Running head: ACSP 1

Analysis of Content Standards and Practice (ACSP) for Science in the State of Nevada

ACSP

Allan Smith

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

EDSC 311-1001

Lois Paretti, Ed.M.

ACSP 2

Analysis of Content Standards and Practice (ACSP) for Science in the State of Nevada

ACSP Phase 1

Common Core is that term that is as almost as terrible to hear as a political discussion at

Thanksgiving dinner. For some it will be what helps the United States reclaim dominance or at

least a foothold in the world economy, others see it as that awful math that doesn’t make sence

because that’s not the way they learned it growing up. So why are there sides to this and why is

it debated but yet still firmly believed by those setting the rules for education? Let’s analize

where they came from and what they truly are so we can put this argument to bed.

The Common Core State Standards came about in June of 2010 after a yearlong overhaul

process from the old system most of us grew up with. Leading up to this time, concern mounted

regarding the prepardness of high school graduates entering college and/or the work place. With

more freshman students requiring extra remedial courses upon entry into college(classes you

have to pay for but don’t count towards actual credits), the need for educational reform became

the center of many political discussions. In 2009, state leaders began the difficult process of

establishing and creating what would later become known as the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS). The hope behind these standards was to create a comprehensive list of important skills

that every student should know prior to graduation. Everything up to 2010, each state was

responsible for crafting their own standards and means of assessment. This strategy left huge

misscommunication between what was expected in one state and what was expected in another.

This meant that students receiving the same standard diploma in California where not necessarily

required to know the same information asked of students in New York. In order to fix this

problem and to address the growing concern by professionals regarding America’s ability to

remain competitive in the international market, state leaders were forced to take action.
ACSP 3

At the beginning, the Common Core State Standards tried only to address the specific

skills deemed necessary to ensure college and/or job readiness. This meant that the only two

subjects considered important at the time were English and Mathematics. To date, the CCSS still

only address these two subjects. More state initiated standards have emerged in other

disciplinary subjects modeling the CCSS blueprints. One of these important subjects is science.

The plan behind the science standards is very much the same as those seen in the CCSS English

and Mathematics portions. It is a comprehensive list of skills required of students in order to be

ready for college and/or the work force. These standards have been labeled as the Next

Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

NGSS was developed at the state level and was intended to be adopted on a large scale

across the country, very similarly to the CCSS. The task force began in the summer of 2011

when state leaders decided to band together to redefine the existing science standards. This

process took approximately two years and three separate organizations to create. These

organizations were the National Research Council (NRC), the National Science Teachers

Association (NSTA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Working together the standards were written to emphasize five basic biological concepts. These

concepts are: structure and function; inheritance and variation of traits; matter and energy in

organisms and ecosystems; interdependent relationships in ecosystems; natural selection. These

five standards highlight the most basic concepts that should be covered throughout the year in a

typical ninth grade biology classroom. In addition to these standards, the NGSS also

incorporated the idea of three dimensional learning. Three dimensional learning means that

instead of just teaching discipline specific content, teachers would also be required to teach

science and engineering practices. This includes crosscutting concepts. In order to understand
ACSP 4

how much this effects the application of these standards, we must first understand what it means

to use science and engineering practices, as well as the crosscutting concepts.

According to the NGSS website, a crosscutting concept is an “application that can be

used across all domains of science” (Next Generation Science Standards, n.d.). These

applications typically include: patterns, similarity, and diversity; cause and effect; scale,

proportion and quantity; systems and system models; energy and matter; structure and function;

stability and change. The website also states that “The framework emphasizes that these concepts

need to be made explicit for students because they provide an organizational schema for

interrelating knowledge from various science fields into a coherent and scientifically-based view

of the world.” So basically we should be teaching students to identify certain consistencies in the

world so they are better able to solve real world problems. This idea is then paired with the

science and engineering practices. As per the NGSS website, it states that, “These practices

describe behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories

about the natural world and the key set of engineering practices that engineers use as they design

and build models and systems” (Next Generation Science Standards, n.d.). The main idea behind

this is that students will become familiar with using science, technology, engineering and

mathematics in everyday situations and not just inside one classroom. They came to this

conclusion due to how intertwined the three disciplines are to one another. When put together,

these three dimensions help students acquire knowledge while learning to ask questions and

solve real world problems. One cannot build upon the framework of one without the others.

As difficult as these new standards seem, these added practices are not foreign to the state

of Nevada. Before the adoption of the NGSS standards in 2014, Nevada was using the Nevada

Science Standards. These standards required almost the same disciplinary concepts and similar
ACSP 5

concepts. Furthermore, teachers were not required to use specified practices while teaching

certain core concepts. Neither were teachers required to use cross-disciplinary subject matter to

explain certain biological content, it was simply implied. The inquiry practices and skills show

to have been non-specific. This infers that a teacher would have had the choice of using any of

the inquiry practices they wanted with any given lesson. This freedom to use or not use the

different practices was eliminated by the NGSS. This change made the Next Generation Science

Standards less attractive to other states and the lack of financial incentive. Whichever cause, the

NGSS has struggled to find the strong fanbase that the CCSS acquired early in its startup. As of

today only 19 states have adopted these standards according to the National Science Teachers

Association. This is less than half from the original 42 states that adopted the CCSS.
ACSP 6

References

About Nevada NGSE. (n.d.). Nevada Next Generation Science Education. Retrieved April 20th,

2018, from http://www.nevadangse.net/about-nevada-ngse/

About the Next Generation Science Standards. (n.d.). NGSSNSTA. Retrieved April 20th, 2018,

from http://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx

About the Standards. (n.d.). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved April 21st, 2018,

from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

College- and Career-Ready standards. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 21st,

2018, from https://www.ed.gov/k-12reforms/standards

Nevada State Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21st, 2018 from

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/69th1997/Interim/NonLegCom/AcademicStandards/

Misc/Standards/Science.htm

Three Dimensional Learning. (n.d.). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved April 20th,

2018, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions

ACSP 7

Analysis of Content Standards and Practice (ACSP) for Science in the State of Nevada Phase 2

Name: Allan Smith Performance Evaluation: 1 Used as Post Lesson Reflection

Lesson Topic and Methodology: Ecosystem Dynamics and Interactions

Nevada Academic Content Analysis Based on National Standards from Disciplinary

Standards Referenced in Professional Organization
Performance Evaluation (NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS)
NVAC Lesson Big Ideas- Declarative Processes- Products-
Standards- Objectives- learners will Knowledge- learners will be learners
from EDSC from EDSC explore learners will able to: demonstrate
311 311 these understand: understanding
Performance Performance Essential by:
Evaluation: Evaluation: Questions:
HS-LS2-1: Use Students will What How to Use data to Formative:
mathematical identify factors interpret create Students will
and/or between influence models to mathematical physically
computational biotic and population predict and representations demonstrate
representations explain that represent how certain
abiotic growth?
to support changes in population factors have
factors that
explanations of population changes over altered the
factors that influence sizes over time. growth of a
affect carrying population time population
capacity of growth over from graphs
ecosystems at time Summative:
different scale. Students took a
unit exam on
September
26th, which
assessed their
understanding
of terms and
processes
covered in this
and other
lessons.
Snapshot of Practice: How do you know they know (the
standard)?
The students were given an article about an experiment done on an
island using goats and large dogs. They were able to read and
annotate in the article those big ideas on how each specie was able
to affect the other.
ACSP 8

Name: Allan Smith Performance Evaluation: 2 Used as Post Lesson Reflection

Lesson Topic and Methodology: Ecosystem Dynamics and Interactions

Nevada Academic Content Analysis Based on National Standards from Disciplinary

Standards Referenced in Professional Organization
Performance Evaluation (NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS)
NVAC Lesson Big Ideas- Declarative Processes- Products-
Standards- from Objectives- learners will Knowledge- learners will learners
EDSC 311 from EDSC explore learners will be able to: demonstrate
Performance 311 these understand: understanding
Evaluation: Performance Essential by:
Evaluation: Questions:
HS-LS 2-7: At the end of What How to Show their Formative:
Design, evaluate, this lesson happens to an evaluate knowledge of Students will
and refine a students will be ecosystem claims, the resilience draw different
solution for able to when the evidence, and of an animal species
reducing the demonstrate environment reasoning that ecosystem then connect
impacts of and explain the changes? fluctuations to when it’s the lines that
human activities difference environmental biodiversity is show how each
on the between conditions adversely interacts with
environment Invasive may result in influenced each other and
and biodiversity. species and ecosystem its
Keystone change. environment.
species Summative:
Students took a
unit exam on
October 24th,
which assessed
their
understanding
of terms and
processes
covered in this
and other
lessons.

Snapshot of Practice: How do you know they know (the

standard)?
This lesson focused on the use of a model in learning about
Biodiversity and the interactions that species can have on
themselves, others, and the environment. Students were asked to
draw a picture of their favorite animal then state what is that
animals natural predator and it’s prey.
ACSP 9

Name: Allan Smith Performance Evaluation: 3 Used as Post Lesson Reflection

Lesson Topic and Methodology: Matter & Energy in Ecosystems

Nevada Academic Content Analysis Based on National Standards from Disciplinary

Standards Referenced in Professional Organization
Performance Evaluation (NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS)
NVAC Lesson Big Ideas- Declarative Processes- Products-
Standards- Objectives- learners will Knowledge- learners will learners
from EDSC from EDSC explore these learners will be able to: demonstrate
311 311 Essential understand: understanding
Performance Performance Questions: by:
Evaluation: Evaluation:
HS-LS 2-4: Use By the end of How are That the sun Define terms Formative:
mathematical this lesson photosynthesis provides the used to Students will
representations students will and cellular starting describe answer and
to support be able to respiration energy for all matter and participate in a
claims for the identify the part of the life on the energy Flocabulary
cycling of differences circle of life? planet and transfer by exercise and
matter and flow between without it completing a play games in
of energy photosynthesis there would Vocabulary groups to
among and cellular be no life matrix. As assess
organisms in an respiration. here. well as knowledge.
ecosystem. explain how
energy flows Summative:
through the Students will
ecosystem take an exam
while taking at the end of
notes. the following
week. This
exam will
cover this
material and
the rest of the
material
covered in this
unit.
Snapshot of Practice: How do you know they know (the
standard)?
This lesson focused on the use of data to support the idea that
energy and matter must flow or else life will cease to exist.
Students demonstrated their understanding of this lesson by
completing the first module of the virtual lab and answering the
questions on the metabolism handout. Students were able to answer
basic question regarding energy transfer but had a difficult time
remembering all of the vocabulary involved.
ACSP 10

Analysis of Content Standards and Practice (ACSP) for Science in the State of Nevada Phase 3

My story

My journey to becoming a teacher began four years ago when I switched my major from

pre-veterinary technologist to secondary education. Growing up, I was never sure what I wanted

to be. I often struggled in school and did not give much thought to my future; so when I

graduated high school, there was only one option, to get a job. This job was an entry-level

position at a local veterinary hospital. As little as my pay was at the time, I found this work

extremely rewarding and before long, I was trained to be a veterinary assistant. Working in this

field for nearly a decade gave me the courage to enroll in college. Initially I was seeking an

associate’s degree in veterinary nursing, but along the way something profound happened.

During my first semester at CSN, I enrolled in Biology 189. This class was required and had a

reputation for being difficult to pass. Not knowing what to expect, I entered the classroom ready
ACSP 11

to fail. However, to my surprise I did remarkably well; so well in fact, that I was at the top of the

class. As a result of this success, I began tutoring my classmates on the subject. This ability to

help my peers is what inspired me to change my major. Looking back, I remembered what it was

like to fail. I remembered thinking that my life would not amount to anything because I was a

failure. This was something that I immediately noticed when engaging with my peers. From that

moment on, I made it a point to reach out to anyone who needed or wanted help. To this day, I

feel my initial struggle with school has given me the ability to reach people in intellectually

different ways to ensure their success.

Personal Journey

Fast forward to spring 2018, I am getting ready to enter my first practicum. Up to this

moment, I was a confident 31-year-old living the high life of academic success. Everything

seemed to be falling into place; however, there was still the issue of bridging the gap between the

theoretical classroom and the actual classroom. Throughout my academic career, I felt like who I

was as an educator shifted from one semester to the next. This continuous redefining of my

academic beliefs stemmed from the many conflicting theories I was taught along the way.

Phrases like “the reply to such questions has to be that research alone cannot provide answers to

such specific practical problems” or “the description and explanations about what teachers

currently do are valuable but should not preclude the invention or use of new practices” (Arends,

2012). This made forming a sturdy foundation on which to build my educational philosophy

extremely difficult. It wasn’t until I entered the classroom that I truly understood that “no single

approach is consistently superior to any other in all situations. Instead, many teaching

approaches are appropriate, and the selection of a particular model depends on a teacher’s goals,

the characteristics of a specific group of learners, and community values and expectations”
ACSP 12

(Arends, 2012). As simple as this revelation may sound, it actually took quite some time to

grasp. For me, the road to this ultimate conclusion began the day I met my mentor teacher.

Mrs. Jan Hall was a ninth grade Biology teacher at Valley High School. Upon initial

evaluation of her teaching philosophy and classroom management, I found myself surprisingly

underwhelmed. Like most pre-service teacher, I had a rosy image of bright eyed students, eager

to learn and hanging on their teacher’s every syllable; however, this was hardy the case in Mrs.

Hall’s classroom. Her students were stubborn, disruptive and completely disengaged. Nearly half

the class was absent on any given day and those students who did show up spent their time either

on their phone or browsing the internet. This first impression was a huge blow to my confidence.

I immediately began to question if switching majors was a good idea. This feeling was made

worse after realizing that my mentor teacher’s philosophy regarding the transmission of

information did not include any direct instruction. For me, this created an immediate conflict

since much of my effectiveness as an educator in practicum I would be based on my ability to

give a lesson. Like most pre-service teachers, I felt like direct instruction was the cornerstone of

the classroom and without it, how could you accurately gauge a teacher’s ability to teach? Still, I

made the most of my time during these first few days by practicing some behavior management

techniques and refining my ability to handle difficult situations. I did this using Canters’

assertive discipline approach. As outline in the third edition of Classroom Management; Models,

Applications, and Case, Canters’ Assertive Discipline “emphasizes clear and positive limits,

rules, rewards and consequences, and on teachers acting in an assertive rather than a nonassertive

or hostile manner” (Bucher and Manning, 2013). I identified fairly quickly that Mrs. Hall’s

approach to managing misbehavior was nonassertive and inconsistent. As a result, her students

rarely followed through when asked to do something. I sought to change this behavior by
ACSP 13

assertively asking students to put their phones away and participate in the lesson. When met with

opposition, I would immediately use the broke-record response. After a while, the students began

to understand what my expectations were and I was able to switch to the use of just proximity to

ensure the desired behavioral outcome.

Planning with the Standards

My first time planning with the standards proved to be quite the challenge. Prior to this

semester, my experience with the Next Generation Science Standards was extremely limited.

Upon close examination of these standards, I was immediately confused by the idea of including

crosscutting concepts and engineering practices. I wondered how anyone would be able to

incorporate all of these different ideas into a single lesson. I also found the standards to be very

vague and unspecific when it came to the disciplinary content. For example while teaching

mitosis, I was unsure how much detail should I provide and what I should expect my students to

know. In addition to this trouble, I found it increasingly difficult to write a lesson that linked

prior knowledge. This was due, in large part, to the limited amount of time I spent in the

classroom. With all of these factors combined, I struggled to pick an appropriate standard.

According to our text “deciding what to teach is among one of the most fundamental

decisions of teaching” (Arends, 2012). Not wanting to seem inexperienced, I avoided asking my

mentor teacher for suggestion or for clarification regarding the standards. Instead, I picked a

standard I felt was relevant and began to identify the main academic points. Thankfully, this

particular standard came with an assessment boundary which gave me some insight into how in-

depth I would have to go with the lesson. From these main points, I came up with two objectives

which would be the learning goals for the day. Using these objectives, I then moved on to how I
ACSP 14

would assess the students. This aspect of the lesson planning process seemed simple, but quickly

turned into a much more involved process.

My initial goal was to make sure these assessments were “valid”. According to the text “a

test, and the inferences we draw from it, is said to be valid when it measures what it claims to

measure” (Arends, 2012). This meant that the questions had to be specifically designed to test for

the objectives. This idea was made a little more complicated when I was asked to include a

model and a mathematical representation of the scientific topic. As stated by my mentor teacher,

“these additions ensure that you are covering the 3 dimensionality of the NGSS.” Based on these

recommendations, I altered my original objectives, as well as my assessments to reflect these

additional elements. Once complete, I had to decide how I wanted to deliver the information. As

stated above, my mentor teacher did not care for the use of direct instruction. Knowing this

information, I had to design an activity that was a little outside of my comfort zone. Modeling

her techniques, I created an interactive lab in which students would use a model to explore the

idea of mitosis. In addition to this activity, students would complete a handout which included

the use of a mathematical function. This investigative method to teaching was student-centered

and allowed me to hit all three dimensions of the NGSS.

As this relates to the planning domains, the process described above encompasses the

“planning before instruction” portion of the “planning and instructional cycle”. Prior to the start

of this semester, I was blissfully unaware of just how much time teacher spend planning for

future lessons. During my studies throughout the semester, I learned that seasoned educators

spend an average of 40 minutes per day on lesson planning alone (Arends, 2012). For a

beginning teacher, such as me, spending nearly 10 hours designing a lesson may not be outside
ACSP 15

of the norm. However, as I became more familiar with the standards and proficient in writing

lessons, I was able to cut this time in half by the end of the semester.

Delivering Instruction

When the time finally came to deliver my first lesson, I felt unbelievably nervous. Not

only was I going to be assessed by both the students and my mentor teacher, but my peers would

also have access to my lesson as well. Despite my mentor teacher’s personal philosophy

regarding direct instruction, I did include a short powerpoint in my first lesson. Using this media,

I gave a short lecture on the different phases of mitosis. The emphasis of this direct instruction

was to ensure that I was accommodating all learning styles. Once complete, I asked the students

to complete a short demonstration lab. The focus of this student-directed activity was to have

students investigate and identify the different phases of mitosis in order to understand the

beginning and end products. This method also allowed me to incorporate the use of a model,

which is included in the science and engineering practices of the NGSS. Sadly this first lesson

was a disaster. While planning my lesson, I did not take into consideration the “I do, we do, you

do” methodology. This teaching strategy requires the teacher to first demonstrate the task, then

the students are complete the task with guided help and then the students complete the task on

their own. Because I failed to demonstrate my expectations, students were confused about what

was being asked of them and failed to make connections to the learning objectives.

For my second lesson, I decided to forgo the direct instruction and try the inquiry-based

teaching approach used by my mentor teacher. Our text describes inquiry-based teaching as

“another instructional approach that has been developed for the purpose of teaching students how

to think” (Arends, 2012). Using this approach and the knowledge I gained from the initial

mitosis lesson, I started the lesson by first modeling my expectations. I then asked the students to
ACSP 16

reproduce a similar experiment. This approach proved to be very successful. Not only did the

student complete the task asked of them, but they also linked their prior knowledge to the current

content.

For my final lesson, I decided to use a website that my mentor teacher recommended.

This interactive lizard lab was completely student directed and again made use of the inquiry-

based teaching method. For this particular lesson, I modeled only what was necessary for the

students to know in order to complete the lab. My goal with this approach was to see if students

were able to successful “connect the dots” without me having to give “away the surprise”. This

highly conceptual lab ultimately ended up being a little too advanced for the students to grasp.

While the majority of the students successfully completed each step of the lab, many of them

failed to identify how this activity related to the overall objectives. Towards the end of the

lesson, I gave some assistance by explaining why they traits we looked at were so important in

hopes that the students would make further connections.

After delivering these three separate lessons, I learned how the theoretical classroom

differs from the actual classroom. While reading about the different aspects of the learning

environment is helpful, it does not provide the necessary training one needs to effectively teach

students. For example, giving a lesson is much more stressful than just planning a lesson. As pre-

service teachers, we often read about what should be done during certain situations and when

asked to share our thoughts regarding these same situations, many of us will just regurgitate what

we “know” to be true. However, many pre-service teachers fail to follow through with these

same ideas when confronted with a similar situation in the classroom. This is because some

aspects of this profession can only be learned through experience. Another example of this is the

second and third phases of the “planning and instructional cycle”. As pre-service teachers, we
ACSP 17

can plan lessons all day long, but until we physically give the lesson and then apply the

assessments, we will never truly know what it is like to be an effective educator.

References

Arends, R.I. (2012). Learning to teach (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

Butcher, K.T., & Manning, M.L., (2013) Classroom management: Models, applications, and

cases (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.