Journal of Science Teacher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uste20

Instructional Materials Designed for A Framework

for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation
Science Standards: An Introduction to the Special
Issue

Todd Campbell & Okhee Lee

To cite this article: Todd Campbell & Okhee Lee (2021) Instructional Materials Designed for
A�Framework�for�K-12�Science�Education and the Next Generation Science Standards: An
Introduction to the Special Issue, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32:7, 727-734, DOI:
10.1080/1046560X.2021.1975359

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1975359

Published online: 24 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2232

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uste20
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
2021, VOL. 32, NO. 7, 727–734
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1975359

Instructional Materials Designed for A Framework for K-12

Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards:
An Introduction to the Special Issue
a
Todd Campbell and Okhee Leeb
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA; bDepartment of
Teaching and Learning, New York University, New York, New York, USA

Introduction
At the time we are writing this editorial in the late summer of 2021, there is a consensus in
the field of science education in terms of its vision of science education. Since the release
of A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2012;
shortened to the Framework hereafter) and the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS; Next Generation Science Standards Lead States [NGSS], 2013a), the field of
science education has developed a consensus among research (e.g., the Framework
based on a series of NRC consensus reports), policy (NGSS based on the Framework),
and practice (implementation). Evidence of this consensus can be seen as 20 states and
DC adopted the NGSS and an additional 24 states developed their standards based on the
Framework (https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx). This national movement across states
represents a departure from more independent state-level efforts around standards docu­
ments prior to the Framework and the NGSS.
The challenge involves implementation of the vision of science education. Based on the
consensus around the Framework and the NGSS, teachers need resources (e.g., curriculum,
professional development) to support implementation. The science education community has
been undertaking the development of high-quality instructional materials to support classroom
instruction, while guidelines for developing NGSS-designed instructional materials only recently
emerged (Achieve Inc, 2016a, 2016b; Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 2019; Carnegie
Corporation of New York, 2017; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
[NASEM], 2018; see also OpenSciEd: https://www.openscied.org/). The need for high-quality
instructional materials is even more urgent given the growing recognition that instructional
materials must attend to student diversity and equity while also supporting teacher professional
learning. Because the vision of science education articulated in the Framework and the NGSS is
rigorous and informed by a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., scientists, science educators, policy­
makers), the science education community needs to examine how research-based instructional
materials can be enacted in the classroom and how teacher professional learning can be promoted
so that all students benefit from classroom instruction.
This special issue addresses research-based instructional materials designed for the
Framework and the NGSS with a focus on student diversity and equity and teacher
professional learning. As a result of learning beside and with the authors and peer reviewers

CONTACT Todd Campbell [email protected] University of Connecticut, 249 Glenbrook Rd, Unit 3033
Storrs, CT 06269-3033
© 2021 Association for Science Teacher Education
728 T. CAMPBELL AND O. LEE

of the feature articles and the authors of the commentaries, we identify the most salient
outcomes of the collective work in this special issue. We conclude with our recommenda­
tions for next steps in the science education community.

The design of instructional materials

To set the stage for this special issue, we describe the rationale and process for creating this
special issue and offer insights into what readers can expect from the four feature articles.
This is followed by a discussion of the common themes across the feature articles as well as
the differences that stand out.

Instructional materials as a research agenda

As the vision of science teaching and learning expressed in the Framework and the NGSS is
new and rigorous, instructional materials need to be guided by conceptual frameworks so
they accurately reflect this vision and are readily understood by researchers, curriculum
developers, teachers, and policymakers. This is important since instructional materials serve
as artifacts to illuminate the vision of the Framework and the NGSS and as essential resources
for guiding classroom instruction. In response to this demand for a new wave of instructional
materials, researchers have been developing new instructional materials in collaboration with
practitioners as critical partners. Instructional materials development takes the form of
scholarship that is grounded in multiple and alternative conceptual frameworks (i.e.,
research) to translate the standards (i.e., policy) for implementation (i.e., practice) in iterative
design cycles with teachers and students. This new form of scholarship is not confined to
traditional intervention models in which curriculum designers and researchers develop
materials in isolation. Instead, the new form of scholarship is developed in situ in schools
so that teachers’ knowledge and expertise are both leveraged as assets to inform curriculum
development and enhanced through collaboration in their local contexts.
For this special issue, the feature articles represent the work of four groups of researchers
who draw on the following conceptual frameworks as part of their ongoing research and
development: storyline instructional model (Reiser et al., this issue), project-based learning
(Miller et al., this issue), project-based learning and place-based learning with a focus on
English learners (Haas et al., this issue), and storyline instructional model implemented at
scale for OpenSciEd (Edelson et al., this issue).

Criteria for inviting authors of feature articles

The authors of the feature articles were invited because their instructional materials (a)
collectively represent a range of conceptual and pragmatic perspectives, (b) are developed
through extensive design and refinement cycles, (c) are awarded an NGSS Design Badge,1

1
NextGenScience awards a digital badge called the “NGSS Design Badge” to science units that have received the highest
rating on the Educators Evaluating the Quality of Instructional Products (EQuIP) Rubric for Science by
NextGenScience or its Science Peer Review Panel.
 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION 729

and (d) engage practitioners extensively as critical partners. These criteria led us to initially
invite six groups of authors to contribute. However, due to various circumstances, con­
tributions from two of the invited groups did not materialize.
While we recognize that a range of critical features are needed for the effective imple­
mentation of the NGSS (e.g., curriculum mapping, assessment), we asked authors across the
feature articles to limit the scope of their contributions. Each author group focused on the
purpose of their article, their conceptual framework for developing instructional materials,
the design principles that guided their work, the ways in which they addressed student
diversity and equity and teacher professional learning, and the implications of their work
for the implementation of the Framework and the NGSS.

Common themes and unique features

We have learned tremendously from the authors of the feature articles. In this section,
we focus on three salient topics: conceptual frameworks employed, student diversity
and equity, and teacher professional learning. For each topic, we discuss the common
themes across the feature articles as well as the unique features that stand out among
these articles.

Conceptual frameworks
Common across all conceptual frameworks in the feature articles is the importance of
framing the work of students as “figuring out” how to explain a phenomenon or solve
a problem, whether this meant engaging students in coherent storylines (i.e., Edelson et al.,
this issue; Reiser et al., this issue), place-based learning (Haas et al., this issue), or project-
based learning (Haas et al., this issue; Miller et al., this issue). While situating student
learning in the pursuit of explaining phenomena or solving problems seems well aligned
with the Framework and the NGSS, Quinn (this issue) notes that the Framework does not
explicitly discuss explaining phenomena as a central motivation for students’ engagement in
three-dimensional learning. Instead, the authors of the feature articles and other leaders in
science education recognize the importance of uncertainty around explaining phenomena
and solving problems as a critical motivator to engage in ‘figuring out.’ In addition to the
central role of phenomena and problems, other commonalities are evident, including how
students are supported to develop knowledge coherently over time and how students’ ideas
are elicited, built on, and refined across a unit of instruction.
When considering what stands out as unique with regard to conceptual frameworks,
Haas et al.’s (this issue) focus on both supporting and challenging English learners is
notable. They highlight that “more recent thinking in the field of second language
acquisition has taken a sociocultural turn . . . (re)conceptualize[ing] language as
a dynamic meaning-making resource for participation in social practice” and how,
“from this perspective, language learning occurs not as a precursor but as a product of
using language in interaction with others” (p. 738). While meaning-making is central to
all of the feature articles, what stands out about Haas et al.’s contribution is that the role of
language, especially for English learners, is primary (not secondary) and embedded (not
added on) in designing instructional materials.
730 T. CAMPBELL AND O. LEE

Student diversity and equity

When considering student diversity and equity, a common theme is how students’ interests
and identities are elevated as an equity focus in science education (Penuel et al., 2020). This
equity focus is exemplified by students’ interests being elicited through surveys, before
interest data are analyzed to account for the diverse backgrounds and interests of students
in relation to race and ethnicity, gender, and home language to identify compelling
candidate phenomena (Edelson et al., this issue; Reiser et al., this issue). In addition, across
all the feature articles, students’ identities are elicited to drive instruction and position them
as legitimate contributors to sensemaking of phenomena and problems.
While the feature article authors make explicit their attention to student diversity and
equity, as Tzou et al. (this issue) note in their commentary, more attention can be paid to
naming the equity discourses (Philip & Azevedo, 2017) in implementing the Framework
and the NGSS. Moreover, naming equity discourses better positions the science education
community to reach for less common equity discourses, such as those that broaden what
counts as science by legitimizing diverse ideologies and epistemologies that challenge
privileged forms of science (Discourse 3) and explore spaces in which science and social
movements intersect for social transformation and justice (Discourse 4).
What stands out among the feature articles is the tension related to designing for student
diversity while concurrently designing for scale. Edelson et al. (this issue) note that “the
scale at which we seek to bring about this transformation [i.e., where students engage in
three-dimensional learning] adds an additional challenge, not just because of the large
numbers, but because of the diversity in student populations . . . across American schools
today” (p. 782). The recognition of this tension better positions the science education
community to address these limitations, explore alternative decisions, and consider trade­
offs in addressing student diversity and equity while designing for scale. The tension is
magnified when Discourses 3 and 4 according to Philip and Azevedo (2017) are considered
in developing instructional materials to address student diversity and equity (Tzou et al.,
this issue) and when considering scale of implementation (Short, this issue).

Teacher professional learning

In alignment with the Framework’s calls (i.e., Chapter 10) to ensure that ample attention is
given to teacher professional learning in supporting implementation of the Framework and
the NGSS, all of the feature article authors pay close attention to the ways in which teacher
professional learning can be supported in connection to the instructional materials they
developed. They realize the need for teacher support closely aligned and mapped to the
important design principles of their instructional materials. For Edelson et al. (this issue),
this meant ensuring they included educative resources, such as callouts or “notes that
appear in the teacher materials for the purpose of providing teachers with guidance or
background information” (p. 787). For Reiser et al. (this issue), this meant developing and
supporting teachers with specific instructional routines (e.g., anchoring phenomenon
routine, problematizing routine) that teachers could implement to support progressions
of students’ sensemaking across their units.
What stood out as unique related to teacher professional learning is Miller et al.’s (this issue)
explicit attention to identifying design features and focusing on teacher professional learning in
developing, negotiating, and refining design principles and instructional materials. They
highlight how their instructional materials can (a) be productively adapted as teachers innovate
 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION 731

with these materials, (b) support teachers’ responsiveness to students’ cultures and ideas, and
(c) be enjoyable and intellectually satisfying for teachers to enact. Such close attention to the
professionalism of teachers by recognizing their experiences and expertise supports them in
negotiating the complex terrain of promoting student sensemaking in classrooms.

Insights from commentaries

After the feature articles were accepted for publication in this special issue, they were shared
with science education leaders representing a range of perspectives and roles in the science
education community so they could provide their commentaries about the collection of
feature articles. In making decisions about whom to invite to write commentaries, we
identified areas we deemed relevant to NGSS-designed instructional materials. This led to
us identifying each of the science education leaders we believed could help the science
education community to make sense of the features articles.
Similar to how we provided guidance for authors of the feature articles, we asked the
commentators to focus on the following: (a) their personal views on instructional materials
designed for the Framework and the NGSS, (b) the role of instructional materials in
attending to student diversity and equity and teacher professional learning to support
classroom instruction, and (c) insights about individual feature articles or the collection
of feature articles more generally.

Common themes and unique features

We appreciate the authors of the commentaries who provided thoughtful insights about the
feature articles. We discuss some of the common themes across the commentaries as well as
the unique observations that stand out among these commentaries.

Common themes across the commentaries

Common across the commentaries is an appreciation of both the complexity of the work the
contributing authors of the feature articles undertook and its importance for moving the vision
of the Framework and the NGSS closer to reality in science classrooms nationally. According to
Quinn (this issue), “The articles in this issue represent ground-breaking work to design and
develop research-based supports for the implementation of the vision of science education”
(p. 847). Other authors of the commentaries also agree that the development of curriculum
cannot be undertaken without promoting both teacher learning and student learning. Davis
(this issue) captures the ways in which the curriculum design takes account of the needs of
teacher learners. She highlights that Reiser et al. (this issue) stress the importance of supporting
teachers’ understanding of the instructional principles underlying the design of instructional
materials, while Edelson et al. (this issue) emphasize the importance of conveying “the rationale
for, and how one can enact, particular teaching practices or activities” (p. 837). Additionally,
there seems to be an agreement from the authors of the commentaries that the feature article
authors succeeded in beginning to “present ideas to create inclusive and engaging spaces for
science learning” (Verma & Douglas, this issue, p. 845).
732 T. CAMPBELL AND O. LEE

Unique observations from the commentaries

Given that each commentator brings unique and important perspectives, we only highlight
a few here that stand out with potential to drive the work beyond this special issue. Shelton
(this issue), Chief Learning Officer at the National Science Teaching Association, stresses
that “a common ground for the education community is to find ways to use the tremendous
progress made through this research agenda about what the vision of the Framework and
the NGSS looks like using high-quality instructional materials to meet teachers where they
are by establishing multiple access points along the continuum of ‘teacher sensemaking’”
(p. 855). She considers whether different entry points can be made for teachers depending
on where they are in their journey of implementing the Framework and the NGSS.
Tzou et al. (this issue) frame their commentary around the four discourses of equity proposed
by Philip and Azevedo (2017) described above. They describe that the feature articles address
Discourses 1 and 2 and that there remains a need to address Discourses 3 and 4. They present
Learning in Places to illustrate how Discourses 3 and 4 are at the core of their own work.
Short (this issue) considers the different dimensions of scale (i.e., depth, ownership,
spread, sustainability) put forth by Coburn (2003) and points to the ways in which the
feature articles demonstrate how depth of reform can influence classroom practice and how
ownership might be transferred from designers to teachers as the teachers use and adapt
instructional materials to meet students’ needs in local contexts. However, he also points
out that the feature articles have yet to address how scale relates to the spread of the
instructional materials or how any changes in classroom practice may be sustained over
time. Short proposes spread and sustainability as the next logical areas of focus in connect­
ing research, policy, and practice for implementation of the Framework and the NGSS.
Verma and Douglas (this issue) emphasize the importance of making science relevant to
students’ lives to advance science learning that is equitable and engaging for all students. They
propose capitalizing on students’ lived experiences across “various places and spaces, such as
school, family, communities, places of worship, internships/apprenticeships, [and] leisure”
(p. 843) both within and across formal and informal settings. While acknowledging the great
strides the feature article authors have already made in these areas, Verma and Douglas urge the
authors and the science education community broadly to build on strategies already explored to
“create less constrained and contested science learning spaces . . . that are inclusive of stake­
holder’s lived experiences, especially those of students” (p. 845).

Conclusion
The impetus for this special issue is the realization that development of NGSS-designed instruc­
tional materials cannot be subsumed into research in other areas or on other topics as tradition­
ally conceived. To illustrate the vision of the Framework and the NGSS and guide classroom
instruction, NGSS-designed instructional materials must be a research agenda in its own right.
As the science education community has undertaken the development of instructional materials
to bring this vision into science classrooms since the release of the Framework and the NGSS
about a decade ago, the purpose of this special issue is to take stock of the conceptual frameworks
and design principles guiding the development of exemplary instructional materials.
This special issue focuses on teacher professional leaning to attend to student diversity
and equity toward the goal of “all standards, all students” (NGSS, 2013b). Despite differ­
ences in their conceptual frameworks and the specific areas of focus in their instructional
 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION 733

materials, all the author teams highlight selecting phenomena and problems that are
compelling to all students. All the author teams also highlight teacher collaboration and
professional learning as central to iterative cycles of development, field testing, revision, and
refinement. As a result of addressing student diversity and equity and teacher professional
learning as two key factors for classroom instruction, the feature articles demonstrate that
NGSS-designed instructional materials can help teachers and teacher educators understand
what makes instructional materials high quality, how they can select and adapt these
materials, and how they can provide equitable instruction with diverse student groups
(Davis, this issue; Quinn, this issue).
The feature articles also reveal tensions and push the science education community to attend
to them. One such tension involves instructional materials that embody the vision of the
Framework and the NGSS but may not consider different entry points for teachers along
a continuum of teacher learning (Shelton, this issue). Another tension involves how to reach
multiple discourses of equity (Tzou et al., this issue) while also addressing different dimensions
of scale (Short, this issue). Still another tension involves capitalizing on students’ lived experi­
ences across various places and spaces both within and across formal and informal settings
(Verma & Douglas, this issue).
This special issue contributes to developing and implementing high-quality instructional
materials as a form of scholarship; connecting curriculum to classroom instruction for
student diversity and equity and teacher professional learning; and relating instructional
materials to research, policy, and practice broadly around the Framework and the NGSS. In
addition to continued efforts to develop instructional materials, the knowledge base from
this special issue offers suggestions for classroom implementation, assessment, professional
development, and impact on teacher professional learning and student learning outcomes.
We are grateful to the contributors of the feature articles and the commentaries as well as the
reviewers of the feature articles in this special issue. Ultimately, we are grateful to science
educators who are committed to developing and implementing high-quality instructional
materials for all students and their teachers.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Todd Campbell http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6844-5303

References
Achieve Inc. (2016a). EQuIP rubric for lessons & units: Science (Version 3.0). https://www.next
genscience.org/sites/default/files/EQuIPRubricforSciencev3.pdf
Achieve Inc. (2016b). Using phenomena in NGSS-designed lessons and units. https://www.next
genscience.org/sites/default/files/Using%20Phenomena%20in%20NGSS.pdf
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2019). NextGen time: Professional learning for next generation
science. https://nextgentime.org
734 T. CAMPBELL AND O. LEE

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2017). Instructional materials and implementation of Next
Generation Science Standards: Demand, supply, and strategic opportunities. https://media.carnegie.
org/filer_public/d4/0c/d40cfac7-2003-4820-b933-f404049596d1/ngss_report_carnegie_corp_72017.
pdf
Coburn, C. E., (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change.
Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032006003
Davis, E. A. (this issue). Commentary: Instructional materials supporting teachers’ professional learning.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 836–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1915606
Edelson, D. C., Reiser, B. J., McNeill, K. L., Mohan, A., Novak, M., Mohan, L., Affolter, R.,
McGill, T. A. W., Bukc Bracey, Z. E., Deutch Noll, J., Kowalski, S. M., Novak, D., Lo, A. S.,
Landel, C., Krumm, A., Penuel, W. R., Van Horne, K., González-Howard, M., & Suárez, E. (this
issue). Developing research-based instructional materials to support large-scale transformation of
science teaching and learning: The approach of the OpenSciEd middle school program. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 780–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1877457
Haas, A., Januszyk, R., Grapin, S. E., Goggins, M., Llosa, L., & Lee, O. (this issue). Developing instructional
materials aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards for all students, including English learners.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 735–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1827190
Miller, E. C., Severance, S., & Krajcik, J. (this issue). Motivating teaching, sustaining change in
practice: Design principles for teacher learning in project-based learning contexts. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 757–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1864099
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Design, selection, and imple­
mentation of instructional materials for the Next Generation Science Standards: Proceedings of
a workshop. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013a). Next Generation Science Standards: For
states, by states. National Academies of Science.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013b). Next Generation Science Standards: For
states, by states. Appendix D–All standards, all students: Making the NGSS accessible to all students.
https://www.nextgenscience.org/resources/ngss-appendices
Penuel, W., Lo, A., & Wingert, K. (2020). Preparing teachers to design tasks to support, engage, and
assess science learning in rural schools. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/award
search/showAward?AWD_ID=2010086
Philip, T. M., & Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested
terrain. Science Education, 101(4), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286
Quinn, H. (this issue). Commentary: The role of curriculum resources in promoting effective and
equitable science learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 847–851. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1046560X.2021.1897293
Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., McGill, T. A. W., & Penuel, W. R. (this issue). Storyline units: An
instructional model to support coherence from the students’ perspective. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 32(7), 805–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1884784
Shelton, T. (this issue). Commentary: Developing NGSS-designed instructional materials with tea­
chers “at the table.” Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1046560X.2021.1942640
Short, J. B. (this issue). Commentary: Making progress on curriculum reform in science education
through purposes, policies, programs, and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7),
830–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1927309
Tzou, C., Bang., M., & Bricker, L. (this issue). Commentary: Designing science instructional materials
that contribute to more just, equitable, and culturally thriving learning and teaching in science
education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 858–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1046560X.2021.1964786
Verma, G., & Douglas, H. (this issue). Commentary: Intellectual virtues, lived experiences, and
engaged science learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 842–846. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1046560X.2021.1932316