What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards
Alberto J. Rodríguez
Abstract
Alberto J. Rodríguez
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, I offer a critique of A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012) and of the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013). While the new version of the science education standards and the arguments put forward to support them are an improvement from the previous version of the NRC Science Education Standards, we must pause and reflect on the implications on jumping on another education reform, fast moving train. Using sociotransformative constructivism as a guiding theoretical lens, I argued that the Conceptual Framework and NGSS documents fall short due to the lack of retrospection, the on‐going contradictory discourses, and the lack of voice and representation in the development of these important policy documents. Suggestions for improvement and discussion are offered in hope that we might prevent the NGSS from having as little impact on teachers' practice and on students' learning as the previous version of the national science education standards had. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 1031–1051, 2015.
OpenAlex reports 199 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Abstract In this paper, I offer a critique of A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012) and of the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013). While the new version of the science education standards and the arguments put forward to support them are an improvement from the previous version of the NRC Science Education Standards, we must pause and reflect on the implications on jumping on another education reform, fast moving train. Using sociotransformative constructivism as a guiding theoretical lens, I argued that the Conceptual Framework and NGSS documents fall short due to the lack of retrospection, the on‐going contradictory discourses, and the lack of voice and representation in the development of these important policy documents. Suggestions for improvement and discussion are offered in hope that we might prevent the NGSS from having as little impact on teachers' practice and on students' learning as the previous version of the national science education standards had. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 1031–1051, 2015.
Key concepts: Next Generation Science Standards, Science education, National Science Education Standards, Constructivism (international relations), Equity (law), Academic standards, Mathematics education, Sociology