scholarly journals Did the Framework for K-12 Science Education trample itself? A reply to “Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards”

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 518-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Elby
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Next Generation Science Standards ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Science Standards ◽  
Epistemic Agency ◽  
K 12

scholarly journals Questioning The Fidelity Of The Next Generation Science Standards For Astronomy And Space Sciences Education

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Stephanie J. Slater ◽  
Timothy F. Slater
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Education Reform ◽  
The United States ◽  
Next Generation Science Standards ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Unexpected Finding ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Science Standards ◽  
K 12 ◽  
Space Sciences

<p class="AbstractSummary">Although the <em>Next Generation Science Standards</em> (<em>NGSS</em>) are not federally mandated national standards or performance expectations for K-12 schools in the United States, they stand poised to become a de facto national science and education policy, as state governments, publishers of curriculum materials, and assessment providers across the country consider adopting them. In order to facilitate national buy-in and adoptions, <em>Achieve, Inc</em>., the non-profit corporation awarded the contract for writing the <em>NGSS</em>, has repeatedly asserted the development of the Standards to be a state-driven and transparent process, in which the scientific content is taken "verbatim", from the 2011 NRC report, <em>Frameworks for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas</em>. This paper reports on an independently conducted fidelity check within the content domain of astronomy and the space sciences, conducted to determine the extent to which the <em>NGSS </em>science content is guided by the <em>Frameworks</em>, and the extent to which any changes have altered the scientific intent of that document. The side-by-side, two-document comparative analysis indicates that the science of the <em>NGSS</em> is significantly different from the <em>Frameworks</em>. Further, the alterations in the science represent a lack of fidelity, in that they have altered the parameters of the science and the instructional exposure (e.g., timing and emphasis). As a result the <em>NGSS</em> are now poised to interfere with widely desired science education reform and improvement. This unexpected finding affords scientists, educators, and professional societies with an opportunity, if not a professional obligation, to engage in positively impacting the quality of science education by conducting independent fidelity checks across other disciplines. This could provide a much needed formal support and guidance to schools, teachers, curriculum developers, and assessment providers.</p>

scholarly journals Thinking about National Standards in Science Education

2017 ◽  
pp. 717-744
Author(s):  
Catherine Milne
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Science Curriculum ◽  
Next Generation Science Standards ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Science Standards ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
Crisis Narratives ◽  
K 12

In this paper I present a critical reflection on the rationale and history of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which has sometimes been presented as the US version of a vision for a standardized science curriculum. I explore how the monograph, The Framework for K-12 Science Education, established the groundwork for the Next Generation Science Standards. I argue that crisis narratives often drive the arguments for standardization but in the US there was also an argument of the need to build a level of national uniformity in the content and practices that are presented to students as a tool for ensuring that children and youth have equitable access to important knowledge. However, at the same time educators have a responsibility for ensuring that homogenization achieved through standards does not enshrine the very inequities and ideologies public education seeks to change.

Why Engaging in the Practices of Science Is Not Enough to Achieve Scientific Literacy

2016 ◽  
Vol 78 (5) ◽  
pp. 370-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy R. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Next Generation Science Standards ◽  
Habits Of Mind ◽  
Science Standards ◽  
Effective Science ◽  
Culture Of Science ◽  
K 12

The National Research Council's Framework for K–12 Science Education and the resulting Next Generation Science Standards call for engaging students in the practices of science to develop scientific literacy. While these documents make the connections between scientific knowledge and practices explicit, very little attention is given to the shared values and commitments of the scientific community that underlie these practices and give them meaning. I argue that effective science education should engage students in the practices of science while also reflecting on the values, commitments, and habits of mind that have led to the practices of modern science and that give them meaning. The concept of methodological naturalism demonstrates the connection between the values and commitments of the culture of science and its practices and provides a useful lens for understanding the benefits and limitations of scientific knowledge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document