 |
| A Framework for K-12 Science Education |
It has been over 15 years since the last national science education standards were written, and now it is almost time for some new ones. The National Research Council has published a report called A Framework for K-12 Science Education. This 385 page document is being used to inform the creation of the new standards. These standards are currently being written in collaboration with 26 states who have agreed to give serious consideration to adopting the standards when they are finished later this year. Once written and adopted, these standards should have a profound effect on the way science is taught in schools. For those of us informal science educators that work with schools and teachers, these standards will have a big impact on us, too.
I finished reading the report this weekend and would like to share with you the general structure of what the report outlines as well as include some of my own thoughts. The report can be purchased from amazon for $39.95 or downloaded as a pdf for free on www.nextgenscience.org. Throughout this review I will include passages from the report. While reading through it I recorded many passages. I’ve uploaded these notes on my site here for any who are interested.
What is wrong with the old science standards published in 1996?
According to the introduction, the overall goal of the report is “to ensure that by the end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology.”
The problem, they say, is that our current system of science education is failing to do these things. The system “is not organized systematically across multiple years of school, emphasizes discrete facts with a focus on breadth over depth, and does not provide students with engaging opportunities to experience how science is actually done.” And apart from this, scientific knowledge, technology, and understanding of how students learn science have all changed since the mid-1990’s. Now, more than ever, in order to properly make choices that relate to legislation as well everyday decisions, citizens need to have a certain level of scientific literacy. We are also currently in a time when states are collaborating on educational standards, which gives an added push toward the creation of new standards.
How will the new standards achieve their overall goal?
The report sets out some specific directions on what components should make up the new standards. Mostly, they call for science education to be based around three dimensions: scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts that unify science and engineering across grades and disciplines, and core ideas in four disciplinary areas. How exactly these pieces will fit together will be determined by those writing the standards, but the report is clear that all three should be intertwined. For example, when learning about a specific core idea a student should actually explore the idea using scientific and engineering practices, and be able to identify how that idea relates to some of the overall crosscutting concepts in science.
Here is what the dimensions look like:
Dimension 1: Scientific and Engineering Practices
1. Asking questions and defining problems
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Dimension 2: Crosscutting Concepts
1. Patterns
2. Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation
3. Scale, proportion, and quantity
4. Systems and system models
5. Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation
6. Structure and function
7. Stability and change
Dimension 3: Disciplinary Core Ideas
1. Physical Sciences
PS1: Matter and its interactions
PS2: Motion and stability: Forces and interactions
PS3: Energy
PS4: Waves and their applications in technologies for information transfer
2. Life Sciences
LS1: From molecules to organisms: Structures and processes
LS2: Ecosystems: Interactions, energy, and dynamics
LS3: Heredity: Inheritance and variation of traits
LS4: Biological evolution: Unity and diversity
3. Earth and Space Sciences
ESS1: Earth’s place in the universe
ESS2: Earth’s systems
ESS3: Earth and human activity
4. Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science
ETS1: Engineering design
ETS2: Links among engineering, technology, science, and society
These three dimensions, used together, will make up the bulk of the new standards. Let’s take a look at each dimension separately.
Dimension 1: Scientific and Engineering Practices
The thinking here is that students learn by doing. As an informal educator I can certainly agree with that. The report recognizes eight scientific and engineering practices that students should become familiar with through experience. You may notice that nowhere on this list do you see the scientific method. Instead we have scientific methods. Yes, you read that correctly. The scientific method is gone. Some form of it, I’m sure will remain, but the report wants the students experiences to greater reflect the variety of scientific methods used in the real world.
The report maintains that “a focus on practices (in the plural) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science - a single “scientific method” - or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science. In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods, and although science involves many areas of uncertainty as knowledge is developed, there are now many aspects of scientific knowledge that are so well established as to be unquestioned foundations of the culture and its technologies. It is only through engagement in the practices that students can recognize how such knowledge comes about and why some parts of scientific theory are more firmly established than others.”
If that passage didn’t convince you that the scientific method needs to go, than the report gives this objection to the method as well: “For example, the notion that there is a single scientific method of observation, hypothesis, deduction, and conclusion- a myth perpetuated to this day by many textbooks- is fundamentally wrong. Scientists do use deductive reasoning, but they also search for patterns, classify different objects, make generalizations from repeated observations, and engage in a process of making inferences as to what might be the best explanation. Thus the picture of scientific reasoning is richer, more complex, and more diverse than the image of linear and unitary scientific method would suggest.”
I’m not sure how I feel about the scientific method going away. In some ways it reminds me of the emotional resistance many feel toward Pluto being demoted to a dwarf planet. I think many of us have a deep connection and loyalty to the scientific method. It is a powerful tool for understanding the empirical nature of science, and we know that it works in the classroom. It is also relatively simple, so there is less for an instructor to get wrong when teaching it. However, if the alternative in the new standards is to have students doing more hands-on activities and working through a variety of methods, then that seems good too. Hopefully, this will help them to better understand how science is done, deepen their understanding of the content, and in doing so build a greater respect for scientific knowledge.
Dimension 2: Crosscutting Concepts
The idea of crosscutting concepts really appeals to me and the way I think about science. This isn’t altogether a new idea, but as I read the report, this dimension is what got me the most excited. I believe that recognizing the concepts that permeate each discipline and core idea will help students better understand what they are learning because it will provide context. A student may have trouble with a certain scientific idea, but if their teacher can help them to place it inside one of these crosscutting concepts, then it will give them a reference point. The new standards are committed to having less content and more understanding, which is exactly what I think these crosscutting concepts help to do. It is unknown how exactly the standards and school curriculum will integrate these crosscutting concepts. Personally, I think the concepts will be most effective if they are referenced and explained frequently throughout K-12 education.
Dimension 3: Core Ideas
Dimension 3 illustrates the actual science content students are expected to learn. Each of the major disciplines is broken up into core ideas. In the framework a summary of each idea is given, and then guidelines are set for what aspects of the idea should be taught by certain grades. The core ideas should help to solve the problem of organizing content systematically through the years. From the report and its appendix - which talks about the reports revisions - it appears that the writers of the report took much care in understanding the learning capabilities of children at each grade level. Research into the cognitive abilities of students as well as feedback from many teachers, scientists, and engineers helped to divide these core ideas appropriately.
Personally, I like the way the ideas were divided. If the standards adhere to them, then subject matter will not be repeated over and over in each grade, nor accidentally or purposely left out. Instead, from the youngest grades, students will start to learn what they need in order to grow with the core ideas and follow them through their educational career. As part of these grade divisions, the report suggests the standards should have boundary statements. These will let teachers know what they shouldn’t teach at each level.
The report describes it like this: “Boundary statements can signal where material that traditionally has been included could instead be trimmed. For example, in the physical sciences, the progressions indicate that density is not stressed as a property of matter until the 6-8 grade band; at present, it is often introduced earlier and consumes considerable instructional time to little avail. Boundary statements may also help define which technical definitions or descriptions could be dispensed with in a particular grade band.”
In looking over the core ideas you may have been surprised to see engineering listed as one of the four main scientific disciplines. On this the report says: “Engineering and technology are featured alongside the natural sciences (physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences) for two critical reasons: (1) to reflect the importance of understanding the human-built world and (2) to recognize the value of better integrating the teaching and learning of science, engineering, and technology.” I think focusing on engineering and technology is a great idea. It does bring up some questions on how this will effect class instruction, particularly at the High School level. Will students be required to take an engineering class in High School? The report itself cannot answer that question, but it will be interesting to see how this is interpreted when the standards are adopted.
When reviewing the core ideas, one could go into great detail. The only specific subject matter I would like to highlight is climate change. The report is firm and confident in dealing with this topic. Since this is such a hot political issue, I wonder how different states will approach this.
Here is part of what the report says on climate change: “It is important to note that although forecasting the consequences of environmental change is crucial to society, it involves so many complex phenomena and uncertainties that predictions, particularly long-term predictions, always have uncertainties. These arise not only from uncertainties in the underlying science but also from uncertainties about behavioral, economic, and political factors that affect human activity and changes in activity in response to recognition of the problem. However, it is clear not only that human activities play a major role in climate change but also that impacts of climate change - for example, increased frequency of severe storms due to ocean warming - have begun to influence human activities. The prospect of future impacts of climate change due to further increases in atmospheric carbon is prompting consideration of how to avoid or restrict such increases.”
Additional Chapters
After explaining the 3 dimensions, A Framework for K-12 Science Education report focuses on ideas relating to diversity, equity, teaching strategies, implementation, and assessment. In many cases, finding answers to the questions these topics bring up is out of the scope of the report, so the report identifies what further work may need to be done. The additional chapters brought up many important issues related to education, but the one I would like to mention related to working with students from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds. The report talks about finding ways to bring students’ ethnic experiences into the science classroom.
On this topic the report reads: “Recognizing that language and discourse patterns vary across culturally diverse groups, researchers point to the importance of accepting, even encouraging, students’ classroom use of informal or native language and familiar modes of interaction.”
Certainly, this is a very interesting idea. I sometimes work with English Language Learners and try to find ways to incorporate their native languages into my presentations. So, how could this strategy be used in a school classroom? The report gives an example, saying “Brown has recently extended this line of work by developing an instructional model that helps students bridge the transition from using their vernacular language for scientific phenomena to using disciplinary terminology and forms of discourse; essentially, they describe and discuss the same phenomena in both modes in turn. The challenge for teachers is to know enough about their students’ relevant linguistic practices to be able to support this transition in the classroom.”
Final Thoughts
The last time national science standards were written I was eleven years old. My K-12 education was effected by those standards, but this time I get to observe the writing of the standards and participate in the implementation. Reading through A Framework for K-12 Science Education was an enjoyable experience. The ideas are engaging and thinking about how they may be implemented is really interesting. The report’s vision makes a lot of sense, but I must say that I do worry about the implementation. If school teachers are expected to teach science in the way outlined in the framework they will need professional development. Yes, teachers have professional development every year, but this will need to be much more extensive. Textbooks and lessons need to be rewritten. I believe in the vision of the report, and hope these changes don’t become rushed. I worry that the burden of responsibility will fall on teachers, and that they will be without the proper resources they need to successfully make this work. I hope this is not the case.
I would like to end on a positive note and say that I am very much looking forward to being a part of making this happen. My own school presentations and educational programs will change, and I will hopefully be a part of the teacher development in the Central New York area. When working with teachers I hope they become convinced of the vision in this framework, too, and that I will be able help provide them with the resources they need
Thanks for reading and please leave your comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment