This page has been simplified for faster loading and easier reading. Click the lightning bolt icon to view the original version.

Introducing the Crosscutting Concepts: The Chess Metaphor

How do CCCs help students organize new information?

The idea of standards including both content and practices is not necessarily new. However, the added dimension of the Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs) takes more getting used to, and educators often have more questions about this dimension. They may wonder why it is on equal footing with the other two dimensions, how it fits in with the other two dimensions, and why it is important to students. 

This presentation introduces the CCCs and their rationale through a story about research done with expert and novice chess players. The results of the research points to fundamental differences in how these two groups organize information. Participants are then given a chance to share their first impressions of the CCCs before diving deeper into other activities.

Watch the video above to get an overview, and use the detailed lesson plan below to lead this professional development activity for your team of educators.

Learning Goals

Participants in the activity will

Download the full activity

Approximate time

15 minutes

Materials

Prepare

Background for Facilitators

The idea of standards including both content and practices is not necessarily new. However, the added dimension of the Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs) takes more getting used to, and educators often have more questions about this dimension. Specifically they may wonder why it is on equal footing with the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) and Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). Educators also often wonder how the CCCs fit in with the other two dimensions, and why they are important to students. For this reason, we recommend using the presentation to introduce the CCCs before diving into hands-on activities to develop a deeper understanding of the definitions and applications of the seven concepts.

This presentation centers around a science story that helps define the idea of a conceptual framework by comparing the ways that experts and novices organize information. The story goes like this: In a series of cognitive psychology studies, researchers looked at how chess experts and chess novices differed in the way that they organized their ideas about the game. As part of this research, chess experts and novices were shown a chess board on which pieces were randomly arranged (see the image above). Both groups were then asked to recreate the positions of the pieces from memory.

It turns out that the two groups organized the information differently. Novices tended to remember only individual pieces (rook, knight, bishop, etc.) and their position in space. Experts, however, grouped pieces together based on the strategic moves that the piece could make in the game. (See SLIDE 8 for a visual representation of this.) The experts could then use this conceptual framework to organize and make sense of any configuration of pieces on the board. This phenomenon has been observed in other areas like physics and computer programming. In general, novices rely on surface features (e.g. isolated facts or formulas) to organize ideas, while experts develop and use a conceptual framework, sorting new knowledge using big ideas or broad categories.

We can help students think like experts by providing them with a conceptual framework around which they can build their understanding and new ideas. The CCCs as a conceptual framework aim to help students learn science and think like experts in the following ways:

  1. Help students make sense of new content and tackle novel problems
  2. Allow students to be more flexible and creative with their science and engineering ideas
  3. Help students to develop their ideas over time

The conceptual framework of the CCCs supports students in thinking scientifically. Students don’t necessarily need to be science experts—instead we want to teach them how to critically evaluate their world.

References

Aranda, J. (2006, August 29). Fun with representations III—Hidden in plain sight [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://catenary.wordpress.com/2006/08/29/fun-with-representations-iii-hidden-in-plain-sight/

Sheridan, H. & Reingold, E.M. (2014). Expert vs. novice differences in the detection of relevant information during a chess game: evidence from eye movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 941. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00941

Procedure

This activity consists of a PowerPoint presentation. Try to make this an interactive presentation, drawing questions, comments, and input from your participants. The notes below describe our talking points for each slide in the presentation. Please do not view this as a script; rather, adapt the talking points to your own presentation style.

Note: to view these talking points alongside the slides, download the full activity.

Part 1: The Chess Story (10 minutes)

SLIDES 1-4: Introduction

SLIDE 5: Why the CCCs?

SLIDE 6: Experts vs. Novices

SLIDE 7: The Experiment

SLIDE 8: The Results

SLIDE 9: Connecting to Science Education

SLIDE 10: Science Learning

SLIDE 11: What are the 7 CCCs?

Part 2: Discussion (5 minutes)

The goal of this short wrap-up discussion is to share first impressions of the 7 CCCs now that participants are aware of the rationale behind them.

  1. Tell participants that the 7 titles listed are the 7 Crosscutting Concepts that define the framework in the NGSS.
  2. Give participants a moment to read through the 7 titles, to notice, and to wonder.
    • What are your first impressions? What do you notice and what do you wonder?
    • Are these concepts truly “crosscutting” across science subjects?
      • This can be a time for participants to simply share their impressions, keeping in mind that they will have a chance to dive more deeply into the thinking behind each of these 7 concepts by reading Appendix G of the NGSS, and participating in more activities exploring this dimension of the standards.
    • Do you see connections that could be made to other subjects, outside of science?
      • Participants often share that some of the CCCs seem very strictly science, with little connection to other disciplines (e.g. Energy and Matter), while others (e.g. Patterns, Cause and Effect) have obvious overlap with Language Arts, Math, or other disciplines.