POMP'S

19 APRIL 2013 VOL 340 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 276

EDUCATIONFORUM

I

magine that politicians and the people they

represent understood how human activity

impacts Earth, including climate. And

imagine that they had learned how to evaluate

claims, argue from evidence, and understand

models. These understandings and practices

are prominent in the U.S. National Research

Council (NRC) framework to guide the next

iteration of standards for U.S. elementary and

secondary school students ( 1). We discuss

how aspects such as authorship, coordina-

tion among subject areas, and broader goals

of college and career readiness give reason to

believe that this effort will be more success-

ful than previous attempts to use standards to

improve science education ( 2).

Concurrent development in English Lan-

guage Arts (ELA) (“literacy”) and Mathemat-

ics, under the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS) ( 3, 4), has provided the opportunity

to build on the strengths of these literacy and

math documents from a science education

perspective. Closely following the CCSS, the

Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)

are being developed by Achieve, a nonprofi t

organization, working directly with 26 lead

states ( 5). This structure acknowledges that

the standards will be adopted and imple-

mented at the state level.

Past educational standards were devel-

oped by professional organizations on behalf

of scientists and educators and in different

subject areas independently, yielding more

material than any K–12 school system (kin-

dergarten to high school) could teach well ( 6,

7). Now there is a call for “fewer, clearer, and

higher” standards ( 8).

Building on Literacy and Math

The CCSS focus not only on what it will

take to become a successful student in higher

education but also a successful employee.

Broadening the scope in this way, skills and

abilities that support civic participation are

explicit in the standards. Reading standards

give earlier and more extensive treatment of

informational text than in the past. This is

echoed in the writing standards; “The abil-

ity to write logical arguments based on sub-

stantive claims, sound reasoning, and rele-

vant evidence is a cornerstone” ( 9). Writing

standards include in-depth research with an

emphasis on analysis and presentation. Stan-

dards for speaking and listening include

“Integrate multiple sources of information

presented in diverse formats and media (e.g.,

visually, quantitatively, orally) in order to

make informed decisions and solve prob-

lems, evaluating the credibility and accuracy

of each source and noting any discrepancies

among the data” ( 3).

We see a similar emphasis on reasoning

and problem-solving in the math standards.

Comparisons with high-performing countries

fi nd that spending more time on fewer topics

gets better results. Thus, the math standards

emphasize focus and coherence rather than

covering topics in a curriculum that is a “mile

wide and an inch deep” ( 10). Greater depth in

each topic comes from students’ development

of mathematical expertise defi ned by eight

standards for mathematical practice.

The math standards take an overdue

step toward greater synergy with science by

introducing modeling in secondary grades.

The math standards defi ne modeling as “the

process of choosing and using appropriate

mathematics and statistics to analyze empiri-

cal situations, to understand them better, and

to improve decisions” ( 4). The elaboration of

the basic modeling cycle resonates with the

Opportunities and Challenges in Next Generation Standards

SCIENCE EDUCATION

E. K. Stage, 1 * H. Asturias, 1 T. Cheuk, 2 P. A. Daro, 3 S. B. Hampton 3

Goals for literacy, math, and science education

may increase citizens’ capacity to argue from

evidence.

Math

ELA

Science

M1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them M2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively M6. Attend to precision M7. Look for and make use of structure M8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

S2. Develop and use models M4. Model with mathematics S5. Use mathematics and computational thinking

S1. Ask questions and define problems S3. Plan and carry out investigations S4. Analyze and interpret data S6. Construct explanations and design solutions

E2. Build a strong base of knowledge through content-rich texts E5. Read, write, and speak grounded in evidence M3 and E4. Construct viable arguments and critique reasoning of others S7. Engage in argument from evidence

E1. Demonstrate independence in reading complex texts and in writing and speaking about them E7. Come to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading, listening, and collaborations

S8. Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information E3. Obtain, synthesize, and report findings clearly and effectively in response to task and purpose

E6. Use technology and digital media strategically and capably M5. Use appropriate tools strategically

Relations and convergences in literacy (3), math (4), and science and engineering (1) practices. Adapted from ( 12).

*Corresponding author. [email protected]

1Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. 2Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 3National Center on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC 20006, USA.

Published by AAAS

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 340 19 APRIL 2013 277

EDUCATIONFORUM

writing standards and with the science prac-

tices, e.g., “(5) validating the conclusions

by comparing them with the situation, and

then either improving the model or, if it is

acceptable, (6) reporting on the conclusions

and the reasoning behind them. Choices,

assumptions, and approximations are pres-

ent throughout this cycle” ( 4).

Literacy and math standards include prac-

tices that are challenging to teach in science

without support from teachers of other sub-

jects. Standards for Speaking and Listening

include, “Evaluate a speaker’s point of view,

reasoning, and use of evidence and rheto-

ric” ( 3). Standards for Mathematical Practice

include, “Construct viable arguments and

critique the reasoning of others” ( 4).

Operationalizing Inquiry In this promising context, science standards

have been drafted, working from the NRC

framework, that operationalized “inquiry”

with eight practices of science and engineer-

ing: (i) asking questions and defi ning prob-

lems; (ii) developing and using models; (iii)

planning and carrying out investigations; (iv)

analyzing and interpreting data; (v) using

mathematics and computational thinking;

(vi) constructing explanations and designing

solutions; (vii) engaging in argument from

evidence; and (viii) obtaining, evaluating,

and communicating information ( 2).

The framework attempted to narrow the

number of core disciplinary ideas, although

reviewers of draft science standards have

said that the volume of content undermines

the sense making required by the practices

( 11). The framework retained the idea of

crosscutting concepts (e.g., structure and

function, stability and change of systems),

and argued that practices, core disciplinary

ideas, and crosscutting concepts should not

be taught or assessed separately from each

other. Each draft science performance expec-

tation incorporates one or more disciplinary

idea, practice, and/or crosscutting concept.

These performance expectations also cross-

reference the literacy and math standards;

the convergence is shown in the chart ( 12).

Science educators have decried the com-

mon practice of reading textbooks instead

of doing investigations; the former is still

alive and well ( 13). Literacy educators are

concerned about increased emphasis on

informational text in the CCSS ( 14). It is

time to embrace the coherence and learning

that can be achieved by making meaning-

ful connections between and among direct

experience with science and engineering

practices and reading, writing, speaking,

and listening ( 15).

What’s Next? Forty-fi ve states have adopted the CCSS.

If a substantial number of states adopt the

NGSS, it increases the likelihood that devel-

opers and publishers of instructional and

assessment materials will focus on creat-

ing a common set of tools, at least at ele-

mentary and middle grades. If colleges and

universities accept high school courses that

are based on the standards and the College

Board continues to revise the Advanced

Placement syllabi, high schools are more

likely to follow them.

In addition to suff icient time and

resources for educators and parents to learn

how to support these more ambitious expec-

tations, there are several challenges that sci-

entists, educators, and policy-makers should

consider. Advocates for high-quality science

education for all students need to participate

in conversations at the local and state level

where educational policy is enacted. Scien-

tists from higher education, research organi-

zations, and corporations infl uence science

education and can align their contributions

with educational goals in the standards.

Historically, the United States has pro-

vided limited opportunity to learn science

to most of its students and advanced training

to a privileged few, focusing on the pipeline

for future scientists and innovators without

concomitant attention to a science literacy

for citizenship. The system needs to be trans-

formed to affi rm high standards of accom-

plishment for all students and to provide

resources for all students to reach them ( 8).

Although the literacy and math standards

were widely adopted, and 26 states have served

as partners in developing NGSS, momentum

may be slowing; some states may reject the

NGSS because of the inclusion of evolution

and climate change ( 16). The National Center

for Science Education, a defender of teach-

ing evolution for more than three decades,

broadened its mission to include the defense

of teaching climate science.

Science education benef its from the

learning sciences; scientists interested in

the most effective teaching of science need

to learn from education research. Formal

schooling has been criticized as ineffective

at motivating and inspiring students ( 17)

and inadequate at recognizing the relation

between interest and accomplishment ( 18).

The NGSS can provide a platform for for-

mal education to become more motivating.

Many people are inspired by science in infor-

mal settings; parallel attention to the NGSS

can contribute to “a wide-ranging and thriv-

ing ecosystem of opportunities that respond

to the needs of children as well as commu-

nities” ( 19). Education and public outreach

activities associated with research grants,

whether in or out of school, should pro-

vide both preparation and inspiration. Local

school districts, after-school providers, and

informal science institutions need to create

a coherent strategy for the regional science

learning ecosystem.

This new round of standards develop-

ment is an opportunity to improve science

education that comes around once for each

generation. We need to inform ourselves,

f igure out whether and how we want to

get involved, and be intentional about our

participation.

References 1. Board on Science Education, National Research Council

(NRC), A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Prac- tices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

2. National Academy of Engineering and Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education, NRC, K-12 Standards for Engineering? (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2010).

3. Center for Best Practices, National Governors Associa- tion (NGA), and Council of Chief State School Offi cers, Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (NGA, Washington, DC, 2010); www.corestandards.org/ ELA-Literacy.

4. Center for Best Practices, NGA, and Council of Chief State School Offi cers, Common Core State Standards for Mathe- matics (NGA, Washington, DC, 2010); www.corestandards. org/Math.

5. Next Generation Science Standards, www.nextgenscience. org/next-generation-science-standards.

6. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1993).

7. National Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment, NRC, National Science Education Standards (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1996).

8. Commission on Mathematics and Science Education, The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics

and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global

Economy (Carnegie Corporation of New York, New York, 2009).

9. Common Core, www.corestandards.org/about-the-stan- dards/key-points-in-english-language-arts.

10. W. H. Schmidt, C. C. McKnight, S. A. Raizen, A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathemat-

ics Education (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1997).

11. J. Coffey, B. Alberts, Science 339, 489 (2013). 12. T. Cheuk, Comparison of the three content standards:

CCSS-ELA, CCSS-Mathematics, and NGSS (2012); http:// ell.stanford.edu/content/science.

13. E. R. Banilower et al., Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC, 2013)

14. C. Gewertz, Educ. Week 32(12), S2 (2012). 15. P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, C. Greenleaf, Science 328, 459

(2010). 16. E. W. Robelen, Educ. Week 32(19), 13 (2013). 17. C. Weiman, Issues Sci. Technol. 2012 (Fall) (2012). 18. R. H. Tai, C. Qi Liu, A. V. Maltese, X. Fan, Science 312,

1143 (2006). 19. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technol-

ogy, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s

Future (Offi ce of the President, Washington, DC, 2010).

10.1126/science.1234011

Published by AAAS