WASHINGTON -- A new report released today by the National Research Council offers guidance to district and school leaders and teachers on necessary steps for putting the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) into practice over the next decade and beyond. The committee that wrote the report drew on A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, a 2011 Research Council report that served as the foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards. These standards are informed by research findings that emphasize that science and engineering involve both knowing and doing; that developing rich, conceptual understanding is more productive for future learning than simply memorizing discrete facts; and learning experiences should be designed with coherent progressions over multiple years.

"The NGSS present a vision of science and engineering learning that brings these subjects alive for all students, emphasizing the satisfaction of pursuing compelling questions and the joy of discovery and invention," said Helen Quinn, committee chair and professor emerita of particle physics and astrophysics at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center at Stanford University. "While 13 states and the District of Columbia have already adopted the NGSS, achieving this vision in all science classrooms will be a major undertaking and will require changes to many aspects of science education."

The committee's recommendations cover the major elements of the education system that should be considered when implementing the NGSS, including:

Along with an understanding of the vision described in the framework, the committee identified the following seven principles by which implementation of the NGSS should be guided:

###

The study was sponsored by the National Science Foundation, College Board, and Burroughs-Wellcome Fund. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, independent nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter granted in 1863. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. For more information, visit http://www.national-academies.org. A committee roster follows.

Contacts

Dana Korsen, Media Officer

Christina Anderson, Media Assistant Office of News and Public Information 202-334-2138 e-mail news@nas.edu

http://national-academies.org/newsroom

See the original post:
Requirements of implementing next generation science standards

Human behavior did not cause this climate change. Instead, climate warming caused behavioral change (10 million mouths to feed became 30 million).

Shutterstock

Enlarge photo

WASHINGTON

We know, because they often say so, that those who think catastrophic global warming is probable and perhaps imminent are exemplary empiricists. They say those who disagree with them are "climate change deniers" disrespectful of science.

Actually, however, something about which everyone can agree is that of course the climate is changing it always is. And if climate Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim to be about weighing evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human activity? Before wagering vast wealth and curtailments of liberty on correcting the climate, two recent books should be considered.

In "The Third Horseman: Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century," William Rosen explains how Europe's "most widespread and destructive famine" was the result of "an almost incomprehensibly complicated mixture of climate, commerce, and conflict, four centuries in gestation." Early in that century, 10 percent of the population from the Atlantic to the Urals died, partly because of the effect of climate change on "the incredible amalgam of molecules that comprises a few inches of soil that produces the world's food."

In the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), from the end of the ninth century to the beginning of the 14th, the Northern Hemisphere was warmer than at any time in the last 8,000 years for reasons concerning which there is no consensus. Warming increased the amount of arable land there were vineyards in northern England leading, Rosen says, to Europe's "first sustained population increase since the fall of the Roman Empire." The need for land on which to grow cereals drove deforestation. The MWP population explosion gave rise to towns, textile manufacturing and new wealthy classes.

Then, near the end of the MWP, came the severe winters of 1309-1312, when polar bears could walk from Greenland to Iceland on pack ice. In 1315 there was rain for perhaps 155 consecutive days, washing away topsoil. Upwards of half the arable land in much of Europe was gone; cannibalism arrived as parents ate children. Corpses hanging from gallows were devoured.

Human behavior did not cause this climate change. Instead, climate warming caused behavioral change (10 million mouths to feed became 30 million). Then climate cooling caused social changes (rebelliousness and bellicosity) that amplified the consequences of climate, a pattern repeated four centuries later.

Go here to read the rest:
George F. Will: History shows how human behavior changes along with climate

Noninvasive brain scans, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, have led to basic science discoveries about the human brain, but they've had only limited impacts on people's day-to-day lives. A review article published in the January 7 issue of the Cell Press journal Neuron, however, highlights a number of recent studies showing that brain imaging can help predict an individual's future learning, criminality, health-related behaviors, and response to drug or behavioral treatments. The technology may offer opportunities to personalize educational and clinical practices.

Dr. John Gabrieli of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and his colleagues describe the predictive power of brain imaging across a variety of different future behaviors, including infants' later performance in reading, students' later performance in math, criminals' likelihood of becoming repeat offenders, adolescents' future drug and alcohol use, and addicts' likelihood of relapse.

"Presently, we often wait for failure, in school or in mental health, to prompt attempts to help, but by then a lot of harm has occurred," says Dr. Gabrieli. "If we can use neuroimaging to identify individuals at high risk for future failure, we may be able to help those individuals avoid such failure altogether."

The authors also point to the clear ethical and societal issues that are raised by studies attempting to predict individuals' behavior. "We will need to make sure that knowledge of future behavior is used to personalize educational and medical practices, and not be used to limit support for individuals at higher risk of failure," says Dr. Gabrieli. "For example, rather than simply identifying individuals to be more or less likely to succeed in a program of education, such information could be used to promote differentiated education for those less likely to succeed with the standard education program."

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Cell Press. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

See more here:
Brain imaging may help predict future behavior