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

Some blog followers 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/ZjbgoZ 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 Contentious Common Core Controversy #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “The Contentious Common Core Controversy #2” [Hake (2013b)]. The abstract reads:

**************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “The Contentious Common Core Controversy” [Hake (2013a)] at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv, an EDDRA2 subscriber alerted me privately to Thomas Newkirk's (2013) valuable essay “Speaking Back to the Common Core” at http://bit.ly/15vjIpa. Newkirk http://bit.ly/YtZetD raises the following concerns: (1) Conflict of Interest, (2) Misdiagnosis of the problem, (3) Developmental inappropriateness, (4) A sterile view of reading, (5) Underplaying role of narrative, (6) A reform that gives extraordinary power to standardized tests. (7) A bonanza for commercialism, (8) Standards directing instruction, (9) Drowning out other conversations.

Newkirk then adds “Now it may be that I am wrong. . . . . I have colleagues I respect who think so. It may be that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) does what others claim they will - encourage good pedagogical discussion, clarify goals, help students read deeply, give writing its proper place in the curriculum, expand the repertoire in English Language Arts to a focus on quality nonfiction. And that the initiative won’t dissolve into teaching to the new tests. Let’s hope so. But I'm left with the question: Who watches the watcher? Who assesses the assessor? That's our job. We’ve come too far, learned too much, invented too much to diminish our practice by one iota to accommodate the Common Core. When and if we see it impeding our best work, it is not too late to speak up.”
**************************************************

To access the complete 10 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Wtj62R.

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 05 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 were 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.

Systems Theory and Curriculum Design

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Systems Theory and Curriculum Design” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*************************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR’s Alfred Louro pointed to Marion Brady’s Washington Post comment at http://wapo.st/OmgXvY (paraphrasing): “I think the tests and the Common Core State Standards http://www.corestandards.org/ on which they're based are blocking consideration of the most promising educational innovation in the last century - the use of general systems theory as a tool for reshaping and radically simplifying the ‘core curriculum.’ ”

Brady has explained his systems-based curriculum in his book What's Worth Learning at http://bit.ly/fAaI6Z - for comments see e.g. Bernstein at http://bit.ly/htqJQN and Hake at http://bit.ly/fA8aC6.

For an introduction to “Systems Thinking” see “Over Two-Hundred Annotated References on Systems Thinking” [Hake (2009)] at http://bit.ly/9gZdXU (1.7 MB).
*************************************************

To access the complete 10 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/LAgknl.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE

“The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. . . . . at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires research which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other.”
- P.W. Anderson in “More is Different” (1972)


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 08 July 2012.
Anderson, P.W. 1972. “More is Different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science,” Science 177 (4047): 393-396; online as a 1.2 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/e4Dv8D.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Systems Theory and Curriculum Design,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/LAgknl. Post of 8 Jul 2012 15:12:30-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.