Our approach

The InTeGrate project to develop curricular materials began before the Next Generation Science Standards were released, but the goals of our project and the approach we took in developing the materials means that our materials are well-aligned with the three-dimensional learning environment encoded in the NGSS.

The curriculum development process

InTeGrate and GETSI developed and tested curricular materials with goals to address societal grand challenges, use rigorous science and research-based practices in learning, and be adaptable by instructors in many types of institutions and environments. These goals are encoded in a detailed rubric that materials had to pass prior to being tested in the classroom, peer-reviewed, and published online as freely available modules and courses. The rubric has six sections: guiding principles, learning objectives and outcomes, assessment and measurement, resources and materials, instructional strategies, and alignment. The guiding principles are unique to the InTeGrate and GETSI projects, while the rest of the rubric encodes research-based practices in curriculum development. The guiding principles are well-aligned with the NGSS — you can read about the guiding principles and their alignment. In order to pass the rubric, materials must address the five guiding principles explicitly and pervasively.

Read more about the materials development process.

The alignment process

We took a relatively strict approach to alignment. In other words, materials should thoroughly and explicitly address a component of the NGSS in order to be coded with it.

In July of 2017, a team of 12 experienced educators who had not been involved in materials development independently assessed the published InTeGrate materials for alignment with the NGSS and coded each component of the materials with the relevant CCCs, DCIs, SEPs, and performance expectations. Each module was coded by one person, reviewed by another, and the final coding for all of the materials was reviewed by an editor for consistency across the materials.

In July of 2019, a second team assessed the GETSI materials using a similar process. In this case, two people independently coded the modules, and then they came to consensus about which codes to include. Again, the final coding was reviewed by an editor for consistency.

Our team

2017 taggers

Aida Awad, Broward College (formerly Maine East High School)
Carol Engelmann, University of Nebraska at Omaha (former Master Teacher)
Mimi Fuhrman, Rock Solid Testing Services
Missy Holzer, Chatham High School and Rutgers University
Mintesinot Jiru, Coppin State University
Cheryl Manning, Evergreen High School
Carla McAuliffe, TERC/NESTA
Susan McGeary, University of Delaware
Peggy McNeal, Western Michigan University
Sadredin Moosavi, Rochester Community and Technical College
Kathi Nugal, Jordan High School
Susan Sullivan, University of Colorado at Boulder
Tarin Harrar Weiss, Westfield State University

2019 taggers

Georgina Anderson, University of South Carolina-Columbia
Angela Aranda, Santiago Canyon College
Temesgen Gebrekidan, Florida International University
Missy Holzer, Chatham High School and Rutgers University
Janie Johnston, Aurora University
Susan Meabh Kelly, Connecticut State Department of Education
Cheryl Manning, Evergreen High School
Peggy McNeal, Towson University
Katherine Ocker Stone, Walters State Community College
Laura Rowan Hollister, Pitman High School, Turlock Unified School District
Liang Zeng, The University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley


Anne Egger, Central Washington University