Thinking about National Standards in Science Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2017172717Palavras-chave:
standards, NGSS, national curriculum, practices, crisis narratives.Resumo
In this paper I present a critical reflection on the rationale and history of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which has sometimes been presented as the US version of a vision for a standardized science curriculum. I explore how the monograph, The Framework for K-12 Science Education, established the groundwork for the Next Generation Science Standards. I argue that crisis narratives often drive the arguments for standardization but in the US there was also an argument of the need to build a level of national uniformity in the content and practices that are presented to students as a tool for ensuring that children and youth have equitable access to important knowledge. However, at the same time educators have a responsibility for ensuring that homogenization achieved through standards does not enshrine the very inequities and ideologies public education seeks to change.
Downloads
Não há dados estatísticos.
Referências
Achieve Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc.
Barton, A. C. (1998). Reframing “Science for All” through the politics of poverty. Educational Policy, 12, 525–541. DOI: 10.1177/0895904898012005004
Bruner, J. (1992). Science education and teachers: A Karplus lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1, 5–12.
Cannon, E. N. & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal-based action predictions. Developmental Science, 15, 292-298. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01127.x
Edwards, R. (2008). Education – an impossible practice? Scottish Education Review, 40, 4-11.
Feynman, R. (1967). The character of a physical law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Washington, DC.
Leahy, S., & Wiliam, D. (2011). Devising learning progressions. Paper presented in the Symposium on How to Build Learning Progressions at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2011.
Goodman, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1996). Progress maps. (Part of the Assessment Resource Kit) Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research, Ltd.
Milne, C. (2011). The invention of science: why history of science matters for the classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Milne, C. (2013). Creating stories from history of science to problematize a scientific practice: A case study of boiling points, air pressure, and thermometers. Paper presented at the 12th biennial International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching conference, University of Pittsburgh, USA, June 19–23, 2013.
Milne, C. (2017). Why materials matter: Exploring the role of instruments in learning science. In C. Milne & K. Scantlebury (Eds.) Material practice and materiality: Too long ignored in science education. Dordrecht: Springer
Milne, C., Wallace, R., & Doucet, F. (2017). On not getting lost: The educational value of using con,tent storylines in curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment. Dialogic presentation at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education meeting, Tampa, FL, February, 2017.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber, (Eds). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse, (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196. doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Pratt, H. (2013). The NSTA reader’s guide to a Framework for K-12 Science Education. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC.: NSTA Press.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error. The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Samuels, A. (2016). Good school, rich school; bad school poor school: Inequality at the heart of America’s education system. The Atlantic, August 25, 2016. Accessed at: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/
Shepard, L., Daro, P., & Stancavage, F. (2013). The relevance of learning progressions for NAEP. Commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) Panel. Accessed at: www.air.org/common_core_NAEP.
Slater, G. B., & Griggs, C. B. (2015). Standardization and subjection: An autonomist critique of neoliberal school reform. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37, 438–459, doi: 10.1080/10714413.2015.1091259
Stoehr, K. J. (2017). Mathematics anxiety: One size does not fit all. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 69–84.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barton, A. C. (1998). Reframing “Science for All” through the politics of poverty. Educational Policy, 12, 525–541. DOI: 10.1177/0895904898012005004
Bruner, J. (1992). Science education and teachers: A Karplus lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1, 5–12.
Cannon, E. N. & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal-based action predictions. Developmental Science, 15, 292-298. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01127.x
Edwards, R. (2008). Education – an impossible practice? Scottish Education Review, 40, 4-11.
Feynman, R. (1967). The character of a physical law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Washington, DC.
Leahy, S., & Wiliam, D. (2011). Devising learning progressions. Paper presented in the Symposium on How to Build Learning Progressions at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2011.
Goodman, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1996). Progress maps. (Part of the Assessment Resource Kit) Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research, Ltd.
Milne, C. (2011). The invention of science: why history of science matters for the classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Milne, C. (2013). Creating stories from history of science to problematize a scientific practice: A case study of boiling points, air pressure, and thermometers. Paper presented at the 12th biennial International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching conference, University of Pittsburgh, USA, June 19–23, 2013.
Milne, C. (2017). Why materials matter: Exploring the role of instruments in learning science. In C. Milne & K. Scantlebury (Eds.) Material practice and materiality: Too long ignored in science education. Dordrecht: Springer
Milne, C., Wallace, R., & Doucet, F. (2017). On not getting lost: The educational value of using con,tent storylines in curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment. Dialogic presentation at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education meeting, Tampa, FL, February, 2017.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber, (Eds). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse, (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196. doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Pratt, H. (2013). The NSTA reader’s guide to a Framework for K-12 Science Education. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC.: NSTA Press.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error. The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Samuels, A. (2016). Good school, rich school; bad school poor school: Inequality at the heart of America’s education system. The Atlantic, August 25, 2016. Accessed at: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/
Shepard, L., Daro, P., & Stancavage, F. (2013). The relevance of learning progressions for NAEP. Commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) Panel. Accessed at: www.air.org/common_core_NAEP.
Slater, G. B., & Griggs, C. B. (2015). Standardization and subjection: An autonomist critique of neoliberal school reform. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37, 438–459, doi: 10.1080/10714413.2015.1091259
Stoehr, K. J. (2017). Mathematics anxiety: One size does not fit all. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 69–84.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Publicado
2017-08-31
Como Citar
Milne, C. (2017). Thinking about National Standards in Science Education. Revista Brasileira De Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências, 17(2), 717–744. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2017172717
Edição
Seção
Artigos
Licença
Os autores são responsáveis pela veracidade das informações prestadas e pelo conteúdo dos artigos.
Os autores que publicam neste periódico concordam plenamente com os seguintes termos:
- Os autores atestam que a contribuição é inédita, isto é, não foi publicada em outro periódico, atas de eventos ou equivalente.
- Os autores atestam que não submeteram a contribuição simultaneamente a outro periódico.
- Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à RPBEC o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial neste periódico.
- Os autores atestam que possuem os direitos autorais ou a autorização escrita de uso por parte dos detentores dos direitos autorais de figuras, tabelas, textos amplos etc. que forem incluídos no trabalho.
- Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (por exemplo, publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Os autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (por exemplo, em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) após a publicação visando aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado.
Em caso de identificação de plágio, republicação indevida e submissão simultânea, os autores autorizam a Editoria a tornar público o evento, informando a ocorrência aos editores dos periódicos envolvidos, aos eventuais autores plagiados e às suas instituições de origem.
