May/June 2017 – Vol. 29 No. 7

Middle School Madness: The Integrated or Discipline Specific Choice

Posted: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014

by Robert Sherriff

As a middle school science teacher for the past 23 years, I am very interested in the implementation the Next Generation Science Standards. I was proud to be one of only two middle school teachers (along with one 6th grade self contained teacher who also represented the middle school grade span) on California’s Science Expert Panel (SEP) for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

In this context, I’d like to address the debate between the NGSS integrated model or alternative model for middle school (K-5 is required to be integrated). I started with the many of the same concerns that middle school teachers have expressed with an integrated model. In the end after much deliberation the SEP unanimously recommended the integrated model of NGSS for middle school to the State Board of Education. It concluded that the integrated model was the best model for our student’s scientific literacy. The State Board of Education decided the integrated model was the preferred model, but after much pressure brought by some teachers who made impassioned arguments in favor of the discipline specific model, the State Board reconvened the SEP to develop the alternative discipline specific, model. I am concerned that some teachers I’ve heard from believe the discipline specific model would be similar to the current model, this is not correct due to the fundamental educational shifts inherent in NGSS. The SEP had trouble making a clear conceptual flow using the discipline specific model, which is one reason for their preference for the integrated model. The integrated model includes logical links to the Common Core State Standards, and takes into account the progression of concepts from kindergarten through 8th grade with special attention to the progression between 5th and 6th grade so that the transition from 5th to 6th would be conceptually sound. Specifically, the SEP spent much time on the integrated model to ensure that it was developmentally appropriate for Common Core mathematics. With the alternative model, the SEP did not find it provided the developmentally appropriate Common Core math progressions, and has some conflicts in the conceptual progressions between 5th and 6th grade and therefore the alternative model was not considered to be in the best educational interest of middle school students. Overall the SEP found that the alternative model links and conceptual flow are at times a bit of a stretch. There are many examples of this, to demonstrate one example is:

Integrated model: Concepts involving gravity and astronomy are both in 8th grade.

Alternate model: Concepts on gravity are in 8th, Astronomy concepts are in 6th grade.

Below I’ve answered some frequently asked questions about the NGSS middle school model. Although they are strictly my answers I believe they capture the thinking of the SEP as a whole:

“Will my credentials authorize me to teach the NGSS integrated model?”

A member of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing spoke to the SEP and explained that the overwhelming majority of middle school science teachers will qualify to teach the integrated model. A handful of extremely rare credentials will either require some additional educational coursework to receive authorization or can be granted a waiver by the local school board. There is a link on the CSTA web page, which leads to the official document from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing about this matter.

“Is there research that shows that the integrated model of teaching is beneficial to students?”

Part of the research includes CA Scope, Sequence & Coordination:  Students in integrated biology scored the same or better than students in traditional biology on the Golden State Exam. Scott, G (2000).  Also, countries with top science scores require participation in integrated science instruction through Lower Secondary, and seven of ten countries continue that instruction through Grade 10. Achieve (2010). Finally to develop an expert knowledge base the research in learning theory indicates that what is needed are connections developed through an interdisciplinary real-world approach over an isolated discipline specific approach in K-8. (NRC 2012).

Did the composition of the SEP represent a broad spectrum of the scientific community?

The SEP was made up of 27 Science Experts who are representative of the SRT (State Review Team of 85 members of the science community). The SEP consisted of K-12 Teachers, COE Science Leaders, IHE Faculty, Business, Industry, and Informal Science Centers. Input from the larger science community was considered. Firms such as Boeing and organizations such as NASA had representatives on the SEP.

The SEP had Noted Scientist Advisors including:

Dr. Bruce Alberts, biochemist, past president Nat’l Academy of Sciences

Dr. Helen Quinn, particle physicist, who helped develop the unified theory

Dr. Art Sussman, biochemist, noted author of science curriculum

“Did the SEP consider a variety of models including the discipline specific models before they voted on the integrated middle school model?”

The SEP worked on various models including the discipline specific model, but in the end, SEP voted unanimously that an integrated approach was the most beneficial model for scientific literacy in middle school. For example, NGSS integrated model recognizes that it is meaningless to teach plate tectonics in earth science without incorporating the physics of density, as is teaching evolution in biology without the evidence found in earth science.

What were the guiding principles for making decisions for which middle school progression should be recommended?

In considering the path to MS Arrangement the SEP took into account that:

  • NGSS middle school in grade span arrangement 6-8
  • NGSS as both DCI and as a Topic arrangement
  • CA instructional materials adoption dictates grade level placement
  • Must align with Common Core ELA and Math
  • Must build within and across grade levels to tell a coherent conceptual flow of ideas
  • Be balanced in complexity and quantity at each grade level (In the integrated model there are fewer standards in 6th than 7th and even more in 8th. In the alternative model there are more standards in 7th than 8th.)
  • Integrate the new engineering concepts appropriately

“Was teacher expertise and passion a consideration in deciding on the integrated middle school model?”

The short answer is yes; and it was brought up by myself and others. However, in response, SEP members concluded that students’ scientific literacy was paramount, but that some staff development should be offered by the state to help those who felt they needed more on a particular sub-discipline of science. I’d like to add that this was initially a concern of mine, but through dialogue, I eventually realized that teachers must be open-minded about, and be passionate for, science as a whole. In the end, the science advisers and the SEP group felt that to solve the more complex problems of today, we need experts that take a multidisciplinary approach. This is another line of reasoning to support integrated science through 8th grade with specialization after that.

What was the SEP rational for the decision for the integrated model?

I believe Dr. Art Sussman expressed the rationale well: “The SEP very seriously considered the option of having discipline focused concepts for grades 6, 7, and 8. It quickly became very clear that there had to be foundational physical science concepts in grade 6 to be able to do the NGSS middle school life and earth science concepts. However some of the physical science concepts were clearly too advanced for grade 6th (required math concepts and skills that are beyond grade 6 level in addition to being too complex for grade 6). That combination of needing some physical science in grade 6 but not being able to do all physical science in grade 6 made the discipline specific approach impossible.” This logic as well as many other examples and fact-based arguments provided the rational.

What criteria did the SEP use to arrange the particular PE’s (performance expectations) (standards) for grades six, seven, and eight.

  • Performance expectations (PEs) were placed at each grade level so that they support content articulation across grade levels (from 5th through 8th grade) and provide the opportunity for content integration within each grade level.
  • Performance expectations were aligned with the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics so that science learning would not be dependent upon math skills not yet acquired.
  • The final arrangement of performance expectations reflected a balance both in content complexity and number at each grade level with human impact and engineering performance expectations appropriately integrated.

“What will assessment be like for NGSS and will they be biased towards the integrated model?”

Currently there are no NGSS assessments, but the state says there will be by 2018 if not before. Okay, this one is just my opinion. I do not think that the government will want to spend the money on more than one test. So, my question for you is that since there is a preferred model and an alternative model that was rejected by their own advisory group, which one do you think will get the most weight for developing an assessment?

Finally, I keep hearing “NGSS doesn’t have the standard on ____” what’s up with that?

Well that’s because these standards are overarching, encompassing the larger concepts or “big ideas” that are essential to understanding science and becoming a scientifically literate citizen. In order to teach the NGSS it will require many of the other concepts or “other ideas” that underlie the NGSS. For example oceanography concepts are not directly written in NGSS but in order to teach some of the NGSS, an understanding of the oceanography concepts is necessary. The thinking is that the state science framework, which will begin its work in September 2014, will help clarify these ideas as well as give much more specific direction to many who are struggling with NGSS.

A couple of final points are that Achieve (the group that wrote the NGSS) liked the California middle school integrated model so much that they included it in their appendix for the NGSS, and we are the only state to have that honor as of this date.

This time of transition to the new standards will be at the same time difficult and exciting, as it will require much change. Should we make the change the easiest for teachers or for the best interest for students; that is the decision districts must face in going with either the preferred integrated or alternative model. I hope that the state supports this time of change and know that CSTA will do all they can to support this immense effort. We will need much in the way of professional development to make this fundamental shift to a new way of teaching to help our students and our population as a whole to become scientifically literate problem solvers, a goal of NGSS. This is a challenging time and we all have much to learn in this time of science educational change, it is my hope that we can take a scientific approach to this debate, look at the data and support each other in a logical manner and hopefully leave some of the incendiary messages out of the conversation.

For your use I have created a comparison chart of the integrated versus the discipline specific models for an unbiased comparison, I made this chart so that each grade level would fit on one page so some of each P.E. standard had to be left off. The charts are available for download here.

Robert Sherriff is a middle school teacher, Science Expert Panel member, and CSTA member

 

Written by Guest Contributor

From time to time CSTA receives contributions from guest contributors. The opinions and views expressed by these contributors are not necessarily those of CSTA. By publishing these articles CSTA does not make any endorsements or statements of support of the author or their contribution, either explicit or implicit. All links to outside sources are subject to CSTA’s Disclaimer Policy: http://www.classroomscience.org/disclaimer.

7 Responses

  1. I believe since the state has an alternative model, it will have to provide an alternative state assessment.

  2. So I am not opposed to the integrated model. I do have a concern for my district and many districts in CA that have 6th grade in elementary school. My school is 7-8 and with the integrated model we are afraid that the 6th grade elementary school teacher will not be equipped to teach science or will briefly teach science like they do now. This is scary as concepts in 6th grade are necessary for 7th and 8th. For example, with integrated they will be learning about cells in 6th and will be doing genetics in 8th. I know for a fact the elementary is still going to be math and English heavy with little focus on science, so integrated model will not be efficient in this case in my opinion.

  3. Erica, we may have a better idea about assessments after the meetings next week (see: http://www.classroomscience.org/ngss-implementation-update). If CSTA learns anything new about assessments we will be sure to provide an update in this publication and on our website.

  4. Damion, your comment is similar in nature to a conversation taking place in CSTA’s Middle School Science Teacher Facebook Group. If you are interested, please consider joining the group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/471425786274198/

  5. The integrated model is not going to work. Maybe for a school of all “high” level kids, but even then it will be a stretch and here is why. Like Damion said above, concepts are not linked…kids learn about cells in 6th grade then genetics in 8th? My 6th graders are now expected to be introduced to concepts of chemistry and they have NO basis for that. They do not have the academic maturity because they did not get anything to prepare them for chemistry in 5th grade! The biggest flaw with this program is trying to just dump it all on our kids, who have up to this point been in traditional “subject” based schools and make them comply. A better approach, would be to implement this statewide for all children beginning 1st grade in the calendar year of 2014-2015…THEN those students would have the proper skills and background to be able to excel with NGSC. BTW that is what was done with No Child Left Behind..it WAS NOT an abrupt transition. AND to top it off, there are no books or teachers manual/ materials out yet for Next Gen…not to mention, the poorer schools, like mine will not be able to buy books and materials for support for a very long time. And lets continue on with one more point of opposition. all of this is to aim for college preparedness, correct? Well, last time I checked…college still offered segregated science subject…you don’t take geology with pre-med and etc?!?! Thanks for creating a disaster.

  6. This article is full of straw-man arguments in favor of the integrated middle school progression which can’t stand-up to even the least bit of reflection.

    The first example is the apparent need to structure the progression for the purposes of teaching easily integrated topics in the same grade level.

    “Overall the SEP found that the alternative model links and conceptual flow are at times a bit of a stretch.”
    “Integrated model: Concepts involving gravity and astronomy are both in 8th grade.”
    “Alternate model: Concepts on gravity are in 8th, Astronomy concepts are in 6th grade.”

    Just because something can be integrated, doesn’t mean it must be integrated WITHIN a grade level, it could just as easily be integrated ACROSS grade levels. An educational program could just as easily teach the astronomy standards in 6th grade and then use them to illustrate gravity in 8th grade. This would also provide a great review opportunity for materials from earlier grade levels while integrating the concepts.

    The same goes for “it is meaningless to teach plate tectonics in earth science without incorporating the physics of density.” This is absurd. A student (or any person) doesn’t need to know the scientific principle of “density” in order to understand that some things can float on top of other things or vice-versa! Again it would be just as easy to teach plate tectonics in 6th grade and then use it for illustration and review during instruction on density in 8th grade.

    Again, “teaching evolution in biology without the evidence found in earth science.” This doesn’t even make sense. Earth science is in 6th grade and evolution is in 7th grade so they WILL be familiar with much of the earth science evidence of past life forms. It is simply another example of how an earlier grade level topic can be easily incorporated into a later grade level for illustration and review.

    Additionally, it is widely agreed that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” and yet the topic of evolution is the LAST life science concept to be taught in the entire middle school progression! If we are going to have an integrated curriculum, then why is it not integrated into the entire life science sequence from the beginning? All the other life science topics across the grade levels could easily be tied together through the larger concept of evolution and it would allow for continuous review of this vital and often poorly understood concept. Whether integrated of domain-specific, this concept should be tied into every part of a life science program.

    “Ensure that it was developmentally appropriate for Common Core mathematics.” By keeping physical science in the 8th grade, like it is today and like it is in the domain-specific progression, there would be no conflicts with CC math skills because all students would be at the final middle school math sequence anyways.

    In the end there are always topics that can be integrated in an infinite number of ways and it is always possible to claim that knowledge of topic X is needed to understand topic Y. So, what we ultimately have here is a total wash between integrated and domain-specific in terms of sequence and timing. Therefore we should take seriously other negative effects of an integrated curriculum. One very significant consequence is the huge loss of teacher passion, experience, interest, and personal resources (ie teacher owned materials like fossils, minerals, preserved animals, bones, other realia, videos, etc) regarding the topics they would teach in a given grade level. For example, instead of just focusing on life science in the 7th grade, these teachers would now be teaching all domains of science despite their love for life science topics. While virtually all of us are qualified and competent to teach all of the middle school science subjects, you need to ask yourself if that’s all you want from your teachers: QUALIFIED? Do we want teachers who know just a little more than what’s in the textbook? Or do we want teachers to teach subjects that are personal and lifelong passions, interests, and hobbies? Do we want to sacrifice all the additional background, experience, and passion that is brought into the classroom when teaching those subjects? Personally, I’m not going to suddenly give up my lifelong hobbies of reading evolution journals and biology textbooks and biology related news, studying the biodiversity of the world, and watching biology related documentaries and instead take up a hobby in electrons and kinetic energy. And who loses out, as usual the students.

  7. Well put Nathan. That last paragraph is exactly how I feel. I taught 8th grade physical science for 4 years. I switched to 7th grd life science because I have a degree in wildlife biology. I absolutely loved it. But, now this. It is an incohesive mess. I definitely am not excited about atoms and other aspects of this. That’s why I switched. Thanks again Cali.

Leave a Reply

LATEST POST

CSTA Annual Conference Early Bird Rates End July 14

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Jessica Sawko

Teachers engaged in workshop activity

Teachers engaging in hands-on learning during a workshop at the 2016 CSTA conference.

Don’t miss your chance to register at the early bird rate for the 2017 CSTA Conference – the early-bird rate closes July 14. Need ideas on how to secure funding for your participation? Visit our website for suggestions, a budget planning tool, and downloadable justification letter to share with your admin. Want to take advantage of the early rate – but know your district will pay eventually? Register online today and CSTA will reimburse you when we receive payment from your district/employer. (For more information on how that works contact Zi Stair in the office for details – 916-979-7004 or zi@cascience.org.)

New Information Now Available On-line:

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Goodbye Outgoing and Welcome Incoming CSTA Board Members

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

Jill Grace

Jill Grace, CSTA President, 2017-2019

On July 1, 2017 five CSTA members concluded their service and four new board members joined the ranks of the CSTA Board of Directors. CSTA is so grateful for all the volunteer board of directors who contribute hours upon hours of time and energy to advance the work of the association. At the June 3 board meeting, CSTA was able to say goodbye to the outgoing board members and welcome the incoming members.

This new year also brings with it a new president for CSTA. As of July 1, 2017 Jill Grace is the president of the California Science Teachers Association. Jill is a graduate of California State University, Long Beach, a former middle school science teacher, and is currently a Regional Director with the K-12 Alliance @ WestEd where she works with California NGSS K-8 Early Implementation Initiative districts and charter networks in the San Diego area.

Outgoing Board Members

  • Laura Henriques (President-Elect: 2011 – 2013, President: 2013 – 2015, Past President: 2015 – 2017)
  • Valerie Joyner (Region 1 Director: 2009 – 2013, Primary Director: 2013 – 2017)
  • Mary Whaley (Informal Science Education Director: 2013 – 2017)
  • Sue Campbell (Middle School/Jr. High Director: 2015 – 2017)
  • Marcus Tessier (2-Year College Director: 2015 – 2017)

Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Finding My Student’s Motivation of Learning Through Engineering Tasks

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Huda Ali Gubary and Susheela Nath

It’s 8:02 and the bell rings. My students’ walk in and pick up an entry ticket based on yesterday’s lesson and homework. My countdown starts for students to begin…3, 2, 1. Ten students are on task and diligently completing the work, twenty are off task with behaviors ranging from talking up a storm with their neighbors to silently staring off into space. This was the start of my classes, more often than not. My students rarely showed the enthusiasm for a class that I had eagerly prepared for. I spent so much time searching for ways to get my students excited about the concepts they were learning. I wanted them to feel a connection to the lessons and come into my class motivated about what they were going to learn next. I would ask myself how I could make my class memorable where the kids were in the driver’s seat of learning. Incorporating engineering made this possible. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by NGSS Early Implementer

NGSS Early Implementer

In 2015 CSTA began to publish a series of articles written by teachers participating in the California NGSS k-8 Early Implementation Initiative. This article was written by an educator(s) participating in the initiative. CSTA thanks them for their contributions and for sharing their experience with the science teaching community.

State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Unveils Updated Recommended Literature List

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson unveiled an addition of 285 award-winning titles to the Recommended Literature: Prekindergarten Through Grade Twelve list.

“The books our students read help broaden their perspectives, enhance their knowledge, and fire their imaginations,” Torlakson said. “The addition of these award-winning titles represents the state’s continued commitment to the interests and engagement of California’s young readers.”

The Recommended Literature: Prekindergarten Through Grade Twelve list is a collection of more than 8,000 titles of recommended reading for children and adolescents. Reflecting contemporary and classic titles, including California authors, this online list provides an exciting range of literature that students should be reading at school and for pleasure. Works include fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and drama to provide for a variety of tastes, interests, and abilities. Learn More…

Written by Guest Contributor

From time to time CSTA receives contributions from guest contributors. The opinions and views expressed by these contributors are not necessarily those of CSTA. By publishing these articles CSTA does not make any endorsements or statements of support of the author or their contribution, either explicit or implicit. All links to outside sources are subject to CSTA’s Disclaimer Policy: http://www.classroomscience.org/disclaimer.

Teaching Science in the Time of Alternative Facts – Why NGSS Can Help (somewhat)

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Peter A’Hearn

The father of one of my students gave me a book: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walt Brown, Ph. D. He had heard that I was teaching Plate Tectonics and wanted me to consider another perspective. The book offered the idea that the evidence for plate tectonics could be better understood if we considered the idea that beneath the continent of Pangaea was a huge underground layer of water that suddenly burst forth from a rift between the now continents of Africa and South America. The waters shot up and the continents hydroplaned apart on the water layer to their current positions. The force of the movement pushed up great mountain ranges which are still settling to this day, resulting in earthquakes along the margins of continents. This had happened about 6,000 years ago and created a great worldwide flood. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Peter AHearn

Peter AHearn

Peter A’Hearn is the Region 4 Director for CSTA.