuring that assessments are aligned with the rest of the model. Currently, said O’Donnell, standards in every state “are local interpretations and derivatives” of the NGSS or another set of standards because “education is the responsibility of the state.” However, there are a number of national review systems. Therefore, to achieve equity in education, there is a need for national review systems to be contextualized to ensure the best outcome for each individual student at the local level. There is a need to focus on designing materials that allow for local implementation and to build review systems that recognize the needs of the local context, she said. Furthermore, there is a need to build capacity within schools or districts to understand and contextualize national reviews. She noted that complex socioscientific issues, such as energy use or freshwater access, have to be locally adapted in order to be meaningful; facilitating local adaptation of science curriculum is “really more representative of how real science and real engineering work.”

DISCUSSION

After the guided panel discussion, Shaw relayed questions from workshop participants to the panelists.

O’Donnell responded that prioritizing student experience is paramount. The implementation of the NGSS is “not easy,” and instructional materials and built-in supports need to be designed as tools for implementing and localizing the NGSS in the classroom. While doing so, “we have to keep feasibility and usability in the back of our minds,” she said, and need to bal-

ance the development of HQIM with the time it takes to actually implement them. The future of science education will be exploring complex, socioscientific issues on a local scale, using the community as a laboratory, while giving students the tools to act and use their education for the social good.

The NGSS gives us a platform to explore socioscientific issues such as the intersection of climate change with racial and class injustice, said Bell, but there is a need to go beyond the NGSS to consider the role of science and engineering in hyperlocal phenomena and community adaptation. This is a space where we need instructional materials that can build toward transformation. Kastel agreed with this need and said that there are discussions in New York of developing a justice-centered science course; the challenge, however, is funding these types of efforts.

For science to be prioritized, it is essential to improve communication with school administrators, said Martin. Although many great ideas have been discussed at this workshop, implementation of these ideas won’t happen “unless we actually convince people that don’t come to webinars like this that science education actually has value.” Epler concurred that communication is critical and said that communication about science education and standards with parents, families, communities, and local board of education members needs improvement.

A review of instructional materials “should be a form of professional learning,” said Rumage. The process in itself is “an amazing way” of learning and understanding how instructional materials are structured and their purpose. Martin said that there is a tension between developing very comprehensive, lengthy materials, and meeting teachers where they are. There needs to be a focus on implementation, which requires “rolling up our sleeves” and helping teachers personalize material and collaborate with other educators to develop their capacity. O’Donnell added that thinking of teachers as learners during professional learning is crucial—even after 37 years in education, she said that she can learn so much by “going through it myself as a learner.”

Teacher educators need to be part of these conversations, said Kastel. Some teacher educators, particularly adjunct faculty who teach early methods

courses, are quite removed from the conversations of boots-on-the-ground educators. There are opportunities for cross-collaboration, she said; for example, the Master of Arts in Teaching program at the Museum of Natural History uses instructional materials that teachers may be able to use in the New York City school system. Unaligned preservice teacher education is a major challenge of coherent curriculum implementation, said Bell. Working in Washington state on a climate design collaborative, Bell has noticed that methods, opportunities, and formats are “wildly different across institutions,” which can make it challenging to communicate and work together.

Epler said that there is a need for a mindset shift in teacher preparation around preservice teachers as developers of curriculum versus skillful users of HQIM. Preservice teachers are “not curriculum developers, nor should we expect them to be.” Martin agreed and said that both preservice teachers and preservice teacher educators could benefit from opportunities to “adopt the student hat.” Adopting the perspective of a student can allow educators to better understand how to accomplish the engagement with phenomena, desired outcomes, and performance expectations, he said.