Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards presents challenges for practicing teachers. This article presents our reflection on creating and revising a class designed to teach inservice teachers about curriculum change and the Next Generation Science Standards. In its initial iteration, the course was designed to address the intellectual and practical aspects of this change in standards. Interaction with teachers, as well as gathered course reflections, indicated that addressing the process of curriculum change is both a practical task and an emotional one.
Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.
American Museum of Natural History. (2018, May 11). Five tools and processes for translating the NGSS into instruction and classroom assessment. Retrieved from https://www.amnh.org/explore/curriculum-collections/five-tools-and-processes-for-ngss/
Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures: Removing procedures from chemistry labs creates opportunities for student inquiry. Science Teacher, 72(7), 54-58.
Bupp, N. (1996). The change curve. In High-Performance work organization (HPWO) partnership seminar. Placid Harbor: MD, 4-11
Bybee, R. W. (1995). Science curriculum reform in the United States. In R.W. Bybee & J.D. McInerney (Eds), Redesigning the science curriculum (pp. 12-20). Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 211-221.
Elrod, P. D., & Tippett, D. D. (2002). The “death valley” of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 273-291.
Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it?. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 269-284.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79, 171-212.
Liu, Y., & Perrewe, P. L. (2005). Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational change: A process model. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 263-280.
Mangin, M. (2016). Teacher leadership and high-stakes teacher evaluation: Complementary or conflicting approaches to improvement? Journal of School Leadership, 26, 938.
Moreno, N. P. (1999). K-12 science education reform–a primer for scientists. Bioscience, 49, 569.
National Research Council. (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Prophet, B., & Hodson, D. (1988). The science of common things: A case study in social control. History of Education, 17, 131-147.
Pruitt, S. L. (2015). The Next Generation Science Standards: Where are we now and what have we learned?. Science & Children, 52(9), 7-9.
Rutherford, F., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sotelo, B., & Livingood, R. A. (2015). A qualitative case study for technology acceptance using TAM and the Kübler-Ross models. International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, 6(4), 20-29.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria VA: ASCD.
Wren, K. (2014). Before the Common Core, there was science for all Americans the landmark AAAS book continues to influence education reform 25 years after it defined the concept of science literacy. Science, 345, 1012-1013.
Yager, R. (2000). The history and future of science education reform. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 74(1), 51.
Yager, R. E. (2015). Biology education in an era of acronyms. The American Biology Teacher, 77, 563-564