Elementary Science Instruction: A Document Analysis of Teacher Messaging Across Two Sets of Curriculum Materials

Elementary teachers are tasked with teaching multiple subjects within an instructional day. One mechanism to support this task is through strong curriculum materials, which lay out a course of instruction aligned with instructional standards. This is helpful when teachers are trying to teach to a new set of standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards, which require a significant shift in instructional strategies. In cases such as this, educative features embedded in the curriculum materials can assist teachers in making the required shifts in instruction. However, sometimes the instructional time required by curriculum materials, especially in elementary science, is more than is available in the instructional day. This means teachers must make decisions about how they use their instructional time. When curriculum materials make claims about alignment with the standards, teachers might make instructional decisions based on those claims. In this case study, I used document analysis to examine two sets of elementary curriculum materials that claim alignment with the NGSS: the Smithsonian Science for the Classroom (SSC) program and the Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) program. For both sets of curriculum materials, I analyzed ancillary documents and the third-grade teacher’s guides to understand how aligned the curriculum materials are with the NGSS and how messages about NGSS-aligned instruction are communicated to teachers. Findings revealed that the CKLA curriculum materials are insufficiently aligned with the NGSS while the SSC curriculum materials are moderately to strongly aligned with the NGSS. The ancillary documents provided a great deal of evidence about the designers’ intent and were key sources for evaluating alignment. Additionally, the CKLA curriculum materials provided scant messages to teachers about NGSS-aligned elementary science instruction while the SSC curriculum materials send strong messages. Areas of alignment, suggestions for improvement, and implications for research, policy, and practice are included.