The Inquiry Hub Model: Foregrounding Equity in the Co-Design of Next Generation Science Standards Curriculum

• In Event: 68.017 - Equity-Focused Implementation of Next Generation Science Standards: Exploring Models of Hope and Possibility

Abstract

Objectives
This poster describes the Inquiry Hub model for co-design and implementation of NGSS curriculum. The model employs three strategies to expand student agency: (1) linking the unit to larger community initiatives; (2) eliciting student interests in exploring different phenomena; and (3) using data on student perspectives on the design challenge and their classroom experiences. We describe how this model systematically promotes equity from ideation to design to implementation of curriculum and present results from field trials of a high school biology curriculum within a large and diverse urban district.
Perspectives
Curriculum materials that expand student agency can positively influence student affect, interests, and learning (Morozov et al., 2014). Enabling students to make their own connections between curriculum and issues relevant to their interests and lives positively influences the perceived utility values of their learning experiences, with lower performing students benefiting most (Hulleman, et al, 2010). In the context of research-practice partnerships, co-design aims to transform the historical relationships of authority for designing curriculum materials while expanding student agency and learning opportunities (Penuel, 2014). Our aim is to develop responsive co-design methods for holding collaborative design teams of researchers, teachers, and teacher leaders accountable for transforming the agency of diverse students.
Methods
Researchers with expertise in learning, curriculum, science education, and educational technology co-designed two high school biology units with students, teachers, and administrators from Denver Public Schools that support the Framework for K - 12 Science Education. Following a design-based implementation research method, each unit is being iteratively designed, field tested in DPS, and revised.
Data Sources
Mixed methods research, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data sources, is being used to examine equity in opportunities to learn, productive disciplinary engagement in science and engineering practices, and student learning outcomes. Data sources include interviews with teachers and students, surveys of student interests about anchoring phenomena, classroom observations, surveys of student engagement and perceptions of coherence, and scores on district-wide standardized tests.
Results
Results from field tests provide initial evidence as to the effectiveness of our three strategies, and suggest areas for improvement. In terms of linking unit challenges to community initiatives, diverse students report that the challenges are motivating because they are relevant to their community. However, students’ report a range of conceptions about the degree to which they view themselves as part of the community. Student-centered measures of coherence suggest that students found the anchoring phenomena exciting and engaging, however, the data also revealed large teacher variation and provided valuable information to the degree to which instructional strategies for coherence were supported and employed in the classroom (Penuel et al., 2016).
Scholarly Significance
This work is advancing theory on promoting equitable opportunities for student agency through carefully co-designed curriculum and capacity building (Severance et al, 2016). These units will also provide exemplars, released under Creative Commons, for NGSS curriculum that engages diverse students in the rich science and engineering practices envisioned in the Framework.

Authors

• Tamara Sumner, University of Colorado

• William R. Penuel, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Katie Van Horne, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Douglas Adam Watkins, Denver Public Schools

• Samuel Severance, Michigan State University

• David Quigley, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Raymond Johnson, University of Colorado - Boulder