Posted on

NYSLSS Standards and the Crosscutting Concepts in Chemistry

Three-dimensional science education is foremost in most science educator’s minds today.  A lot of work has been done to flush out the science and engineering practices (SEPs), and the disciplinary core ideas (DCIs).   However, the crosscutting concepts (CCC) sometimes feels overshadowed.  “Crosscutting concepts have value because they provide students with connections and intellectual tools that are related across the differing areas of disciplinary content and can enrich their application of practices and their understanding of core ideas”. —Framework p. 233

There are 7 CCC’s many of which can easily be integrated into chemistry lesson plans.  The purpose of the CCC’s are to show the application of the science concept in the real world.  The following represent the concepts: 1) Patterns– are useful in organizing various phenomena and in engineering practices.  For example, HS-PS1-2 pertains to chemical reactions.  Students can identify patterns in reactions.  A lab can be preformed that will allow for the analysis of the pattern and students designs can be evaluated. 2) Cause and Effect– works well with patterns. Scientific investigations are often a mode to get to explanations of causal relationships. It is important to be intentional when using the CCC’s make the students use the correct terms to ensure understanding.  3) Scale, Proportion, and Quantity– In chemistry, we often work on the submicroscopic level however, when we consider environmental relationships it is appropriate to discuss larger scales and quantities. For example, you may use this in discussion of chemical reactions involving pollution in the air.  4) Systems and System Models – HS-PS1-6 covers Le Chatelier’s Principle it is appropriate to use these terms when discussing changes to an equilibrium system allow students to make connections and models to explore their understandings.  5) Energy and Matter- conservation of energy/matter is prevalent throughout our curriculum be purposeful in your lesson planning to discuss the relationships between energy and matter when applicable. 6) Structure and Function- the structure and function of the periodic table (for example) is essential to the chemistry curriculum.  Furthermore, on the high school level it is appropriate to push students into investigations into unfamiliar systems as well. 7) Stability and Change – the stability of various systems and changes that occur are also prevalent throughout our curriculum.  Understanding how the two terms interplay are exciting concepts to explore with your classes.

In closing, the CCC’s are very useful in the chemistry classroom.  It is important to use the terms as stated in our lessons so that the students can make meaningful connections so that they can use evidence in their scientific arguments. With a little thought and planning this 3D concept will also add to the fullness of your educational toolbox.  For more, information on CCC’s I look forward to meeting you virtually or in person at one of our upcoming STANYS events.

Dame Forbes- Suffolk County Chemistry SAR

Posted on

Building Next Generation Units – Harder Than We Thought

Aegolius funereus — Amherst Island (Ontario, Canada) — 2005 Author: Mdf

Last year, when our district decided to roll out one Next Generation “mini” unit per grade level for K-5, we decided to design the mini units ourselves. We figured, how hard could it be? We were already teaching a lot of the content, we could “next gen” what we were basically already doing by adding models, introducing phenomena, and adding some strong questioning techniques.  In some ways, it’s been easier than we thought, but in many ways, a lot harder.

One of the toughest things was adjusting to the idea that we’d no longer be dedicating whole units to the study of particular animals.   For example, when we built our grade 4 unit on internal and external structures, we figured we could keep one of our favorite grade 4 activities, dissecting owl pellets, as part of the new unit.  After all, the parts of the owl’s external structure (eyes, feathers, talons, etc) and internal structure (digestive system) that we would be studying all support the animal’s survival, growth, and behavior.  We’d continue to use zSpace virtual technology to investigate the owl’s internal structure, with literature and non-fiction resources to explore the external structure.  The phenomenon was the owl pellet – how cool!  Easy.  We’d done it before.

As it turned out, using an animal we’d already taught made things both easy and hard.  We’d done it before, but in many ways making significant changes to something we’d already done with different goals, was harder than starting from scratch.   We used to refer to this section of our curriculum as the “owl pellet” unit.  Our old assessments contained specific questions about owls and owl pellets.  Keeping these great activities and resources made it difficult for us to let go of the idea of an “owl pellet unit” and embrace the idea of an “Internal Structures and Functions”  unit where the owl pellet would simply be the phenomenon that allowed the students access to the core concepts of structure and function.  No longer could we expect our students to simply become experts on owls – we needed them to become thinkers and investigators who would be able to generalize from their study of owls to structure and function of all animals.  That’s a big leap, and in our first year, we didn’t completely make it.

Later in the unit, while introducing structure and function of plants, we encountered a very different challenge.  We’d decided to introduce a plant we never had our 4th graders examine before – moss.  It seemed like a good choice – there was lots of it available outside, and we could peel it right up and bring it into the classrooms when we were ready. And, we’d be investigating something new. There was only one glitch – it snowed right before this section of the unit, and the snow lasted!  This little miscalculation set us back a week!

Ultimately, did we succeed with our first try at a next-generation science unit?  In some ways yes – for example, the students got comfortable with the idea of drawing models, and the thinking expressed in the student models definitely got deeper as the unit progressed.   The students loved the unit.  How awesome is it to have students so excited and interested in their work each day?  As elementary teachers, that is the best part of our job.   But – do our students now have a better understanding of generalized structure and function in animals and plants?  I’m not sure.  In the end, they knew a lot about owls and moss, which was not the goal.   But, we’re learning!  We may have had mixed results this time, but we’re still evaluating and thinking about changes for next year.

Posted on

Questioning the Traditional Lesson Structure

With the adoption of New York State Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS), there has been a variety of approaches taken to start blending its three dimensional structure, composed of core ideas, cross cutting concepts and science and engineering practices, into teachers current practice. The disciplinary core ideas are essentially the content that teachers will teach or what information their students are required to know. The cross cutting concepts are the key themes that emerge time and again across science curricula, such as patterns and cause and effect, and are used to explain how students think about science. The science and engineering practices are how teachers will teach the information and what students will actually do in the classroom. The science and engineering practices listed in the NGSS framework include: asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics and computational thinking, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence and lastly obtaining, evaluating and communicating information.

If you are feeling overwhelmed with the new standards, one place to start your shift could be to merge one the science and engineering practices into your current teaching flow. A smooth transition could be found by incorporating the first science and engineering practice: asking questions. The most common professional development technique I’ve encountered regarding this practice is Question Formulation Technique, QFT. QFT was developed by the Right Questions Institute, tested and modified to intentionally teach students how to ask questions and provide teachers with the skills necessary to teach the students how to do so. Essentially, QFT is a series of steps that allows for students to ask numerous questions, improve them and prioritize them in order of importance.

QFT begins with a question focus chosen by the teacher, typically something students will look at and be curious about, stimulating them to ask questions. The question focus can be a short video, a visual model that students can look at or even a short statement. The question focus itself is not a question and has a focused intention of jumpstarting student questions in a direction that provokes student thought in a different vein that the traditional approach likely would not. For instance, if teachers were using a short video to introduce nuclear chemistry by showing a slow-motion clip of an atomic bomb detonating instead of a clip discussing the historical impact of the atomic bomb, then the conversation would be better able to focus on solely on the chemistry of the explosion rather than its historical, political or emotional implications. Further, while typical lessons might begin with a “Do Now” from a teacher, the question focus is a different approach that will allow students to develop their own questions to guide the following lessons.

The second step of QFT, is a protocol that must be followed where students produce as many questions as they can without stopping for a discussion, judgement or even answer to their questions. Questions are recorded exactly as they are stated and any statements listed are changed into questions. So often, teachers want to re-phrase student questions: “So what you’re really asking is…” while here the intention is the students’ questions will be validated, no matter how they are articulated. All student input is valued in this method and is a student-centered as opposed to teacher centered approach. Additionally, the teacher needs to stress the importance of following the rules. For instance, groups cannot stop to debate or discuss a question, the rationale for this being that they will lose focus and not be able to continue to generate questions.

The next phase of QFT calls for students to classify their questions as closed versus open by labeling them as “C” for closed ended and “O” for open ended. Closed ended questions are those that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” response such as: “is the balloon inflated?” as opposed to an open-ended question which could be: “what caused the balloon to inflate?”. Students are then asked to change a closed ended question to open ended and vice versa if desired in order to show how manipulation of a question allows for different information to be obtained in order to arrive at an answer. Finally, students prioritize questions in order of importance. Typically, teachers ask for students’ top three questions which, depending on the question set, will shape future assignments. As an example: if the class was going to proceed in developing an experiment from the question focus, this could be how students prioritize information, such as asking students to pick which questions would be appropriate to investigate or three questions to which they would most like to know the answer. This exercise is one where students need to analyze, compare and determine which of the questions posed would best yield the information they want to obtain.  This can be concluded by students reporting out priority questions along with a rationale for why they chose those questions. Finally, the technique ends with a reflection where students analyze their thinking in the QFT process and what they learned individually.

        Professional development is important for teachers to grow and develop new pedagogical techniques. I was first introduced to this technique last spring at a workshop where the presenter showed a YouTube clip of a tidal wave. Working in groups my colleagues and I were asked to come up with as many questions as possible about the video we observed (without judgement of the questions). The instructions were to begin each question with the statement “I wonder…” or “I notice…” as the video played on the smartboard over and over.   This was followed by us indicating if the questions were open (providing multiple answers) or closed ended questions (yes/no type responses) for each one and finally which one we could conduct an investigation about and to determine what the variables would be for that particular investigation. Similarly, at a recent department meeting, my director showed four clips on a loop and we had to choose one of the images to generate questions about. The images for this sort of activity can be obtained from YouTube clips or https://www.ngssphenomena.com/. Together, the group developed questions over a three- minute period, which felt long and grew increasingly difficult. The questions were categorized as open or closed and the closed ended questions were re-phrased to become open ended questions. The group questions were written on chart paper and prioritized into the top three the group would like to investigate.

This past month, I used QFT with my students on a unit discussing gas laws. The question focus was a demonstration in which a balloon animal was placed in liquid nitrogen. Students observed the balloon shrink and then the balloon was taken out and returned to its original configuration, a variation of which is shown here. The students then were led through the QFT technique. Some of the questions derived included: “what is the relationship between temperature and pressure?”, “what affects volume more temperature or pressure?”, “what causes balloons to expand and contract?”,” how would the shape change if it were a different gas?”, “what would happen if there were more molecules in the balloon from the beginning of the experiment?”. All of these were ideas which I typically would have used to drive discussion or generate lessons from. Here, the students generated the questions and took ownership of the lesson flow as I illustrated the ways in which the students’ questions were related to the aim of that particular lesson. The same content was taught, but the order they were presented in was slightly different to address the students’ questions as the lesson aim.

        In summary, QFT is a protocol where students generate their own questions, improve upon them and prioritize them. My own personal reflection is that whenever I have tried this technique, the participants are all involved in the process and engaged for the entire duration of time. For my quieter students, I am continually impressed by their confidence in asking questions. I found throughout my unit of instruction, there was greater interest and comprehension of the topics. Moreover, in my after-school department meeting, my colleagues all participated and were curious about each other’s questions. Even after the meeting, we were talking about the clips, which is definitely not the case for all department meetings. Finally, the protocol is well tested in a variety of educational settings and across diverse student groups. It’s a technique that I would recommend to new teachers as it may help with classroom management by providing students with rules and steps to follow at each point of the process.  

For more information about QFT, visit the Right Institute for resources. Additionally, there is a great resource written by Dan Rothstein and Luz Santana called Make Just One Change that thoroughly describes the technique and provides much insight into how to incorporate into professional practice.

Resources:

Rothstein, D. & Luz, S. (2011). Make Just One Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education

Press.

https://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions

http://rightquestion.org/education/

 

Posted on

Elementary Science Transition to NYSSLS

Having spent a career teaching high school science, I am now engaged with the world of elementary science. The adoption of the New York Science P-12 Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS) in December 2016 has apparently rejuvenated interest in elementary science. Recently retired (meaning time on my hands?) and involved with the transition to our new science standards based on A Framework for K-12 Science Education and NGSS, I was drawn into professional development opportunities. I’ve learned a lot about how students should learn science, reasons to shift to significant core ideas, how to incorporate engineering, provide meaningful hands-on experiences, and engage with phenomena. These standards should address the needs of all students, incorporate real-world scenarios and when possible be community-based. What really excites me the most about the NYSSLS is the impact this will have on our youngest learners.

The hours spent with our elementary colleagues has given me some insight into their challenges teaching science. Besides the many times that their students are involved in activities outside their classroom, most admit their world is driven by and focused on ELA and math. Teacher evaluation, APPR, and district initiatives typically don’t elevate science learning to the level it deserves. Many are lucky if they get a couple of hours a week of science. Unfortunately, some only do “science” by using the literacy-based science in the ELA domains and modules from www.engageny.org. I’ve seen a wide variety of programs with science “push-ins”, STEM specialists, family STEM nights, STEAM classrooms and varieties of publisher and BOCES kits. Even with that support, most admit science can be short-changed. Since the past standards outlined in Elementary Science Core Curriculum Grades K-4 isn’t grade banded, each district has been left to develop their own scope and sequence so there may be a lack of coherence or much repetition based on “favorite topics.” Students that transfer between districts and sometimes other schools within a district can miss important foundations of science literacy. Sometimes, it’s the grade 4 teachers have the primary responsibility of preparing the students for the Elementary-Level Science Test given in grade 4.

Our New York State P-12 Science Learning Standards is very different for our young learners. Grade banded P-5 with specific Performance Expectations gives teachers and curriculum designers guidance as to what students are expected to know and do at the end of instruction. Coherence is presented by the progressions in grade blocks of K-2, 3-5, MS and HS for the three dimensions (Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts). This means that students learning science using curriculums developed from the NYSSLS will experience increasing expectations in how they learn (Practices), what they learn (Core Ideas), and what they look for in the questions they ask (Crosscutting Concepts). Students are expected to construct their understandings by doing science. Much greater depth in learning occurs when the focus shifts from knowing about science to them figuring out about science.

Many elementary teachers admit to me that their students say science is their favorite subject but the teachers are looking for support. The teachers I’ve worked with are among the most pedagogically talented teachers. I have seen them run with a token of an idea and turn it into fun activities, make ELA connections, and be totally appropriate to their school community. The challenge for STANYS and the science specialists across New York is how to support the transition of elementary teachers into NYSSLS. I’ve worked as a life science consultant with teams of elementary teachers and other science specialists writing grade 1 and 2 for Science21 and I can admit it is very challenging. Many elementary teachers feel they lack the background and confidence to dive into developing curriculum for science. They also wonder what these standards will look like on the student assessment which can help when developing curriculum. Our elementary programs need a good curriculum that maintains fidelity with the intent of the new standards. The elementary teachers and administrators need the training to recognize materials that are aligned and provide constructivist learning opportunities. They should be aware of the limits of the science content in the NYSSLS so they’re not compelled to teach well beyond and be sure to address science literacy for all the students.

This is an exciting opportunity for our elementary colleagues to teach science and for students to experience science as a platform for interdisciplinary learning. It has been shown that students that learn science this way not only show significant gains in science but students of high needs subgroups exhibit high gains, and positive gains are also demonstrated in subjects other than science.* Districts need a plan, decide on resources, and provide the support for the transition to an NYSSLS based elementary science program. It’s time we take advantage of our young student’s natural inquisitiveness and sense of wonder as an opportunity to teach and for students to learn science.

*Smithsonian Science Education Center. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Posted on

Registration Information for the STANYS Fall Regional Science Conference at Hofstra

In order to register for the conference at Hofstra on Monday, October 16th, participants have three options:

Option A: Online Registration via Credit Card

Participants would be able to choose their workshop preferences while they register, on a first-come, first-served basis. Please note that the online registration is not currently supported by mobile devices.

Option B: Registration by Purchase Order

School districts are encouraged to call Hofstra University in order to discuss the purchase order process (516-463-5750). The registration form below (Form A) must be used by each participant on the purchase order in order to provide workshop preferences and must be included when the purchase order is submitted to Hofstra. All purchase orders and workshop registration forms must be faxed together to 516-463-6006. Again, workshop registration preferences will be entertained on a first-come, first-served basis.

Option C: Registration by Phone

Individual participants that would like to register by phone can call Hofstra University (516-463-5750). Registrants would email or fax the registration form below (Form B) after registering over the telephone.

FORM A – STANYS FALL REGIONAL SCIENCE CONFERENCE

FORM B – STANYS FALL REGIONAL SCIENCE CONFERENCE – PHONE REGISTRATION

Posted on

STANYS State Conference – More Change is Coming!

Science education in NYS is changing, so is the annual State Conference in Rochester!

Come join us November 4th through November 6th, as we roll out workshops focused on the transition to the new New York State Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS). In addition to these several workshops, the Directors-at-Large have collaborated with Subject Area Representatives (SARs) from each section from all over the state to develop half-day institutes that will immerse participants in three-dimensional style teaching and learning.

One noted change that you may observe as you register is the openness of the registration process. Besides the half-day institutes, breakfasts/luncheons, and the Paul Andersen Monday Institute, all workshops will be open enrollment for you to pick and choose your sessions using the official conference app. You must formally register for the three special events (institutes, Paul Andersen, and breakfasts/luncheons), but let your feet guide you to whichever other workshops you may be interested in. For example, if you are inspired by the Chemistry Institute Saturday morning and would like to learn more about chemistry phenomena, you are now free to change your entire conference schedule to find workshops that would meet this new need. You are no longer locked in to particular workshops, so the possibilities are endless!

Please be sure to visit the conference website to view the workshops. The conference app will be pushed out to registrants in early October to start building your custom schedule!

Many of the tried and true events are still happening, like the Wards Giveaway and the Wine and Cheese Reception, so come join us for three days of fun (and a little bit of learning too)!

Posted on

Deeper Dive into NYSSLS

Note:  Check out more pictures from this event here.

This past week, STANYS and the New York State Master Teacher Program co-sponsored  professional development workshops in three regions in New York State. The first of its kind model, allowed for teachers from across the state to experience the same two-day workshop. The consistency of the professional development was helpful as New York teachers came together to start to build a collection of lessons and ideas using a common understanding and template.  Key to any professional development is the quality of the presenter. Luckily, for New York, Paul Andersen, who has created countless videos on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and has led teacher training sessions all over the world was on hand to provide a deeper dive into New York State Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS).

The workshop began with “The Wonder Tube”. During this exercise, teachers wore their “student hats” to experience firsthand modeling instruction from the other side of the desk. Teachers were provided with a demonstration of the Wonder Tube and individually developed a model for what they perceived to be the mechanism by the which the tube functioned. Key to utilizing phenomena such as this is that students are not able to google the answer and find out how it works. Participants individually drew what they believed the model to be, followed by group questioning of each individual’s model to understand what that person was thinking when they made that model. Teachers had a hard time with this task, wanting to state what they thought was happening. The pedagogical shift calls for group members to come to a consensus through the constant questioning of individual group members regarding their model, with no one group member simply telling “the answer”.  Models were presented, and the audience was given the opportunity to ask questions.  Amazingly,  no two models were the same. Paul asked the entire group to find similarities and differences within the models.  Modeling instruction is one vehicle by which teachers can begin to incorporate science practices into our classrooms. For more support with modeling, the American Modeling Teachers Association runs workshops to assist teachers.

Another teaching tool introduced by Paul called Question Formulation Technique calls for students to generate a list of questions surrounding an observable event; a phenomena. To do this participants observed termites following black lines that created the pattern of Olympic rings. Participants then brainstormed as many questions they could about the regarding the behavior of the termites they had just witnessed for five minutes. This was followed by labeling the questions as open or closed and determining which open ended question the group should investigate. The technique is easily applicable to teachers who would would like to try a NYSSLS aligned student driven inquiry approach.

Another means of rolling out NYSSLS to the participants was the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) framework, which focuses on the conclusion component of a laboratory report. After the students have completed the experiment, in essence collected their evidence, they are ready to make a claim. The teachers had the opportunity to experience this framework by investigating the question: “Are skew dice fair?” Groups then created large posters with their claim as well as a display of the supporting evidence via words, tables and graphs, followed by the reasoning which included scientific principles surrounding the experiment. Posters were stuck to the wall and shared with others through  a gallery walk and critique with post-its by other groups. Paul also provided his inquiry lab format as a resource to assist teachers in NYSSLS implementation via CER. This starts with an explanatory model, students then sort the variables in order of importance, after which comes data collection, a graphical representation and then the exercise concludes with the CER framework.  

When starting the workshop, Paul asked for what the teachers wanted to get out of the professional development and on the second day, he came back to address the topics that were of greatest interest to the attendees. One such NYSSLS concern was how to incorporate engineering design in your classroom by first defining criteria, followed by developing a solution and then refinement of that solution. Anderson suggested an activity that gave the participants the task to make a tower as tall as possible with only two pieces of computer paper, 10 cm of tape and five minutes. All participants were engaged as the clock displayed in the front of the room counted down the time. All groups frantically rushed  and at the end Paul claimed that was just the prototype and now participants were given the same task after observing what other groups had done to engineer the actual tallest tower. The activity could be utilized in any STEM classroom and adapted to a variety of tasks.  

Teachers are eager to learn about what assessments will look like with the new standards. There are a variety of resources available to help teachers get started. Paul recommends starting by printing out  cards with practices and crosscutting concepts to help generate ideas for student assessments. On the second day of the workshop, teachers of the same content area worked to create an assessment aligned to one specific performance expectation. By laying out the cards on the table, teachers were able to unpack the the practices and cross-cutting idea that could be used to assess the particular disciplinary core idea. Large posters of assessments were created and hung on the walls. Groups then gallery walked and gave feedback with post-its to improve the questions which were photographed and collected in a google drive to serve as a resource as teachers present go out and turn-key aspects to their colleagues. For additional resources on assessments, Paul suggested looking into ngss.nsta.org and nextgenscienceassessment.org for NGSS bundles and storylines for example assessments.

If one thinks of the level of comfort of the new standards, there is still much growth for all parties involved. Paul discussed how the implementation of any new teaching methodologies have an initial dip prior to rise is success rate and the same should be expected as teachers start to incorporate the NYSSLS approach. The workshop concluded with groups of the same discipline creating lessons using a common template.

Are you interested in diving even deeper? Then consider joining your fellow STANYS members at our state conference this November 4th- 6th in Rochester, where teachers will have the opportunity to learn more through a more extended content specific teacher institutes. Additionally, on the Monday of the conference, Paul Andersen is slotted to provide further workshops on NYSSLS. If you are unable to travel to Rochester please consider attending the Suffolk STANYS Fall Conference, which will be held on October 16th at Hofstra University where there will be more opportunities to learn about some of the NGSS best practices through modeling and questioning workshops.

Photo 3.jpg
Attendees work together to create NYSSLS assessments.

photo5.jpg
More attendees having an (obvious) good time!

photo 2.jpg
Teachers utilize Paul’s cards for science practices and crosscutting concepts to design assessments.

photo 4.jpg
Paul provides feedback on teacher created assessments.

Posted on

NYSSLS Was Approved, Now What?

Floating on Water?!

I’ve been listening to many of my classroom teachers and other teachers from around my region. Many teachers at all grade levels are concerned about making the transition to the New York State Science Learning Standards too soon. To their credit, their concerns about the current assessments are very convincing since many teachers’ APPR scores are tied to the Regents or 8th Grade assessments linked to the current core curriculum. However, many of the slow transitions can be made while still maintaining the integrity of our instruction now so that students will still be successful on our assessments now.

First, we can begin to think about using anchoring phenomenon in our everyday instruction. What are anchoring phenomenon you may ask? When I started out planning my units of study as a wide-eyed first-year teacher, I used the chapters in the textbook to guide my sequence of lessons. With the NYSSLS grounded in the ideals of the Framework, the new learning standards call for sequences to be grounded in an overarching natural phenomena instead of the traditional chapter approach. Don’t get me wrong: many of these unit sequences may still revolve around a similar thematic approach like textbook chapters, but the unit plans will piece-by-piece unpack the three-dimensions needed to fully answer this anchoring phenomenon, like the image above with the man seemingly floating on water.

According to Penuel & Bell (2016), anchoring phenomenon should possess the following characteristics:

  1. Build on student everday experiences. This brings in a local dimension to our everyday instruction. Being on an island facing many environmental issues, these phenomena could be linked to perhaps groundwater resources, the formation of Long Island itself, or the loss of shark nurseries in the South Shore bays, for example.
  2. Incorporate multiple performance expectations. Bundling at least two similar performance expectations from the standards will not only help cut down on instructional time, it will also allow students to make deeper connections between multiple areas of the life sciences, physical sciences, and earth and space sciences. Furthermore, bundling could present a way to incorporate the engineering practices from each grade band.
  3. Complex. Students should not be able to answer the questions surrounding the anchoring phenomenon in one lesson or a simple Google search. Investigative phenomenon lack the complexity of anchoring phenomenon since they could be answered by the end of the lesson, so they add an overarching question to the learning objective and allow us to move toward an eventual understanding of the anchoring phenomenon at the end of the unit.
  4. Observable. Students should be able to confront the phenomenon through their everyday observations, laboratory investigations,  or through some form of multimedia presentation. Again, if the students cannot relate somehow to the anchoring phenomenon and are interested in finding out more about it, the unit of study may need to be changed to grab their attention.
  5. Can Be a Case Study or Wonderment. The pine beetle infestation of Long Island could be a very interesting anchoring phenomenon to investigate ecosystems and how the ecosystem can be adversely affected through the introduction of an invasive species. Or students may be interested in the evolution of the Big Bang over the past billions of years. The teacher could then frame the anchoring phenomenon around the formation of our universe, tying in investigative phenomenon as the students move through the sequence of lessons that break down the DCIs into observable chunks for students to dive in deeper.
  6. Include data. Students need to be confronted with real-life messy data in order to make sense of the world around them. Understanding how global climate change affects different aspects of our natural world is a highly complex process with many different variables that always don’t present themselves in a perfect straight line. Students should also be expected to deal with imperfect data and how to make valid conclusions from these experiments. The science and engineering practices, along with cross-cutting concepts, are the perfect vehicle to assist the students in designing and making sense of these investigations revolving around phenomena.

We can begin to take a look around us to see if we can find any everyday phenomenon that could drive a full unit (anchoring phenomenon) or an individual lesson (investigative phenomenon) that meet not only the current standards on which students will still be accessed, but also link well to the New York State Science Learning Standards (NYYSLS). If you find something, see if it meets the criteria listed above. Test it out now to see if students are able to make the connection. Use them as pre-assessments, formative assessments, or post-assessments in your current instruction. Test drive them now and modify them as we get closer to seeing how the new assessments will unfold and as we gain more professional learning opportunities linked to unpacking these exciting new standards. For an example of a storyline incorporating an anchoring phenomenon  in a DNA unit, please check out the Teaching Channel link here. Also, for tools on how to develop storylines (or some already piloted storyline units), please check out this website.

Penuel, W. R., & Bell, P. (2016, March). Qualities of a Good Anchor Phenomenon for a Coherent Sequence of Science Lessons. Retrieved from goo.gl/jGGGTe