New framework aims to shape K-12 science
Two-step process will help states create more specific science standards
By Raishay Lin, Contributing Editor
Read more by eSchool News Contributor
New science recommendations identify failures in current science education.
A report released July 19 by the National Research Council proposes a new framework for K-12 science education that emphasizes deep understanding of key topics and practices, and proposes that K-12 science education be built in three dimensions: core ideas, cross-cutting concepts relevant across disciplines, and key practices.
The framework will serve as a foundation for new K-12 science education standards in response to demand for more U.S. workers in science fields.
The report identifies failures in current science education that result in too few U.S. workers with strong scientific backgrounds and too many who lack basic scientific knowledge. In particular, the report criticizes disorganization over multiple years of school, preoccupation with breadth over depth, and a lack of student engagement as crippling to science education.
The authoring committee says it wants science education to ensure that by the end of 12th grade, students have an appreciation for the wonder of science, sufficient knowledge to engage in scientific discussion, and skills required for careers in science, technology, and engineering.
“The report has provided a new, more coherent, and connected way to look at science education in K-12 by bringing together discipline and scientific elements,” said Francis Eberle, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association. “We’ve always known about them, but they’ve created a framework for how they hold together.”
jeshafer43
July 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Ok, the new science framework sounds wonderful. What scares me is the very last sentence in the article (and I quote it here) “But in this report they’ve left …room and flexibility for teachers in what and how they teach”. Boy doesn’t this tell you that once the classroom door is closed a teacher can pretty much do what he or she wants. Teachers with strong science interest of backgrounds will do the standards justice. In my experience when I co-taught science teaching methods to pre-service elementary teachers, students with strong backgrounds in science or curiosity were as scarce as hens teeth. Most were scared to death of science and thus probably would not be very good at teaching it to children. And once their classroom doors are closed….well you know how that goes if you have spent any time in a school.
jeshafer43
July 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Ok, the new science framework sounds wonderful. What scares me is the very last sentence in the article (and I quote it here) “But in this report they’ve left …room and flexibility for teachers in what and how they teach”. Boy doesn’t this tell you that once the classroom door is closed a teacher can pretty much do what he or she wants. Teachers with strong science interest of backgrounds will do the standards justice. In my experience when I co-taught science teaching methods to pre-service elementary teachers, students with strong backgrounds in science or curiosity were as scarce as hens teeth. Most were scared to death of science and thus probably would not be very good at teaching it to children. And once their classroom doors are closed….well you know how that goes if you have spent any time in a school.
cyber582
July 26, 2011 at 9:38 am
While I believe I understand the point of the quote … the flexibility for teaching style, I agree with the lack of science in the K-5 level. As a middle school instructor, we see NO science in the incoming 6th graders. Their curiosity has often been totally neglected in the “reading/writing and math” emphasis that is driving the standardized testing focus.
I hope I am reading and understanding that scientific method and inquiry are the emphasis, rather than endless “content” without it’s place and context. Then testing needs to become more sophisticated about better measurement of knowledge and awareness of different cultures and issues of language.
cyber582
July 26, 2011 at 9:38 am
While I believe I understand the point of the quote … the flexibility for teaching style, I agree with the lack of science in the K-5 level. As a middle school instructor, we see NO science in the incoming 6th graders. Their curiosity has often been totally neglected in the “reading/writing and math” emphasis that is driving the standardized testing focus.
I hope I am reading and understanding that scientific method and inquiry are the emphasis, rather than endless “content” without it’s place and context. Then testing needs to become more sophisticated about better measurement of knowledge and awareness of different cultures and issues of language.
computerhead
September 28, 2011 at 5:08 pm
The “standards” and testing regime is
killing the main thing needed for engaging
with science: curiosity.
Part of the current mania involves pushing
higher-level abstract content down to lower grade
levels–ignoring 100 years of research on
what is developmentally appropriate.
I often hear this from students: “I hate math
and science.” To those who love science this
is sad. But it is not the kids’ fault.