week+7+presentation

calendar

National Standards Revealed

Week Seven

Reading the National Science Standards

At last, the National Science Education Standards are examined, standard by standard. We are going to limit ourselves to the 9-12 standards, but the elementary and middle school standards have been placed on the optional reading list should you care, or have need, to explore further.

The first thing that interests me is the language being used. For example, the statement, “As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop understandings of the

National Standards (continued)

cell” (p. 181), is apparently a standard. The comparable language in the MEGOSE would be objective (although I have already stated that use was not exactly correct); and in the Michigan Frameworks, would be benchmark (which is a more correct term). Is a standard the same as an objective or benchmark? That is hard to say since standard is not really defined in this document. The Overview section (pp. 2-3, 7) provides the closest insight as to the intent of standard (what all students are to know, understand, and be able to do). “All” is clearly

National Standards (continued)

a standard that teachers can interpret, but know, understand, and able to do are much too vague from a classroom standpoint. I guess it is up to the individual teacher and school district to fill in this uncertainty with clearly written school, grade level, and daily objectives that address the intent of the standards.

My second interest is the use of the phrase “develop understandings” in the statement of the standard. This also brings up questions of definition and interpretation. In this case, it is

National Standards (continued)

entirely up to the reader of the National Standards to interpret what “understandings” should mean. It is not defined anywhere in the document. Needless-to-say, it is not easy in education or psychology to define understanding and place that definition in a context that be-comes useful for both the teacher and the learner. It is unfortunate that such terminology be used in a document that bears the title of “standard”.

I probably should not say this, but there almost

National Standards (continued)

needs to be a K-12, national, science education test just so these phrases can be clarified by the way the test is written.

The presentation structure of the Standards is also quite interesting. The Unifying Concepts and Processes standard is presented first as a standard that should bridge all the grade levels. All the remaining standards are presented within the grade levels, although it would seem that the Inquiry standard, as well as the History and

National Standards (continued)

Nature of Science standard, could also take on bridging roles. I guess the authors saw more opportunity to subdivide the later two into a hierarchy of learning, while the first could not be so easily subdivided.

The two sections, Developing Student Abilities and Understanding and Guide to the Content Standard, are reminiscent of the MEGOSE narratives. Possible student learning misconceptions are pointed out in the first

National Standards (continued)

section. That is about the extent of the development of this section and it surely does not deserve the title it has been given.

The second section is used to provide a little bit more content detail for the standard. So instead of just a standard to understand the cell (p. 181), this section indicates that the understanding includes cell structure, cell function, cell substructure, etc. This is fine in that it does show the extent of the knowledge that needs to

National Standards (continued)

be learned, but no hint is provided as to how this knowledge is to be used. Instead, the teacher employing these standards needs to seek an an-swer to this dilemma by attempting to apply the Inquiry standard, or the Unifying Concepts and Processes standard, to the content in question.

My point is that, in this crucial area of curriculum, there seems to be no specific guidance from the authors that will accurately guide the teacher to make the right choice about the type of emphasis to be placed on the content.

The Nature of Science Literacy

So, if a teacher or school district closely follows the National Science Education Standards, will the result be scientific literacy on the part of the students? Despite the issues I have described, I would answer yes to this question (especially if the content standards are slightly de-emphasized and the inquiry standards are given sufficient emphasis). These Standards just represent another way to interpret the important idea of scientific literacy.

And note, it is good to have these standards. They

The Nature of Science (continued)

provide a structure, that if used correctly, will create a better sense of the nature of science in the classroom. Ultimately what is needed is a stimulus for schools and teachers to begin to take notice and to begin to change the way they are currently teaching science and begin to place more emphasis on those ideas presented in the Standards. The National Science Education Standards could be that stimulus.

=quiz=