Tag Archives: science

A new article about reinventing science education standards

Posted on by
Reply

The Journal of Research in Science Teaching published an excellent article in September called “Reinventing science standards to better support meaningful science learning.” This post discusses strengths of that paper and identifies missing pieces of what colleagues and I believe is needed to reinvent the standards, including revising standards to help students better evaluate information and thereby resist scientific misinformation (e.g., “vaccines cause autism”). The paper is open source, i.e., not behind a paywall, and is available HERE.

The authors, Jeffrey Nordine and David Fortus, make a well-reasoned, carefully documented, and comprehensive argument that current science education standards in many nations, notably the NGSS in the U.S., are poorly aligned with learning theory. In other words, the current standards are unlikely to motivate students to learn science. This is an argument that colleagues and I have been making, too, using different sources and rationales. As a reminder, NAEP recently reported that only 39% of American eighth-graders reported they were interested in their science class.

The fact that an independent analysis points to an identical conclusion to ours, namely that current science education standards lead to instruction that is failing to engage students, is noteworthy. The new article cites a wide variety of papers and reports related to learning theory to support their reasoning and conclusions. The comprehensive set of references, more than 100 in all, is a strength of the paper. To choose just one example of how the article presents clear arguments with supporting citations, the authors write:

“… when learners do not perceive a meaningful purpose (meaningful for them) in the tasks in which they are expected to engage, their motivation to engage with these tasks will decline, and they will be less likely to construct significant new knowledge (Ames 1992; Dweck 1986; Fortus and Touitou 2021).”

Another significant feature of the paper is its recommendation that science education standards should be organized “according to contemporary issues and contexts rather than disciplinary content ideas.” That conclusion echoes part of a recent post on this blog about Pennsylvania’s new science education standards (STEELS), which reads: “I am confident that there are creative ways for other states to incorporate ‘contexts’ into their standards, as Pennsylvania has done.” Nordine and Fortus’s conclusion is also similar to the call that NSTA made years ago in a Position Statement called Teaching Science in the Context of Societal and Personal Issues, which colleagues and I have often cited. Teaching science in contexts that are relevant to students’ current and future lives is engaging because it is meaningful to them.

I welcome Nordine and Fortus’s excellent paper, which is convincingly backed by prior research. However, there are three important ways in which the article falls short, in my opinion. Each of these perspectives provides an additional reason to reinvent science education standards, as well as rationales for the needed changes.

First, as colleagues and I have documented before, there is a misalignment between the admirable goals laid out in A Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS standards that were supposedly based on the Framework. Teaching and learning science for citizenship is almost entirely missing from the standards—but it is succinctly summarized in three of the five goals identified on page 1 of the Framework. Those three goals for all students are: possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; become careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; and, develop competencies to continue to learn science outside school. Together, these goals can be seen as an excellent definition of learning science for citizenship.

Nordine and Fortus seem to confuse understanding science in the way that scientists practice science (in other words, science as described in the NGSS standards) with using science as a citizen uses it. For example, scientists conduct research to understand climate change and use science to develop green energy sources, such as wind turbines. Citizens, on the other hand, do not need to know science in the way that scientists do in order to identify candidates who are concerned about climate change, or weigh the costs and benefits of purchasing an electric vehicle, or decide whether to install solar panels on their home. Furthermore, these decisions require knowledge of information outside the domain of science, whether to weigh benefits versus costs, or to consider the ethics of one decision or another. If learning science for citizenship is an important goal, science education needs to be reinvented to help young people learn about and practice making decisions in their everyday lives as citizens, including as future voters and consumers—decisions that involve science but that are not limited to the perspective of a scientist who is “doing” science.

That raises the second way the article falls short. We agree that the goal of reinvented science education standards should prioritize “students’ ‘informed agency’ over ‘competence,’” as the the paper’s abstract says. We seem to differ, however, about the meaning of ‘informed agency’ in the context of science education. Few students will become scientists or use science, as described in standards, in their jobs. Having some understanding of science in the way that the NGSS standards suggest is a worthy goal but the balance is wrong. Students also need ‘agency’ to make societal and personal decisions that use science but are not equivalent to doing science.

It is not enough to organize science education standards “according to contemporary issues and contexts” if what that means is studying the science behind drinking water purification, or the global greenhouse effect, or pandemic diseases like COVID-19, as the authors suggest. Again, that perspective has value, but only to a point. Reinvented science education standards should also be organized around decisions that ordinary citizens need to make. How should I decide whether to buy bottled water instead of using tap water (which may be contaminated)? What are the costs and benefits of a carbon tax or fee, and should I support one in my state? Is it true that vaccines contain dangerous substances and therefore I should avoid being vaccinated or having my child vaccinated?

Reinvented standards need to put a higher priority on making informed decisions that do not rely on “doing” science. Furthermore, CRISPR, artificial intelligence, robotics and other science-based technologies pose ethical questions that an educated citizenry needs to understand for democracy to function well—knowledge that is not the same as understanding in any detail the science behind these technologies.

That brings us to the third way the article falls short. This is an age of scientific misinformation that is having serious negative impacts, such as falling vaccination rates. We agree with Nordine and Fortus, and with the Framework, that learning how to continue learning science outside of school is critically important. To achieve that goal requires what has been called science media literacy. What is a “scientific consensus” and is this particular claim based on such a consensus? Who is behind a claim that I encounter? What do others say about that claim? Which people or organizations are qualified to make judgments about such a claim allegedly based on science? Who should I trust and why? Reinvented science education standards need to place a much higher priority than the NGSS on learning how to evaluate claims allegedly based on science, which students will encounter throughout their lives, including claims about diets, nutrition, mental health, and other topics we cannot predict and cannot yet teach. These are vital competencies in a science-based world.

In summary, the Nordine and Fortus paper is a valuable and much-needed contribution to the science education literature. Their major conclusion, which is that current science education standards promote instruction that does not align with learning theory, and that therefore fails to adequately engage a majority of students, is important and we believe it is correct. Reinventing science education standards along the lines they suggest, with the addition of the perspectives described above, would result in greater student engagement in K-12 science education and would contribute to an increasingly scientifically literate population, as more broadly defined than in the current standards.

Note: This entire blog can be downloaded as a single PDF file. See the link at the bottom of this page.

Teaching Science for Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

The introduction to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) says, “the current education system cannot successfully prepare students for college, careers, and citizenship unless the right expectations and goals are set” [emphasis added]. Similarly, “The goal of the California Next Generation Science Standards (CA NGSS) is to prepare California students to be future citizens and future scientists …” [emphasis added]. Many other states express similar goals.

What does it mean to teach science for citizenship? The panel of experts who deliberated for two years and developed A Framework for K-12 Science Education, the basis for the NGSS, concisely unpacked that concept. The Framework states that in addition to preparing students for college and careers, by the end of grade 12 all students should:

  • possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues,
  • become careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives, and
  • develop competencies to continue to learn science outside school.

These three goals provide a useful explanation of what science for citizenship means for teachers and students. What is more, these are admirable goals.

Other experts also have advocated teaching science for citizenship and helped define what it means. For example, more than a decade ago Roberts & Bybee—Rodger Bybee was one of the lead authors of NGSS—described Vision II, an approach to science education that reaches beyond scientific theories, facts and methods, which is Vision I, to consider how science interacts with everyday and civic life, including personal, economic, and ethical concerns. They distinguished between a narrow view of science education and a broader one that includes the three goals listed above as well as pure science.

Science teachers’ professional organizations support these broader goals, as explained in an earlier blog post. For example, the National Association of Biology Teachers issued a Position Statement which states that excellent biology teachers “follow an integrated approach by incorporating other subjects, technology, society, and ethics,” where other subjects might include civics, government, history, literature, or science disciplines besides biology.

None of these individuals or organizations want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, teaching scientific theories, facts, and methods is useful and important.

It is a matter of balance. Focusing entirely on preparing students for college and careers, as at least 95 percent of NGSS and state science education standards do, is an unbalanced approach. Science for citizenship is given scant attention.

This is a tragic situation at a time when people need to make life-or-death personal decisions involving science, like getting vaccinated. They need to learn about the role of government in policies related to health, global warming, the safety of food, air and water, and other science-related issues. CRISPR, artificial intelligence, robotics and other science-based technologies pose ethical questions that an educated citizenry needs to understand for democracy to function well. Similarly, government funding for scientific research ultimately depends on public understanding and support.

It is an excellent thing to say that learning science for citizenship is an important goal for K-12 science education. However, that goal is not accurately reflected in science education standards, state tests, and most curricula. It is past time to correct the imbalance.

Note: This entire blog can be downloaded as a single PDF file. See the link at the bottom of this page.

Some important conferences and reports

Posted on by
1

Since the last blog post, in June 2022, the Moore Foundation, an anonymous donor, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have supported important work about science education standards and about scientific misinformation. We appreciate their commitment, as well as the work of dozens of teachers, state and local policymakers, media experts and others who attended two invitational conferences leading to papers and reports, and contributed their thinking.

A conference was held at Stanford University in February 2023 called “Reinventing Scientific Literacy for an Age of Misinformation: NGSS 2.0?” Several papers and a website were among the results. One paper is a short Policy Brief by Jonathan Osborne (Kamalachari Professor of Science Education emeritus at Stanford) and Andy Zucker called Current Science Education Standards: The Good, the Bad and the Missing. A more extended discussion of recommendations in the Policy Brief is a paper by Osborne, Zucker, and Pimentel called Where Next for Science Education Standards?  

Those two papers and a number of others related to science education in an age of misinformation are available, free of charge, at https://sciedandmisinfo.stanford.edu/resources.

Another outcome of the Stanford conference was that the Howard Hughes Medical Institute provided support for a conference held in July 2023 to help answer the question: What should students learn in
K-12 science classes to help them better evaluate scientific information and resist misinformation? The result of the work at the conference was a short paper called Learning to Find Trustworthy Scientific Information by Andy Zucker and Erin McNeill (then CEO of the nonprofit Media Literacy Now). That paper identifies four areas in which science teachers can and should help students become lifelong learners of trustworthy science and resist misinformation. These areas are:

  • learn to evaluate the credibility of sources of scientific information;
  • learn more about the scientific enterprise, such as the nature and importance of a “scientific consensus”;
  • apply media literacy competencies when searching for information; and,
  • become more aware of one’s own thinking and behavior.

The next post on this blog will identify some of the impressive steps that have been taken by science teacher professional organizations, including NSTA and NABT, that are well aligned with the reports. These steps are a thoughtful response to the science misinformation crisis.

An important report from Stanford

Posted on by
Reply

Science Education in an Age of Misinformation is an important new report from Stanford University. We welcome this report, especially because the authors reached the same conclusion that we have, namely that national and state science education standards need to be revised in order to teach students to distinguish between real science and junk science. As the Stanford report notes, the cultural context is significantly different now than it was when the NGSS was developed and published, with misinformation playing a far greater and more harmful role than it once did.

Discussions leading to the report were led by Jonathan Osborne, an emeritus Professor of Science Education at Stanford, who was also the lead author. More than a dozen people contributed to the discussions and writing of the report, including Bruce Alberts, who currently holds the Chancellor’s Leadership Chair in Biochemistry and Biophysics for Science and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. Professor Alberts is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences and a former Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine. It seems significant to us that Alberts, a pillar of the science community, recognizes that current science education standards need attention.

To the best of our knowledge, the work of the Stanford group and our own work were entirely independent. Certainly, we were unaware of their existence until last month. Nonetheless, there are a great many similarities in our concerns and recommendations. Among the overlaps are these: recognizing that educating students about misinformation and judging the quality of sources is vital; helping students develop a better understanding of how scientists reach consensus; developing “competent outsiders” who can make use of science; the need for greater digital literacy; reducing emphasis on teaching science that few students will ever use; and changing other elements of the education system associated with standards, such as high-stakes assessments.

We are encouraged by publication of this report and hope that it stimulates further discussion and, eventually, action to revise and improve science education standards. Our previous post offered specific suggestions for how and why the NGSS should be improved.

“A Response to the National Academies’ 2021 Call to Action”

Posted on by
Reply

A few days ago Science Educator, a journal produced by the National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA), published an article by me and Penny Noyce responding to the Call for Action for Science Education published last summer by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The topic of the article is teaching science for citizenship, and the abstract reads as follows:

The 2021 publication of Call to Action: Building Opportunity for the Future by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine offers an opportunity to consider re-balancing K-12 science education in the United States. Besides a strong and detailed appeal to provide a more equitable education, the document calls for science education to focus more purposefully on developing an “informed citizenry that makes fact-based decisions in everyday life.” An approach to science education that reaches beyond scientific theories, facts and methods to consider how science interacts with everyday and civic life, including personal, economic, and ethical concerns, has been called a Vision II approach. Benefits of such an approach are likely to include greater student engagement, practice in constructive group discourse, exercise of critical thinking skills, and strengthening of civic skills needed in a democracy. We suggest pertinent resources and outline the relatively modest changes in policy, curriculum and instruction required at the national, state, district and classroom level to create a more effective approach to teaching science for citizenship.

The Science Educator article cites more than a dozen studies documenting the benefits of teaching science in this broader context. For example, to “inoculate” students against scientific misinformation, which has become so ubiquitous, teachers need to teach media literacy skills that are not “science,” per se. Also, almost everyone realizes that greater knowledge of the intersection of civics and science is essential to preserve American democracy; even Science magazine published an editorial last year recommending “a new spirit of cooperation between the science and civics education communities.” 

This article includes an analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards, noting that,

The most significant component of the NGSS is its list of more than 200 Performance Expectations describing what students should know and be able to do at various grade levels. Those are the minimum expectations for students and the highest priorities for teachers. … They also set the boundaries of high-stakes testing.

Among these 200-plus Performance Expectations only a handful even hint at a broader view of scientific literacy, one that includes not only scientific findings, theories, and methods, but also personal, economic, and ethical concerns. In everyday life, decisions involving science are often made by non-scientists, who must consider a variety of perspectives beyond science. As the National Association of Biology Teachers has written in a Position Statement, excellent biology teachers “follow an integrated approach by incorporating other subjects, technology, society, and ethics.” All science teachers need to follow this advice if schools are going to develop “an informed citizenry that makes fact-based decisions in everyday life.” Teachers need to help students learn to learn about science even after they leave school and have no textbook to guide them.

There are innumerable science-related questions non-scientists need to answer, including politicians, city and town officials, and ordinary citizens. Who decides that COVID vaccines are safe, and how do I know they really are? Do vaccines cause autism? Will this advertised product really drain toxins from my body? Whose job was it to protect the public water supply in Flint, Michigan, and could that happen in my town? What are the pros and cons of buying a hybrid versus an electric car; how can I evaluate the advertisers’ claims; what am I willing to pay? Should I let my child play tackle football? Should I go to a tanning parlor before my beach vacation? How much should states and cities pay for clean energy and why, and should I support a particular ballot question about this?

The most important recommendation made in our article is that state and local policymakers explicitly set a high priority on teaching science in the context of societal and personal issues. Radical changes are not necessary. What is needed is a modest, feasible shift in priorities encouraged from the top down. Like adding yeast to bread dough, just a little bit can make a big difference in the result.

The full article is a NSELA members-only benefit. Check with your library or other science educators who may have access. You can also send an email to either Andy Zucker or Penny Noyce requesting a copy of the Science Educator article.

Andy

Developing Students’ Scientific Literacy

Posted on by
2

The primary goal of K-12 science education should be to develop students’ scientific literacy. For example, the New York State P-12 Science Learning Standards identifies that very goal, stating that, “our education system [should] keep pace with what it means to be scientifically literate.”

But what exactly does “scientific literacy” mean? One way to define it would be to stack up the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the appendices to the NGSS, and the Framework for K-12 Science Education (the template for the NGSS). Scientific literacy could be defined as everything in those documents. But that is close to 1,000 pages of text.

English teachers and science teachers can agree that 1,000 pages makes for an unwieldy definition. Can we do better?

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)—which periodically tests thousands of students in dozens of countries across disciplines, including science—developed a more concise definition. For PISA:

Scientific literacy is defined as the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen….

That’s not bad. Actually, it’s quite good. PISA’s definition can easily encompass the three dimensions of the NGSS: disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), scientific practices, and cross-cutting concepts. Scientifically literate people know some science content and understand, generally, how scientists practice science and develop new knowledge.

But beyond that, and equally important, PISA’s definition emphasizes, as the NGSS does not, that scientific literacy is for everyone, not just for college graduates or those who often use science as part of their jobs. In other words, the goal of developing students’ scientific literacy is simply not the same as “preparing students for college and careers,” the stated goal of the NGSS. The latter is a cramped, narrow view of scientific literacy. It conveys a message that the NGSS is a “prerequisite” to the real work that comes later: college and careers. “Don’t worry about applying science outside of college or careers,” is an unintended message, especially to the millions of students who are not college-bound.

For more than three decades, from the time that Science for All Americans was published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1989, key leaders in science education have focused on educating all students. As the AAAS book states, “When demographic realities, national needs, and democratic values are taken into account, it becomes clear that the nation can no longer ignore the science education of any students,” including the non-college-bound student and the many others who won’t use much science in their careers. The book’s introduction expands on the idea:

Education has no higher purpose than preparing people to lead personally fulfilling and responsible lives. For its part, science education—meaning education in science, mathematics, and technology—should help students to develop the understandings and habits of mind they need to become compassionate human beings able to think for themselves and to face life head on. It should equip them also to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society that is open, decent, and vital. America’s future—its ability to create a truly just society, to sustain its economic vitality, and to remain secure in a world torn by hostilities—depends more than ever on the character and quality of the education that the nation provides for all of its children.

As Penny Noyce and I have written recently in Education Week, the narrow view of the NGSS almost certainly makes science class less appealing to many students. People are interested in themselves and other people, and the national science education standards say little that humanizes science, little that could literally put a human face on the subject. For example, the NGSS does not mention a single scientist by name and the words “women” and “minorities” don’t appear in the text of the NGSS.

If Americans want to develop all students’ scientific literacy, Penny and I believe science teachers need to put a greater emphasis on the following five topics, “keys to scientific literacy.” These are:

  1. Teach science in the context of societal and personal issues
  2. Tie scientific literacy to traditional forms of literacy
  3. Teach how to find reliable scientific information and how to reject junk science
  4. Include some important events in the history of science
  5. Help females and minority students realize their potential in science

The NGSS devotes hundreds of pages to identifying what students should learn, focusing almost entirely on science content and scientific practices. By having students learn mainly about investigating scientific “phenomena,” the NGSS leaves behind many other important aspects of scientific literacy.

The NGSS is one piece of a bigger system

Posted on by
Reply

Several reviewers noted that education standards like the NGSS are only one influence on classroom instruction, whether in science or other subjects. We heartily agree! Their comments are an important reminder.

The quality of science teachers, the support they receive, the amount of time allocated to teaching science, the nature of high-stakes tests, support of STEM education by parents and the community—these are just a sample of other important influences on teaching and learning science. One reviewer wrote, “I agree with the ultimate goals for raising scientifically literate students … but I question what new and improved standards will do without addressing the current lack of infrastructure to implement them.”

The white paper does not claim that improving the NGSS is the one and only way to improve science education. At the same time, the NGSS promotes an excessively narrow vision of science and scientific literacy, so we should not be surprised when many teachers adopt that narrow vision.

As an example, too many parents believe that vaccines cause autism. Students graduating high school ought to know that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) is an excellent source of information about vaccine safety and about many other public health issues. Similarly, students should learn that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) is a primary source of information about the causes and the impacts of climate change. Organizations like the CDC and the IPCC are central to NGSS practice #8, “obtaining, evaluating, and communicating” science-related information, bringing together experts from many institutions to synthesize and vet scientific findings. Such institutions are one key mechanism for determining scientific consensus, if and when it exists. Yet the NGSS makes no mention of any scientific institution. Nor does it explain how science helps to inform public policy—about vaccines, climate, food safety, or other issues. This is short-sighted.

Improving the NGSS is no guarantee that science instruction will improve, yet guidance from national standards cannot be ignored merely because other factors are important, too.

Andy and Penny

Welcome to our blog

Posted on by
Reply

Thank you for reading this blog. We will add posts several times each month, or even weekly. You can subscribe by clicking the link at the top of the right column.

Your participation in the conversation about science education standards can be important. Education standards are intended to meet the needs of a large number of individuals and groups. By the same token, changing standards requires widespread discussion before revisions are made.

We worked on the white paper “Opportunities to Improve the Next Generation Science Standards (the NGSS)” for more than six months before posting it on this website in late 2019, making the paper widely available. Earlier, several experts agreed to review a draft and provide comments, for which we are grateful. In future blog posts we will highlight some of the comments and suggestions we received from them and from others, and we invite you to offer your own comments on this blog.

Continue reading →