Week 3: Exploring NGSS

 I am applying standard MS-PS2-5 to the magnet lesson. 

Part 1: Performance Expectations

The performance expectation states that students that understand the material can "Conduct an investigation and evaluate the experimental design to provide evidence that fields exist between objects exerting forces on each other even through the objects are not in contact."

• I find that the expectations of the students are very clear. It is saying that students should be able to set up and perform an experiment that tests the force interaction as a result of magnet, electric and gravitational fields and be able to interpret the data to explain what happens in their experiment. Basically it is asking the teacher to set up a lesson where students can explore and test the concept of forces that act at a distance and see how they affect other objects. 
• I feel that the standards are very straight forward and the SEPs, DCIs and CCCs are set in stone with little room for interpretation, but the area that is open to interpretation is how you implement the standard in the classroom. I believe this because the 3D components are very clear over what needs to be addressed, but I can see many different ways to test these ideas and every student will have their own way. This is why I see the implementation in the classroom as up to interpretation, but not the standard itself. 

Part 2: Integration of the Three Dimensions

• I think that by inclusion of all three components students learn the material in a hands on manner. If we are looking into the idea of how we learn by just teaching the DCI we are trying to copy and paste the idea into student's heads, while by including the SEPs and CCCs we are having them experience and develop their own theories on the DCI through the SEP and CCC. In general, it sets up an inquiry based classroom.
• To be honest I feel that the connections between the DCI, SEP and CCC for this standard are very intertwined. to understand the DCI alone you have to have an understanding of cause and effect, because that is a large component of the DCI in general. the SEP is just how are we getting the information to see this cause and effect relationship.
• I don't see how a student would have not mastered the DCI without the CCC or SEP. Like I mentioned above if you couldn't understand a cause and effect relationship then there is no way you could understand how forces effect objects, because that is a cause and effect relationship. As for the SEPs to be able to see and understand this cause and effect relationship you need to see at a minimum how this idea came to be to understand the concept and as a result you are being exposed to how the investigation into this relationship occurred.  As a result you need to know the SEP to be able to see the CCC and therefore understand the DCI. 

* UPDATE: In my mind mastery is understanding the concept for what the student needs, at least in the context of this question that is how I interpreted it. After class and exploring what mastery is this may not be the best word to describe my thinking and mastery really can't be achieved, because there is always room for improvement and growth. Just think about science in general, even science is evolving and changing and has not mastered an explanation of our world. 

Part 3: Achievability and Preparedness

• I would say that a student that can achieve this expectation would be better prepared for college and success in their careers better than those that can't. I feel that this standard is written in a way where students learn how to obtain answers to their own questions and those that can do that can apply the ideas to other subjects and life situations, such as college or careers. 
• I feel that this is a reasonable expectation for middle school students. You are essentially asking them to play around with some materials, see what happens and interpret results. Even in elementary school in science class we rolled tinker toys down ramps and observed what happened. If a first or second grader can do that a middle schooler should be able to do that and create a more formal test.
• I feel that the DCI is a reasonable expectation for all students. I feel that it is so based in observation of what is happening in front of the student that they can interpret and see this concept in front of them. 
• The CCC is also reasonable. cause and effect is something we start to interact with even before we reach elementary school. For example, learning not to touch a hot stove because you burn yourself when you touch it is and example of a cause and effect relationship a young kid may interact with in their day to day life. I feel that this relationship is seen across subjects. I especially see it in Social Studies education. 

Part 4: Instructional Implications of the Performance Expectations

• I would say that in my mind the performance expectations is written in a way that pushes me to set up a lab or investigation, or a more inquiry base lesson, but I can also see how this could also be taught through reading about scientist's experiments related to this topic. I think there is a freedom for the teacher to choose the instructional strategies or sequences that best meets the needs of their learners. I do think that inquiry is better than reading about it though. The kids will have more fun with it and it will stick in their mind betters, because they deem it more important.
• I don't think that performance expectations should prescribe specific instructional sequences and strategies. Every learner is different and some do not learn well through reading and lectures, but some students do. I believe that teachers need to be able to have the freedom to adapt lessons to the needs of the students in each class and by establishing strict guidelines in instruction this can make it so teachers can't meet the needs of their learners.