Frequently Asked Questions
1. What are the key working definitions used in the project?
High Quality Instructional Materials (HQIM)
Instructional materials, often referred to as curriculum materials, are the concrete resources that teachers use to plan, implement, and assess student learning outcomes (Short & Hirsh, 2020, p. 6). While precise definitions of high-quality instructional materials vary, there is general consensus on key criteria: (a) alignment to rigorous standards, (b) student-centered approaches, (c) research-based teaching strategies, (d) teacher support materials, and (e) embedded formative assessments (EdReports & NextGenScience, 2021; Short & Hirsh, 2020). Note that this definition is intentionally broad and we are not restricting the definition of HQIM to any single rubric or review process.
Scope and Scale of HQIM for the Project
High-quality instructional materials (HQIMs) can be developed for use at various scales. In this project, we are specifically focusing on exploring how localizing can happen with instructional materials that are designed for comprehensive, year-long implementation aligned with state-level science standards. These materials follow the NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education and are intended for large-scale use at the classroom, district, and/or state levels.
Localization
Localization lies at the intersection of several educational frameworks, including place-based learning, culturally relevant and culturally responsive-sustaining pedagogy, and Indigenous ways of knowing. Place-based education (Sobel, 2004) serves as an umbrella term for practices that prioritize experiential, community-based, and contextual learning to deepen students’ connection to local cultures, contexts, and environments (Yemini et al., 2023). Place extends beyond geography to include “family and cultural knowledge and practices” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022, p. 67).
Localization aligns closely with principles in culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010), and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014), which emphasize that cultural differences, including race, ethnicity, language, gender, sexuality, and ability, should be viewed as assets in teaching and learning (New York State Education Department, 2018, p. 13). Indigenous frameworks also highlight the importance of relationship to place, advocating for a “de-settling” of place-based perspectives (Learning in Places Collaborative, 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022; Tzou et al., 2021).
The term “localization” has been widely adopted by teachers, district personnel, state-level science educators, and instructional materials designers to describe the process of adapting instructional materials to meet community needs. This project’s Conference Series will focus on localization and instructional materials, driven by educators’ perceptions of localization’s value and strong evidence supporting HQIM as a foundation for equitable education. Existing literature on localization and instructional materials includes two main categories: (1) individual teacher adaptations of instructional materials and (2) customized curriculum design through collaborations between researchers and educators/communities.
Equity
Educational equity in K-12 STEM entails fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and support for all students to fully engage and benefit from their education. Achieving educational equity involves addressing systemic disparities impacting marginalized communities; defined by race, socioeconomic status, gender, and disability; and requires adapting resources to meet each student’s unique needs, rather than providing identical resources to all.
To guide stakeholders in this endeavor, the National Academies’ Committee on Equity in PreK-12 STEM Education (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2024) outlined five “Frames” for decision-making, each offering distinct but complementary approaches to equity:
- Reducing Gaps Between Groups: This frame emphasizes closing achievement and participation gaps across demographic groups, highlighting the importance of equitable outcomes in STEM interest, success, and workforce representation.
- Expanding Opportunity and Access: This frame seeks to remove barriers to high-quality STEM experiences, such as access to skilled educators, supportive networks, and robust curricula, by recognizing the role of social and material resources in equitable learning.
- Embracing Heterogeneity in STEM Classrooms: Focusing on the diversity of student experiences and identities, this frame encourages practices that honor students’ cultural, social, and personal backgrounds, fostering learning environments that support varied ways of thinking and being.
- Learning and Using STEM to Promote Justice: This frame sees STEM education as a means to engage students in addressing social and environmental justice issues, equipping them to tackle challenges and injustices within their communities.
- Envisioning Sustainable Futures Through STEM: This forward-looking frame promotes STEM as a tool for envisioning and building just, sustainable futures, prompting an educational shift toward long-term human and ecological well-being.
References
EdReports & NextGenScience (2021). Critical features of instructional materials design for today’s science standards. NextGenScience.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831204000361918M.
Learning in Places Collaborative (2021). About the Project. Learning in Places website. http://learninginplaces.org/about/
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Science and engineering in preschool through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and the strengths of educators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26215.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Equity in K-12 STEM Education: Framing Decisions for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26859.
New York State Education Department (2018). Culturally responsive-sustaining education framework. http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/programs/crs/culturally-responsive-sustaining-education-framework.pdf
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.
Short, J., & Hirsh, S. (2020). Transforming teaching through curriculum-based professional learning: The elements. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/elements-transforming-teaching-through-curriculum-based-professional-learning/
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 17(3), 63-64.
Tzou, C., Bang, M., & Bricker, L. (2021). Commentary: Designing science instructional materials that contribute to more just, equitable, and culturally thriving learning and teaching in science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 858-864. doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2021.1964786
Yemini, M., Engel, L., & Ben Simon, A. (2023). Place-based education–a systematic review of literature. Educational Review, 1-21.
2. What is the application process and timeline for the conference series?
- Application form
- Application window: November 15 – December 8, 2024
- Notification of acceptance: Approximately December 15, 2024
- In-person conference: February 6-7, 2025, University of California, Berkeley
- Virtual meetings series: Spring – Summer 2025 (dates TBD)
3. What are the criteria for participant selection?
The project seeks to bring together a diverse and representative group of contributors from across the educational landscape to address the Conference questions effectively. We welcome applications from individuals with varied roles and expertise, including teachers and instructional leaders, school and district administrators, educational researchers, and instructional materials designers. An important aspect of our selection process is ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion among participants. We aim to the best of our ability to include individuals who represent different career stages and levels of experience, come from various geographic regions (including urban, suburban, and rural areas), reflect diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, and bring perspectives from underrepresented communities in education.
4. What are the conference expenses for participants?
The project will fully cover expenses for participants who receive travel funding. For those not receiving funding, the following costs will be the responsibility of the participant:
- Travel to and from the San Francisco Bay Area (if applicable)
- Local transportation to the University of California, Berkeley campus
- Meals outside of the official conference schedule
5. Is there a draft agenda available for the in-person conference?
6. Who is part of the UC Berkeley project team, and how can I contact them?
| Rebecca Abbott | Professional Learning Lead |
| Daniel Alcazar-Roman | Associate Director, Center for K-12 Science |
| Suzy Loper | Associate Director, Center for K-12 Science |
| Vanessa Lujan | Director, Center for K-12 Science |
| Sarah Pedemonte | Director, Bay Area Science Project |
| Leslie Stenger | Senior Professional Learning Specialist |
7. Who are the project advisors supporting this initiative?
| Andre Botello | Manager, 6-12 Science, Chicago Public Schools |
| Rebecca Brokaw | Teacher Programs Manager, Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum of the Chicago Academy of Sciences |
| Katahdin Cook Whitt | Former STEM Education Specialist, Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance |
| Elizabeth David | Teacher on Special Assignment and Elementary Science Specialist, Seattle Public Schools |
| Sarah Delaney | Senior Director of Operations, OpenSciEd |
| María González-Howard | Associate Professor of STEM education, University of Texas at Austin |
| Justin Kruger-Colón | Science Teacher, Velma Bell Hamilton Middle School, Madison Metropolitan School District, Wisconsin |
| Stefanie Marshall | Assistant Professor of Science Education, Michigan State University |
| Michal Robinson | Science Supervisor, Alabama Department of Education |
| Brad Street | Senior Manager of Professional Development, IslandWood (Urban School Programs Team) |
| Edna Tan | Hooks Professor of STEM education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro |