[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-535944-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-535944-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","protocol-evaluating-an-existing-science-curricular-resource-decision-and-review-steps","Protocol - Evaluating an Existing Science Curricular Resource - Decision and Review Steps","","This protocol guides districts that already have a science curriculum to evaluate effectiveness before choosing retention, targeted revision, supplementation, phased replacement, or full adoption. It answers four core questions: alignment to NGSS expectations, support for high-quality instruction and student sense-making, teacher usability and sustainability, and whether gaps can be addressed without total replacement. The process progresses from defining evaluation scope to standards review, lesson-level quality checks, educator and student experience analyses, implementation fidelity and support review, and concludes with synthesis, evidence-based recommendations, and transparency through multiple data sources.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/protocol-evaluating-an-existing-science-curricular-resource-decision-and-review-steps/535944/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/protocol-evaluating-an-existing-science-curricular-resource-decision-and-review-steps/535944.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Nguyễn Văn Học","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-12","2026-10-10",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What four questions does the protocol use to evaluate an existing science curricular resource?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"It checks NGSS alignment, support for high-quality instruction and student sense-making, teacher usability and sustainability, and whether gaps can be addressed without full replacement.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"What does the protocol require in the standards and alignment review?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It directs teams to use NGSS alignment tools and state standards, then examine anchoring phenomena, integration of SEPs/CCCs/DCIs, and coherence across grade levels.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"How does the protocol distinguish curriculum design issues from implementation gaps?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It includes an implementation fidelity and support review, analyzing professional learning, consistency across classrooms, and current support structures, then determining whether problems stem from design or support.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},535944,1791784876,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":123},1374402739827,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/14000c97e7351f1a627?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1787885694763230660","Protocol: Evaluating an Existing Science Curricular Resource  \nThis protocol is designed for districts that already have a science curriculum in place and want to systematically evaluate its effectiveness before deciding to retain, revise, supplement, or replace it. The process mirrors adoption best practices while recognizing existing implementation history.  \nPurpose of the Protocol  \nTo answer four essential questions:  \n1. Is the current resource aligned to NGSS expectations?  \n2. Is it supporting high-quality science instruction and student sense-making?  \n3. Is it usable and sustainable for teachers?  \n4. Can identified gaps be reasonably addressed without full replacement?  \nStep 1 : Clarify the Evaluation Scope and Intent  \nKey Decision: Why is the district evaluating the current resource?  \nPossible Triggers  \n● Persistent student performance concerns  \n● Teacher feedback or usability issues  \n● NGSS alignment concerns  \n● End of contract cycle  \n● Leadership or instructional vision shifts  \nRequired Actions  \n● Identify grade bands included in the review  \n● Clarify whether the evaluation will inform:  \n○ Retention  \n○ Targeted supplementation  \n○ Phased replacement  \n○ Full adoption cycle  \nOutput: Evaluation purpose statement and scope document  \nStep 2: Standards and Alignment Review  \nPurpose: Determine how well the existing resource aligns to NGSS.  \nKey Actions  \n● Review the resource using:  \n○ NGSS alignment tools (e.g. , EQuIP Rubric for Science)  \n○ State science learning standards  \n● Examine:  \n○ Anchoring phenomena  \n○ Integration of SEPs, CCCs, and DCIs  \n○ Coherence across grade levels  \nGuiding Questions  \n● Are phenomena driving instruction or serving as hooks only?  \n● Are students regularly engaged in sense-making?  \n● Do lessons reflect three-dimensional learning?  \nOutput: Alignment summary with strengths, gaps, and risk areas  \nStep 3: Instructional Design and Lesson-Level Review  \nPurpose: Evaluate the quality of day-to-day classroom instruction.  \nKey Actions  \n● Select representative units or lessons across grade bands  \n● Review materials using a Science Lesson Review Tool  \nLook-Fors  \n● Clear learning goals tied to phenomena  \n● Opportunities for student questioning, modeling, and explanation  \n● Coherence across lessons within units  \n● Embedded formative assessment  \nOutput: Lesson-level review rubric scores and narrative feedback  \nStep 4: Teacher Experience and Usability Analysis  \nPurpose: Understand how the resource functions for educators.  \nData Sources  \n● Teacher surveys  \n● Focus groups or PLC discussions  \n● Planning time analysis  \nGuiding Questions  \n● How much preparation time is required?  \n● How clear is the instructional guidance?  \n● Does the resource support differentiation?  \n● What workarounds are teachers using?  \nOutput: Teacher usability summary with patterns and themes  \nStep 5: Student Experience and Engagement Review  \nPurpose: Examine the impact on student learning and engagement.  \nKey Actions  \n● Conduct student surveys or interviews  \n● Review student work samples  \n● Observe classroom instruction  \nLook-Fors  \n● Student discourse and collaboration  \n● Evidence of sense-making  \n● Engagement during investigations  \n● Equity of access for all learners  \nOutput: Student experience summary and engagement indicators  \nStep 6: Implementation Fidelity and Support Review  \nPurpose: Distinguish between curriculum design issues and implementation gaps.  \nKey Actions  \n● Review professional learning provided  \n● Analyze implementation consistency across classrooms  \n● Identify support structures currently in place  \nGuiding Questions  \n● Have teachers been trained adequately?  \n● Is implementation consistent across grade levels?  \n● Are gaps due to design or support?  \nOutput: Fidelity and support analysis  \nStep 7: Synthesis and Decision-Making  \nPurpose: Make an evidence-based determination.  \nDecision Pathways  \n● Retain: Resource meets expectations with minimal ga","cbCaihCakkk6FONs","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihCakkk6FONs","pdf",105688,"English","# Purpose of the Protocol\n## Step 1: Clarify the Evaluation Scope and Intent\n## Step 2: Standards and Alignment Review\n## Step 3: Instructional Design and Lesson-Level Review\n## Step 4: Teacher Experience and Usability Analysis\n## Step 5: Student Experience and Engagement Review\n## Step 6: Implementation Fidelity and Support Review\n## Step 7: Synthesis and Decision-Making\n# Design Principles for Effective Evaluation","[{\"question\":\"What four questions does the protocol use to evaluate an existing science curricular resource?\",\"answer\":\"It checks NGSS alignment, support for high-quality instruction and student sense-making, teacher usability and sustainability, and whether gaps can be addressed without full replacement.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the protocol require in the standards and alignment review?\",\"answer\":\"It directs teams to use NGSS alignment tools and state standards, then examine anchoring phenomena, integration of SEPs/CCCs/DCIs, and coherence across grade levels.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the protocol distinguish curriculum design issues from implementation gaps?\",\"answer\":\"It includes an implementation fidelity and support review, analyzing professional learning, consistency across classrooms, and current support structures, then determining whether problems stem from design or support.\"}]","Protocol - Evaluating an Existing Science Curricular Resource - Decision and Review Steps | PDF",1791601416]