Recommendations from NSTA to Achieve for Using the Framework for K–12 Science Education in Developing Next Generation Science Standards

September 7, 2011

1. Recommendation

Maintain or reduce the number of endpoints and other outcomes included in the core disciplinary ideas.

Rationale and Comments

• This is a reinforcement of Framework Recommendation #3 (page 12-3).
• Progress in reducing the number of standards (and benchmarks) from previous documents has been made. Great care should be taken not to dilute the progress by increasing the amount of endpoints with additional science content.
• Engineering is new and is an addition to the traditional disciplines. Schools need instructional time to give it an in-depth treatment.
• The integration of crosscutting concepts and scientific and engineering practices will add to the instructional load. Room is needed to accommodate the integration.
• The use of clear boundary statements as noted in Framework Recommendation #6 (page 12-4) will be helpful. (See Designs for Science Literacy for pruning ideas).

2. Recommendation

Ensure the standards are written, and clearly described, as outcomes that are to be accomplished by all students. Use the disciplinary ideas as the organizing structure of the performance expectations.

Rationale and Comments

• The Framework is not clear about the definition or nature of a standard. The outcomes described in the endpoints of the core ideas are similar to those in the NSES and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (BSL) but the nature of the practices are not clear. (See recommendation 4 below.)
• Teachers and other educators are most familiar with the content ideas described in the disciplinary ideas. Using them as the organizing structure will make it easier for educators to interpret the document.

3. Recommendation

Clearly develop each standard as an outcome that incorporates all three dimensions. This will entail the clarification of the use of crosscutting concepts and the scientific and engineering practices in the integration of these two dimensions with the core ideas.

Rationale and Comment

• The nature and use of the crosscutting concepts and scientific and engineering practices is unclear. Tables 9-1 and 9-1 only list them and give them lip service. Are they outcomes parallel to the endpoints? Are they to be assessed or only included in the instruction that leads to the performance outcome of the endpoint?

4. Recommendation

Clarify further the nature of scientific and engineering practices. Clearly delineate between what students are to know and be able to do and how they should be taught those things.

Rationale and Comments

• The practices are currently written as behaviors but are often described as requiring an understanding. Note how Box 3-2 is an effort to develop and understand the practices in science and engineering as contrasted with the actual practices listed in Box 3-1, but there is no indication that the content in Box 3-2 represents student outcomes.
• Other references in the Framework address the practices as instructional strategies. This ambiguity and confusion among doing the practices, understanding the purpose and role of the practices, and using them to design classroom instruction needs to be clarified. The document, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards developed by the NRC and cited in the Framework Recommendation #4 (page 12-4) made the distinction of the difference between an outcome of instruction and a mode of instruction. This distinction is far from clear in the Framework.
• The Framework includes many recommendations that are more about the how in addition to the what. While this guidance may be useful to teachers, the standards ultimately should be proscriptive regarding what students are to learn, but not proscriptive about how students should learn it (or how teachers should teach it). Therefore, it is important that the ends and means are clearly distinguished. In other words, if something is describing teaching methods, it should be clear to the reader that such text is not a standard.

5. Recommendation

Make use of the National Science Educations Standards, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, and Atlas of Science Literacy

Rationale and Comment

• The Framework provides a basic outline for what students are to learn. The standards will still need a great deal of language to clearly describe what students are supposed to know and be able to do. NSES and BSL have a great deal of language that has been carefully thought out, particularly describing concepts in life, earth, and physical science, but also some in technology. The Atlas, in turn, provides a great deal of advice on sequencing that can be useful in deciding on sequences, not only within particular topics but between topics as well. The clarifications (sub-ideas and boundaries) included on the AAAS Assessment Website (http://assessment.aaas.org/) may also be useful in this work.

6. Recommendation

Explicitly include Nature of Science in the standards.

Rationale and Comments

• The Framework is missing explicit learning goals about the nature of science. While engaging in practices will provide students some understanding of some aspects of the nature of science, it falls short of what students need to know about the relationships between science, technology, and society and important episodes in the history of science.
• The rhetoric of the Framework calls for and seems to imply that students will understand why the practices are used by scientists, but experience tells us that unless the instruction is explicit, the knowledge of the purpose and reason for the practices will not be understood.
• A discussion of the nature of science concludes Chapter 3, Scientific and Engineering Practices, but is not incorporated as an outcome that students should accomplish.
• The nature of science could be included when standards are developed from the endpoints in Chapter 8, Core Ideas: Engineering, Technology and the Applications of Science. Understanding the nature of science and scientific practices (in contrast to doing the practices in Chapter 3) would produce a parallel between nature of science and the nature of engineering design in Chapter 8 in the same way as the parallel outcomes for the practices of science and engineering have been accomplished in Chapter 3.

7. Recommendation

The standards should include multiple examples of performance expectations to be included in a standard and should be carefully crafted to ensure the performance is a clear indication understanding the endpoint described in the core idea.

Rationale

• This is reinforcement of Framework Recommendations #5 (page 12-4) and #13 (page 12-8)
• The endpoints are stated as components of core ideas, not behaviors. To accomplish the cognitive outcome, the performance must provide enough evidence that understanding has been accomplished. Since multiple performances are called for, care must be taken to assume that each one, independent of the others, represents an understanding of the endpoint. When writing the performances, an outcome different from the idea/concept in the endpoint must be avoided. For example, worthwhile instructional activities like constructing a model, conducting an investigation, or working a mathematical problem, may not necessarily indicate the same level or nature of understanding of a core idea component called for.

8. Recommendation

Carefully attend to the K–2 grade band as the foundational set of the rest of the standards.

Rationale and Comments

• The K–2 level not only facilitates the reduction in the number of standards at higher grade levels but also holds the greatest potential for implementation failure.
• For the progressions to be fulfilled, K–2 is essential. Concepts that were previously placed in the upper grades have been placed in K–2. Teachers at the K–2 level have limited science content and will need clear images of these ideas.
• Necessary support must be provided to primary grade teachers to understand how the standards can be implemented. Essential to this are Framework Recommendations #7 (12-5), #11 (12-7), and #12 (12-7). Assumptions referred to in #11 should be made explicit with clear examples of how each might be addressed. The rest of the learning progressions depend upon this early instruction, so inadequate instructional time at the primary level will defeat standards implementation.
• Clear links and explicit examples of how to integrate literacy and numeracy into the science standards is essential if we expect instructional time allotted at the K–2 grade band. The stands should make specific links to the mathematics and language arts in the Common Core the same way that the Common Core points to science.
• Successful implementation of grade level standards called for in Framework Recommendations #9 (12-6) and #10 (12-7) would heavily depend on quality differentiation, especially at the elementary grades. If sample grade-level standards are written, language should be included that stresses differentiation to address student needs.
• Make certain the grade-level endpoints are developmental in nature and grade appropriate, but ensure content in these early grades is not short changed due to a perceived belief that it is not important to elementary level students.

The last recommendation focuses on a significant new area of the Framework that will require greater context, clarification, and support for science educators to ensure the successful implementation of new standards. Failing to provide this clarification and support is to invite resistance to standards implementation.

9. Recommendation

Include supporting chapter or section in standards document that addresses relationship between science and engineering practices and inquiry.

Rationale and Comments

• Given the complexity and multifaceted nature of inquiry and practices, NSTA believes it is likely to be the biggest challenge to successful implementation of standards.
• The term inquiry has been used within the science education community for many years, although with varying degrees of understanding. Because the Framework is making a significant shift to practices, it will be critical to provide transitional support.
• Historical perspective should be included to provide coherence and greater understanding.