Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Next Generation Science Standards: Good or Bad for Science
Education?

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Richard Hake

Posts: 1,224
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04
Next Generation Science Standards: Good or Bad for Science
Education?

Posted: Mar 20, 2013 5:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (6.7 K)

Some subscribers to Math-Teach might be interested in a recent essay
"Next Generation Science Standards: Good or Bad for Science
Education?" [Hake (2013c)]. The abstract reads:

**************************************************
According to information at the "Next Generation of Science
Standards" (NGSS) site <http://bit.ly/Wwgjka>: "the "Common Core
State Standards" (CCSS) were written to help students meet the
particular challenges of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and
language in their respective fields." . . . . . . [[Pro and con
opinions on CCSS are set forth in "The Contentious Common Core
Controversy" [Hake (2013a)] at <http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv> and "The
Contentious Common Core Controversy #2" [Hake (2013b)] at
<http://bit.ly/Wtj62R>]] . . . . . . In contrast, the NGSS "will lay
out the core ideas and practices in science that students should
master in preparation for college and careers." A side-by-side
comparison of similarities and differences of CCSS and NGSS is given
in "Conceptual Framework for Science Education and the Next
Generation Science Standards" [Pruitt (2012a)] at
<http://1.usa.gov/10wb4Yv>. The second draft of NGSS was released on
8 January 2013, and the final version is scheduled for this month,
March 2013.

At <http://bit.ly/YPwB7j> the American Association of Physics
Teachers (AAPT) has criticized the second draft, stating that "the
wording of many of the NGSS performance expectations is confusing to
the point that it is not clear what students are actually supposed to
do," and that "the science content of the current form of
NGSS contains so many errors that most science teachers and
scientists will doubt the credibility of the entire enterprise."

At <http://bit.ly/XvHuPS>, Janet Coffey and Bruce Alberts delineate
the GOOD and the BAD in the second draft:
GOOD: "[NGSS] builds on "A Framework for K-12 Science Education:
Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas" at
<http://bit.ly/zy0qqG> [which puts] forth a vision of science
education that is notable for emphasizing student participation in
key science and engineering practices, such as asking questions and
defining problems; developing and using models; engaging in argument
from evidence; and learning cross- cutting concepts such as energy
and matter, cause and effect, and structure and function. To allow
room for these in the school day, the "Framework" stressed the
importance of minimizing the number of disciplinary core ideas that
standards require to be taught.
BAD: " . . . . . the sheer volume of content referenced in the
framework moves to the foreground in the NGSS draft and threatens to
undermine this promise. . . . . . . . Urgently needed is a vigorous
R&D agenda that pursues new methods of and approaches to assessment.
. . . . . A systematic commitment to the wrong quantitative measures,
such as the inexpensive multiple-choice testing of factoids, may well
result in the appearance of gains at the tremendous cost of
suppressing important aspects of learning, attending to the wrong
things in instruction, and conveying to students a distorted view of
science."

It remains to be seen whether or not the above deficiencies will be
overcome in the final version of NGSS.
**************************************************

To access the complete 221 kB essay please click on <http://bit.ly/147K6qY>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>
Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52>
Facebook: <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 20 March 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013a. " The Contentious Common Core Controversy," online
on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at <http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv>. Post of 3 Mar
2013 11:01:22 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the
complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and
are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/Z7TV0W> with a
provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2013b. "The Contentious Common Core Controversy #2" online
on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Wtj62R>. Post of 5 Mar
2013 11:32:15-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to
the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists
and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/W3hTwX>
with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2013c. Next Generation Science Standards: Good or Bad for
Science Education? online as a 221 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/147K6qY>.
The abstract and link on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/ZLp6B7> with a provision for comments.






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.