Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Chemistry in Past and New Science Frameworks and Standards: Gains, Losses, and Missed Opportunities Vicente Talanquer*,† and Hannah Sevian*,‡ †
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, United States Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts 02125, United States
‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Science education frameworks and standards play a central role in the development of curricula and assessments, as well as in guiding teaching practices in grades K−12. Recently, the National Research Council published a new Framework for K−12 Science Education that has guided the development of the Next Generation Science Standards. In this paper, we discuss what we see as critical gains, losses, and missed opportunities in the representation of chemistry in these new documents compared to the previous National Science Education Standards. The goal is to facilitate the comparative analysis of these two documents from a chemistry perspective, and elicit issues that we judge demand greater discussion and reflection among chemistry educators.
KEYWORDS: General Public, Curriculum
■
INTRODUCTION National and state science education frameworks and standards have played a critical role in guiding the development and implementation of secondary school chemistry curricula and assessments in the past 20 years. Documents such as the Benchmarks for Science Literacy1 and the National Science Education Standards2 have helped define the minimum understandings that scientifically literate individuals are expected to develop during their school years. These frameworks and standards have influenced not only the work of multiple science teachers in classrooms across the United States, but also the research programs of many investigators interested in science education issues in grades K−12. One can expect that the recently published Framework for K−12 Science Education3 and the associated Next Generation Science Standards4 will have a similar influence on education policy, practice, and research in years to come, particularly given the commitment of many states in the United States to adopt these documents as core educational guidelines for the teaching of science. Policy documents such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph are insightful, thoughtful, and carefully crafted texts built by taking into account the nature of the subject matter to be addressed, the results from years of science education research in different disciplines, the needs and views of diverse stakeholders, and the various contextual factors that may affect the implementation of ideas. They are genuine attempts to provide a solid and coherent framework for the advancement of science education in elementary and secondary schools. However, they are not immune to the influence of dominant © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
schools of thought in education at the time in which they are developed, personal conceptions held by the writers about what concepts and ideas are important to learn, conventional approaches to the organization and conceptualization of school science content, and relevant social and political concerns of our times (e.g., climate change, energy demands).5 As chemistry educators, we find the analysis of how chemistry knowledge is conceptualized, portrayed, and outlined in these documents rather enlightening.6,7 On the one hand, it helps us challenge, reinforce, or reshape our own views about core ideas and relationships in school chemistry. On the other hand, it supports our work with preservice and inservice chemistry teachers and school district science departments, helps ground our teaching of undergraduate chemistry courses, and orients our work with graduate students in chemistry education research, as it allows us to highlight what we see as strengths or weaknesses in the representation, integration, and elaboration of central concepts in the discipline. These educational benefits motivate us to present a critical comparative analysis of the two frameworks for the teaching of chemistry as represented by the National Science Education Standards (NSES) on the one hand, and the recent Framework for K−12 Science Education (FSE) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) on the other. Our goal is to highlight and discuss what we see as critical gains, losses, and missed opportunities in the representation of chemistry as we replace one framework with the other.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400134c | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 1. Core Chemistry Concepts and Ideas Included in the NSES Organized in Different Dimensions for Each Grade Band
a
See ref 2. bDisciplinary core ideas that are explicitly stated in the NSES, but not in the FSE−NGSS, are shown in italics in this table.
■
We have chosen to focus our analysis of the scientific disciplinary core ideas described in the FSE and used by the developers of the NGSS to define specific performance expectations. These disciplinary core ideas define the fundamental scientific understandings that students are expected to develop as they build across the grade bands. We recognize that our decision sets aside the analysis of critical sections of the FSE−NGSS related to science and engineering practices and crosscutting concepts. We also acknowledge that analysis of performance expectation in the NGSS is needed to fairly evaluate the levels of understanding that are actually targeted. However, our primary intent in this contribution is to help K−12 teachers more easily identify major similarities and differences in the presentation and elaboration of chemistry disciplinary core ideas in the NSES and the FSE−NGSS. We hope this will foster awareness of areas that may be readily found in future NGSS-aligned resources and of areas that may need to be reinforced by teachers and school districts that have the flexibility to supplement and enrich their chemistry curricula. Thus, we present this analysis of chemistry disciplinary core ideas as a resource for K−12 teachers and curriculum developers to serve them in their decision-making about curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
CHEMISTRY IN THE NSES AND THE FSE/NGSS: ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS
Core Ideas and Concepts
The majority of the core chemistry ideas included in the NSES and FSE−NGSS can be found under the physical science category in the content standards section.2−4 We have organized a summary of these ideas into different groups in Table 1 (NSES) and Table 2 (FSE−NGSS), trying to elicit major levels (e.g., macroscopic, molecular, subatomic) and dimensions (e.g., composition, structure, energy, time) of the chemistry knowledge about substances and processes associated with different grade bands. The selection of levels and dimensions in these tables is greatly influenced by the work of Jensen8 on the structure of chemistry knowledge.9 To aid in seeing differences, disciplinary core ideas that are explicitly stated in one document but not in the others are shown in italics. Phrasing of core ideas in the tables is taken from the corresponding documents, either in whole or paraphrased to fit them in the available space. The organization in Tables 1 and 2 is useful because it elicits progressions of ideas from one grade level to another, as well as gaps in the elaboration of some concepts. It also facilitates the comparison between the chemistry content included in the two documents under analysis. This organization reveals, for B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400134c | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 2. Core Chemistry Concepts and Ideas Included in the FSE and NGSS Organized in Different Dimensions for Each Grade Band
a
See ref 3. bSee ref 4. cDisciplinary core ideas that are explicitly stated in the FSE−NGSS, but not in the NSES, are shown in italics in this table.
some core macroscopic concepts in chemistry (e.g., pure substance, element, chemical equilibrium, reaction rate) may be as challenging as making sense of electron distributions and nuclear processes.9 As the implementation of NGSS begins, we recommend teachers consider ways to foster and encourage the exploration and discussion of these abstract macroscopic concepts also at the high school level.
example, a significant overlap in the core chemical concepts and ideas included in the NSES and the more recent FSE−NGSS. In both cases, the exploration of the macroscopic properties of different types of materials and substances is the main focus of the work in the elementary grades, while the analysis and application of atomic and molecular models of matter becomes central to the work at the secondary school level. Core ideas about chemical changes along the matter, energy, and time dimensions span most of the same concepts.
Progression of Ideas about the Structure of Matter
The analysis of Tables 1 and 2 reveals some noticeable differences between the two documents. For example, introduction of ideas related to the particulate and molecular models of matter has been moved to earlier grades in the FSE− NGSS. There is the expectation in the FSE−NGSS that students in grades 3−5 will begin to consider the existence of particles of matter that are too small to see. In general, a clearer and more coherent progression of ideas about the structure of matter is articulated in the FSE−NGSS than in the NSES. This better definition and elaboration of learning pathways can be found in other areas in Table 2, such as states of matter, phase changes, chemical changes, and matter and energy issues in chemical reactions (notice that there are fewer gaps along different dimensions in moving from one level to another in Table 2 compared to Table 1). This improvement reflects the influence of recent research in the field of learning progressions10 in the elaboration of the FSE and associated NGSS. However, those who will use the NGSS should realize
Macroscopic versus Submicroscopic Levels of Analysis
The NSES and the FSE−NGSS share the assumption that progression in the understanding of chemistry ideas should evolve from the exploration of the perceptible, macroscopic properties and behaviors of chemical substances, through the analysis of particulate and molecular models of matter, to the description, explanation, and prediction of structure−property relationships based on the existence of subatomic components. The association between a given grade band and specific levels of analysis (i.e., macro, molecular, subatomic) seems more strict in the FSE−NGSS than in the NSES. The NSES includes the exploration of important macroscopic concepts up to grades 9− 12 (e.g., types of substances and reactions, catalysis, energy dispersal), in contrast to the FSE−NGSS, which only focuses on molecular and subatomic characterizations at that grade band. Too tight a link between level of description and level of schooling could be problematic given that the understanding of C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400134c | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
that the standards fail to provide well-outlined progressions in the understanding of chemical composition, structure−property relationships, and time-related issues in chemical processes. An example of how to fill in some of these gaps, based on our own work-in-progress on learning progressions in chemistry,11,12 is presented in the Supporting Information. One of the major changes in the FSE−NGSS when compared to the NSES in the area of chemistry is the strong emphasis that the FSE−NGSS puts on the development of indepth understanding of the kinetic−molecular model of matter as a tool to describe, explain, and predict general properties of matter and its physical and chemical transformations. This is particularly noticeable in the presentation of ideas about the formation of new substances and energy transfer in chemical processes (see bottom section in Table 2). However, the strong focus on the kinetic−molecular model seems to come with a trade-off: The de-emphasis of chemical models and classification systems to describe, explain, predict, and control the specific properties and behaviors of classes of substances and reactions.
composed of many particles, energy dispersal into different microstates often determines system stability.13 Many stable states of important chemical systems in our world are not those in which the electric and magnetic field energy is minimized (as implied by one of the core ideas summarized in Table 2), but those in which the number of available configurations is maximized. Presentation of ideas related to chemical energy in the FSE− NGSS is mostly focused on understanding “conservation of energy” as an explanatory principle. However, discussions about energy transfer and dispersal in chemistry are mostly relevant for making predictions about and controlling reaction directionality and extent. One may claim that these ideas are too complex to be included in a K−12 framework for science education. However, there is solid evidence in educational research that shows that young students can develop sophisticated understandings about complex systems and phenomena.14,15 In fact, given the importance in our world of complex systems in which energy dispersal (i.e., entropy) effects are critical (e.g., dissolution of gases and solids in rivers and lakes, acidification of our oceans, structure of proteins in our body), it is surprising that this core idea has been eliminated from our major educational framework. It is our recommendation that chemistry teachers, particularly middle and high school teachers, who have the flexibility to supplement and enrich their chemistry curricula, consider including opportunities for students to explore how ideas about energy transfer and dispersal can be used to explain, predict, and control chemical processes.
Missing Chemical Concepts
Chemical thinking strongly relies on models that link classes of substances (e.g., salts, acids, hydrocarbons) and behaviors (e.g., acid strength, oxidation potential) to specific compositional and structural features at the submicroscopic level. These ideas are critical in making sense of the properties of substances (e.g., polymers, fertilizers, medicines) and processes (e.g., acidification, corrosion, combustion) that scientifically literate citizens should be expected to understand. A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 clearly shows that references to specific types of substances (e.g., carbon compounds) and chemical processes (e.g., acid−base, redox), originally included in the NSES, are not present in the FSE−NGSS. Moreover, there is no explicit reference to the concept of molecular structure and its relationship to macroscopic properties. One may infer that such content may emerge from the elaboration of general ideas included in Table 2, such as “Substances react chemically in characteristic ways” or “The structure and properties of matter are determined by electrical forces within and between atoms”. However, the FSE−NGSS does not provide guidance on how those core understandings may be progressively built across different grades. Further elaboration in these areas will depend on chemistry teachers’ knowledge of these core ideas, decisions about what to emphasize in their own teaching, and influence on colleagues to address these critical chemistry ideas in the biological and earth sciences domains. Given the clear connection of these ideas to scientific literacy, as noted above, it may be argued that the development of these concepts is necessary in order to achieve “college and career readiness” goals of the NGSS, as tentatively indicated in the public comment draft in January, 2013. To conclude this section, we would like to highlight another change in moving from the NSES to the FSE−NGSS that is relevant to chemistry. The new framework does not include references to the effects of energy transfer on energy dispersal in a system. Although some people may judge this a minor change, we would argue that it represents a major missed opportunity. Energy transfer (i.e., enthalpy changes) and energy dispersal (i.e., entropy changes) can be thought of as the major drivers for physical and chemical changes in multiparticle systems. As important as it is to understand energy changes in chemical processes, it is also critical to recognize that in systems
■
GENERAL DISCUSSION From our perspective, the selection of the chemical concepts and ideas included in both the NSES and the FSE−NGSS is constrained by a variety of factors. For example, members of a team of writers may have strong personal views about what ideas are central to the discipline or are important in the education of all citizens. Traditional ways of organizing school subjects, available instructional materials, and existing teacher licensure policies are likely to guide perceptions of what can be introduced or accomplished at different grade levels. Recognizing the existence of such constraining influences is important because it helps us characterize the scope and limitations of the proposed guidelines. In particular, we elaborate on what we see as two major constraining factors in the representation of chemistry in both documents under analysis. Chemistry as a Physical Science
School chemistry is often characterized as a “physical science” and grouped together with physics in elementary and middle school science curricula. Although chemistry is generally offered as an independent course at the high school level, the two documents organize traditional science content knowledge into three major areas: biological sciences, earth sciences, and physical sciences. Unfortunately, this constraint shortchanges the representation of some central chemical concepts and ideas. The reasons for what we perceive as an uneven treatment of chemistry concepts versus those central to the understanding of physics, biology, or earth sciences may be various. It may be that developers judge that core chemistry ideas can be explained in terms of physics concepts (a reductionist view16). It could be that the understanding of physical, biological, or earth science principles is seen as more critical and relevant for the preparation of scientifically literate D
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400134c | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
individuals. It may be the case that chemistry knowledge is seen as distributed and reinforced in different areas (e.g., earth and life sciences). Whatever the reasons may be for the underdevelopment of important chemical ideas in the FSE−NGSS, chemistry educators should carefully assess the educational consequences of this lack of conceptual elaboration as they engage in course planning. For example, the core ideas included in the physical science section of the FSE−NGSS3,4 make no reference to, and fail to elaborate on what we judge to be fundamental concepts in chemistry, such as chemical bonding, molecular structure, and acidity. This issue may be a burden for chemistry teachers who will have to make decisions about depth and breadth of coverage for these important concepts, but it could introduce desirable flexibility into the curriculum for teachers who are open to this challenge.
references to the structure of macromolecules in the life sciences without explicit exploration of the concept of molecular structure in the physical sciences). There is a danger that this disconnection may restrict opportunities to build deep and coherent chemical understandings across different grade bands. Therefore, we feel it is critically important for science teachers to consider opportunities to emphasize central aspects of chemical knowledge, as well as the productive and transformative nature of chemistry, in the three disparate science domains in which they may rest in both the FSE and their translation into the NGSS. The formation of interdisciplinary teams of science teachers during planning and implementation of the NGSS may help avoid many of these potential problems.
■
CONCLUDING COMMENTS The comparative analysis we have presented makes evident positive changes in the transition from the NSES to the FSE− NGSS in the area of chemistry knowledge, mostly associated with a more detailed and coherent elaboration of progression of ideas about the kinetic−molecular model of matter. The development of such understandings is certainly necessary if we want students to make sense of the properties and behaviors of substances in our world across multiple domains. Focusing on the application of the kinetic−molecular model of matter to explain and predict the properties and behavior of diverse types of systems (biological, geological, physical) may facilitate the development of coherent educational approaches for the teaching of chemistry that emphasize depth over breadth of coverage. It also opens opportunities for students to apply a powerful model across multiple disciplines, thereby facilitating a focus on crosscutting concepts, which is a major change intended by the FSE−NGSS. However, as chemistry educators, we must acknowledge that both the NSES and FSE−NGSS fall short of fully representing the nature and power of chemical knowledge. From our perspective, actual chemical thinking begins when we are forced to go beyond the kinetic−molecular model of matter to explain the diversity of substances in our world, control their behavior, and create new materials. Chemical knowledge becomes relevant when modeling matter as composed of particles devoid of identity is inadequate to explain the behavior of real substances; when subtle changes in molecular composition and structure have dramatic consequences in observable properties; when recognizing different classes of substances and reactions becomes a powerful tool for prediction and decision making; and when the motivation for exploring materials extends beyond explaining their behavior to actually controlling it and creating new types of matter. The power of chemical thinking is based on a fine balance between the application of general models about the structure of matter and rather specific knowledge about the properties of classes of substances and processes. Unfortunately, this balance is not present in past and current science education frameworks. Therefore, it is critical for chemistry educators to reflect carefully on how to best build it into their courses. It is clearly important to prepare scientifically literate graduates from K−12 who are either college or career ready (or both), and who can understand and operate daily in the world around us. While modern materials have transformed how we live, have increased the quality of human life, and are at the foundation of today’s economies, they also have opened environmental, societal, and economic problems that the
Chemistry as a Conventional Science
The representation of core chemistry ideas in the educational policy documents under analysis is also constrained by the conceptualization of our discipline as a conventional science mainly interested in describing, explaining, and predicting the properties of chemical substances and processes.17 This traditional view of chemistry has been challenged in recent years by a variety of philosophers and historians who highlight the “technoscientific” character of the chemical enterprise.18 Throughout history, a majority of chemical scientists have worked in different industry sectors, developing new substances or designing new synthetic and analytical processes with practical applications.19 Analysis of the goals and practices of synthetic and analytical chemists reveals many commonalities with those of engineers engaged in design reasoning.20 This practical, socially relevant face of chemistry is barely visible in the documents under analysis, even in the FSE−NGSS, which includes disciplinary core ideas for technology, engineering, and applications of science. The inattention to the productive and transformative aspects of chemistry has a significant impact on both the core concepts and ideas that are discussed in these documents, and how they are framed. For example, the physical science section of the FSE−NGSS3,4 does not refer to fundamental chemistry activities such as chemical synthesis and analysis, to chemical products that have revolutionized our way of living, such as polymers and medicines, or to major classes of substances, like hydrocarbons, that sustain fundamental chemical industries and whose uses are linked to some of the major environmental problems that we face in modern times. Contextualizing and bringing relevance into the chemistry curriculum will, therefore, heavily rely on individual teachers’ knowledge and planning decisions. It may certainly be claimed that relevant chemistry-related topics such as photosynthesis, cell respiration, proteins, nucleic acids, water properties, minerals, or elemental cycles in our planet are commonly represented in the areas of life and earth sciences. However, these concepts are introduced and discussed in the context of building learning progressions about core biological or geological ideas, not about fundamental chemical understandings. Additionally, chemistry knowledge is used in these various contexts as an explanatory and predictive tool, not as a powerful way of controlling, transforming, and designing our world. The major concern here is not so much about limited coverage of chemistry topics, as it is about potential disconnection and misalignment between chemical ideas targeted in diverse areas at different grade levels (e.g., E
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400134c | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
general public must confront. Our future depends on an informed citizenry that makes responsible decisions and executes deliberate action based on chemical thinking about properties of classes of substances and chemical processes. To accomplish these goals in the area of chemistry, implementation of the NGSS will require the development of educational resources that provide clear examples of how to best integrate authentic chemistry practices with core chemical ideas. The FSE and NGSS have many educational strengths that we certainly recognize. These include the explicit attempt to integrate content, science and engineering practices, and interdisciplinary thinking, as well as the strong emphasis on modeling and argumentation as tools for building understandings. We also realize that some concepts judged to be important by different educators will always be left out from any effort to create educational frameworks that promote meaningful learning and in-depth understanding of core ideas. Some of these ideas will be presented in general ways as to provide flexibility to curriculum developers and teachers who must translate such educational guidelines into actual learning experiences. But the absence of core chemistry concepts, or their lack of definition in the FSE−NGSS, may become a barrier for desired educational change without carefully developed guidance for teachers on how best to engage students with ideas that teachers who have training in chemistry are likely to deem important. We know that curricular choices are often difficult and influenced by many factors. However, as chemistry educators, we question the detailed elaboration of concepts and ideas related to, for example, nuclear processes and wave phenomena in the FSE−NGSS, compared to the lack of discussion of types of substances and chemical processes. Certainly we live in a time in which recognizing sources of nuclear energy is important, as well as understanding the physical basis for widespread information technologies. But we also live in a world in which most energy used by humans is produced through redox processes involving specific classes of substances, most biological and geological environments involve acid−base reactions, most environmental problems are caused by specific types of chemical products, and most technological devices are built with widely used classes of synthetic materials designed in chemical laboratories.21 We encourage future curriculum development efforts to devote more attention to progressively building the underlying chemical understandings that make chemistry such a relevant enterprise in the 21st century. Our own efforts in the development of a learning progression in chemical thinking are geared in such direction.11 We hope that the analysis presented here will aid chemistry educators and curriculum developers in exploiting the strengths of the FSE and associated NGSS, and in filling in the gaps to better engage students in authentic chemical thinking.22
■
Article
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
*E-mail:
[email protected]. *E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the funding sources, U.S. NSF awards DRL-1221494 and DRL-1222624, that support our collaboration. We would also like to thank Jacob Foster, of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the reviewers of this paper for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. Any opinions, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding sources.
■
REFERENCES
(1) American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for Science Literacy; Oxford University Press: Washington, DC, 1993. (2) National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (3) National Research Council. A Framework for K−12 Science Education; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2012. (4) NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2013. (5) Foster, J.; Wiser, M. In Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions; Alonzo, A. C., Gotwals, A. W., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Chapter 18, pp 435−459. (6) American Chemical Society. Chemistry in the National Science Education Standards; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997. (7) Lowery-Bretz, S., Ed. Chemistry and the National Science Educations Standards, 2nd ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. (8) Jensen, W. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 679−687. (9) Talanquer, V. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 179−195. (10) Alonzo, A. C.; Gotwals, A. W., Eds. Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. (11) Sevian, H.; Talanquer, V. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, DOI: 10.1039/C3RP00111C. (12) Sevian, H.; Talanquer, V.; Bulte, A. M. W.; Stacy, A.; Claesgens, J. M. In 9th ESERA Conference Selected Contributions: Topics and Trends in Current Science Education; Tiberghien, A., Bruguière, C., Clément, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, 2013. (13) Lambert, F. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 187−192. (14) Penner, D. E. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37 (8), 784−806. (15) Jacobson, M. J.; Wilensky, U. J. Learn. Sci. 2006, 15 (1), 11−34. (16) Erduran, S. Sci. & Educ. 2001, 10 (6), 581−593. (17) Talanquer, V. Sci. & Educ. 2013, 22 (7), 1757−1773. (18) Bensaude-Vincent, B.; Simon, J. Chemistry: The Impure Science; Imperial College Press: London, U.K., 2008. (19) Klein, U. Perspect. Sci. 2005, 13 (2), 226−266. (20) Samarapungavan, A.; Westby, E. L.; Bodner, G. M. Sci. Educ. 2006, 90, 468−495. (21) National Research Council. Beyond the Molecular Frontier: Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2003. (22) Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 74− 83.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
Detailed description of what the authors judge as missing, or weakly elaborated, core chemistry concepts and ideas in the new FSE−NGSS, based on the authors’ work-in-progress on learning progressions in chemistry. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org. F
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400134c | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
