Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 297
12
GUIDANCE FOR STANDARDS DEVELOPERS
T
he preceding chapters of this report describe the scientific and engineering
practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas—taken together,
the framework—that should be the focus of K-12 science and engineering
education. In this chapter, we offer guidance for developing standards based on
that framework. The committee recognizes that several layers of interpretation
occur between the outline articulated in the framework and actual instruction in
the classroom, with the first layer being the translation of the framework into a
set of standards. In this translation, it is important to keep in mind the possibili-
ties and constraints of K-12 science education in the United States and to consider
how standards can play a role in promoting coherence in science education—an
element that is critical to ensuring an effective science education for all students,
as discussed in Chapter 10 on implementation.
The emphasis on coherence includes consistency across standards for dif-
ferent subject areas. Given the large number of states that have adopted the
Common Core Standards for mathematics and English/language arts, standards
for K-12 science intended for multistate adoption need to parallel the expectations
for development of mathematics and English/language arts competency reflected in
corresponding standards [1].
The framework is designed to support coherence across the science and
engineering education system by providing a template that incorporates what is
known about how children learn these subjects. The committee’s choice to orga-
nize the framework around the scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting
concepts, and disciplinary core ideas is intended to facilitate this coherence. By
297
OCR for page 298
consistently focusing on these practices, concepts, and ideas and by drawing on
research to inform how they can be supported through instruction and developed
over multiple grades, the framework promotes cumulative learning for students,
coordinated learning experiences across years, more focused preparation and pro-
fessional development for teachers, and more coherent systems of assessment.
The committee recognizes that simply articulating the critical practices,
concepts, and core ideas for K-12 science education does not by itself provide
sufficient guidance for developing standards. In that spirit, the recommendations
outlined in this chapter are intended to offer more detailed guidance that will help
ensure fidelity to the framework. These recommendations are based on previous
research syntheses published by the National Research Council (NRC)—including
How People Learn [2], Systems for State Science Assessment [3], Taking Science
to School [4], and Learning Science in Informal Environments [5]—and they draw
particularly on a list of characteristics for science content standards developed in
Systems for State Science Assessment [3]. According to that report, science content
standards should be clear, detailed, and complete; reasonable in scope; rigorously
and scientifically correct; and based on sound models of student learning. These
standards should also have a clear conceptual framework, describe performance
expectations, and identify proficiency levels.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Standards should set rigorous learning goals that repre-
sent a common expectation for all students.
At a time when nearly every aspect of human life is shaped by science and
engineering, the need for all citizens to understand these fields is greater than
ever before. Although many reports have identified the urgent need for a stronger
workforce in science and engineering so that the United States may remain eco-
nomically competitive, the committee thinks that developing a scientifically liter-
ate citizenry is equally urgent. Thus the framework is designed to be a first step
toward a K-12 science education that will provide all students with experiences in
science that deepen their understanding and appreciation of scientific knowledge
and give them the foundation to pursue scientific or engineering careers if they
so choose. A growing evidence base demonstrates that students across economic,
social, and other demographic groupings can and do learn science when provided
with appropriate opportunities [4-7]. These opportunities include learning the req-
uisite literacy and numeracy skills required for science.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
298
OCR for page 299
Because the committee proceeded on the assumption that the framework
and resulting standards identify those practices, crosscutting concepts, and dis-
ciplinary core ideas that are required for all students, some topics covered in
advanced or specialized courses may not be fully represented. That is, the frame-
work and resulting standards are not intended to represent all possible practices,
concepts, and ideas covered in the full set of science courses offered through grade
12 (e.g., Advanced Placement or honors courses; technology courses; computer
science courses; and social, behavioral, or economic science courses). Rather, the
framework and standards represent the set of scientific and engineering practices,
concepts, and ideas that all students should encounter as they move through
required course sequences in the natural sciences.
Recommendation 2: Standards should be scientifically accurate yet also clear,
concise, and comprehensible to science educators.
Standards for K-12 science education (a) provide guidance to education pro-
fessionals about the priorities for science education and (b) articulate the learning
goals that must be pursued in curricula, instruction, and assessments.
Scientific rigor and accuracy are paramount because standards serve as ref-
erence points for other elements of the system. Thus any errors in the standards
are likely to be replicated in curricula, instruction, and assessments. Similarly,
standards should clearly describe the scientific practices in which students will
engage in classrooms [3]. Clarity is important because curriculum developers, text-
book and materials selection committees, assessment designers, and others need
to develop a shared understanding of the outcomes their efforts are intended to
promote [3].
At the same time, standards related to the framework’s concepts, ideas,
and practices must be described in language that is comprehensible to individu-
als who are not scientists. Even though some of the professionals who play a
role in interpreting standards do not have deep expertise in science, they nev-
ertheless need to develop ways to support students’ learning in science and to
determine whether students have met the standards. Standards also provide a
mechanism for communicating educational priorities to an even broader set
of stakeholders, including parents, community members, business people, and
policy leaders at the state and national levels. Thus, although standards need
to communicate accurately important scientific ideas and practices, they must
299
Guidance for Standards Developers
OCR for page 300
be written with these broader (nonscience) audiences in mind. Furthermore, the
broad goals and major intent should be clear to any reader.
Recommendation 3: Standards should be limited in number.
The framework focuses on a limited set of scientific and engineering practic-
es, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas, which were selected by using
the criteria developed by the framework committee (and outlined in Chapter 2)
as a filter. We also drew on previous reports, which recommended structuring
K-12 standards around core ideas as a means of focusing the K-12 science cur-
riculum [3, 4]. These reports’ recommendations emerged from analyses of existing
national, state, and local standards as well as from a synthesis of current research
on learning and teaching in science.
Standards developers should adhere to the framework by concentrating on
the set of practices, concepts, and core ideas described here, although undoubtedly
there will be pressure from stakeholder groups to expand that set. The above-men-
tioned criteria can be used in determining whether a proposed addition should be
accepted. An overarching consideration is whether all students need to learn the
proposed idea or practice and if there would be a significant deficiency in citizens’
knowledge if it were not included. Another consideration should be recognition
of the modest amount of time allotted to science in the K-12 grades. There is a
limit to what can be attained in such time, and inclusion of additional elements of
a discipline will always be at the expense of other elements, whether of that disci-
pline or of another.
Recommendation 4: Standards should emphasize all three dimensions articu-
lated in the framework—not only crosscutting concepts and disciplinary core
ideas but also scientific and engineering practices.
The committee emphasized scientific and engineering practices for several
reasons. First, as discussed in Chapter 2, competency in science involves more
than knowing facts, and students learn key concepts in science more effectively
when they engage in these practices. Second, there is a body of knowledge
about science—for example, the nature of evidence, the role of models, the fea-
tures of a sound scientific argument—that is best acquired through engagement
in these practices. Third, emerging evidence suggests that offering opportunities
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
300
OCR for page 301
for students to engage in scientific and engineering practices increases participa-
tion of underrepresented minorities in science [8-12].
The importance of addressing both knowledge and practice is not unique to
this framework. In 1993, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science provided standards for students’
engagement in scientific inquiry [13]. In 1996, the National Science Education
Standards of the NRC emphasized five essential features of scientific inquiry [14].
Two more recent NRC reports also recommended that students’ learning experi-
ences in science should provide them with opportunities to engage in specific prac-
tices [4, 5]. The contribution of this framework is the provision of a set of scientif-
ic and engineering practices that are appropriate for K-12 students and moreover
that reflect the practices routinely used by professional scientists.
Recommendation 5: Standards should include performance expectations that
integrate the scientific and engineering practices with the crosscutting concepts
and disciplinary core ideas. These expectations should include criteria for
identifying successful performance and require that students demonstrate an
ability to use and apply knowledge.
Chapter 9 further provides two examples of how performance expectations
for particular life science and physical science component ideas could be integrat-
ed with core ideas, as well as with concepts and practices, across the grades (see
Tables 9-1 and 9-2).
Developing performance expectations is a major task for standards develop-
ers, but it is an effort worth making; performance expectations and criteria for
successful performance are essential in order for standards to fulfill their role of
supporting assessment development and setting achievement standards [3]. An
exhaustive description of every performance level for every standard is unrealistic,
but at a minimum the performance expectations should describe the major criteria
of successful performance [3].
Recommendation 6: Standards should incorporate boundary statements. That
is, for a given core idea at a given grade level, standards developers should
include guidance not only about what needs to be taught but also about what
does not need to be taught in order for students to achieve the standard.
301
Guidance for Standards Developers
OCR for page 302
By delimiting what is included in a given topic in a particular grade band
or grade level, boundary statements provide insights into the expected cur-
riculum and thus aid in its development by others. Boundary statements should
not add to the scope of the standards but rather should provide clear guidance
regarding expectations for students. Such boundaries should be viewed as flex-
ible and subject to modification over time, based on what is learned through
implementation in the classroom and through research. However, it is important
to begin with a set of statements that articulate the boundaries envisioned by
standards developers.
Boundary statements can signal where material that traditionally has been
included could instead be trimmed. For example, in the physical sciences, the pro-
gressions indicate that density is not stressed as a property of matter until the 6-8
grade band; at present, it is often introduced earlier and consumes considerable
instructional time to little avail. Boundary statements may also help define which
technical definitions or descriptions could be dispensed with in a particular grade
band. Thus the boundary statements are a useful mechanism for narrowing the
material to be covered, even within the core idea topics, in order to provide time
for more meaningful development of ideas through engagement in practices. In
other words, being explicit about what should not be taught helps clarify what
should be taught.
Recommendation 7: Standards should be organized as sequences that support
students’ learning over multiple grades. They should take into account how
students’ command of the practices, concepts, and core ideas becomes more
sophisticated over time with appropriate instructional experiences.
As noted in the introduction, the framework is designed to help students
continually build on and revise their knowledge and abilities, starting from initial
conceptions about how the world works and their curiosity about what they see
around them. The framework’s goal is thus to provide students with opportunities
to learn about the practices, concepts, and core ideas, of science and engineering
in successively more sophisticated ways over multiple years [4]. This perspective
should prompt educators to decide how topics ought to be presented at each grade
level so that they build on prior student learning and support continuing concep-
tual restructuring and refinement.
There is one overarching set of boundaries or constraints across the progres-
sions for the disciplinary core ideas. Early work in science begins by exploring
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
302
OCR for page 303
the visible and tangible macroscopic world. Then the domain of phenomena and
systems considered is broadened to those that students cannot directly see but that
still operate at the scales of human experience. Students then move to exploring
or envisioning things that are too small to see or too large to readily imagine, and
they are aided by models or specialized tools for measurement and imaging.
This overarching progression informs the grade band endpoints in the
framework. Grades K-2 focus on visible phenomena with which students are
likely to have some experience in their everyday lives or in the classroom.
Grades 3-5 explore macroscopic phenomena more deeply, including model-
ing processes and systems that are not visible. Grades 6-8 move to microscopic
phenomena and introduce atoms, molecules, and cells. Grades 9-12 move to
the subatomic level and to the consideration of complex interactions within and
among systems at all scales.
Recommendation 8: Whenever possible, the progressions in standards should
be informed by existing research on learning and teaching. In cases in which
insufficient research is available to inform a progression or in which there is
a lack of consensus on the research findings, the progression should be devel-
oped on the basis of a reasoned argument about learning and teaching. The
sequences described in the framework can be used as guidance.
Because research on these progressions is relatively recent, there is not a
robust evidence base about appropriate sequencing for every concept, core idea,
or practice identified in the framework. When evidence was available, the commit-
tee used it to guide the thinking about the progression in question. When evidence
was not available, we made judgments based on the best knowledge available,
as supported by existing documents such as the NAEP 2009 Science Framework
[15], the College Board Standards for College Success [16], and the AAAS Atlas of
Science Literacy [17]. There is also a body of research on the intuitive understand-
ing that children bring to school and on how that intuitive knowledge influences
their learning of science [4]; this evidence base should be considered when devel-
oping standards.
Each progression described in the framework represents a particular vision
of one possible pathway by which students could come to understand a specific
core idea. The committee recognizes that there are many possible alternate paths
and also that there are interplays among the ideas that here are subdivided into
disciplines and component ideas within a discipline. In any case, progressions
303
Guidance for Standards Developers
OCR for page 304
developed in the standards should be based on the available research on learning,
an understanding of what is appropriate for students at a particular grade band
based on research and on educators’ professional experience, and logical infer-
ences about how learning might occur.
Recommendation 9: The committee recommends that the diverse needs of stu-
dents and of states be met by developing grade band standards as an overarch-
ing common set for adoption by multiple states. For those states that prefer
or require grade-by-grade standards, a suggested elaboration on grade band
standards could be provided as an example.
Given the incomplete nature of the evidence base, the committee could
not specify grade-by-grade steps in the progressions. Indeed, for some ideas
it was difficult just to develop research-based progressions at the grade band
level; in those cases, we relied on expert judgment and previous standards docu-
ments. And even if grade-by-grade standards were feasible, research has shown
that, within a particular grade, different students are often at different levels of
achievement; thus expectations that every student will reach understanding of a
core idea by the end of that grade may not be warranted. Across a grade band,
however, students can continue to build on and develop core ideas over multiple
school years; by the end of the grade band, they are more likely to have reached
the levels of understanding intended.
In the committee’s judgment, grade band standards are also more appropri-
ate than grade-by-grade ones for systemic reasons, particularly for standards that
may be adopted and implemented in numerous states. Because schools across the
country vary both in their degree of organization, in their human and physical
resources, and in the topics they have traditionally included at various grades, a
national-level document’s universal and homogeneous prescription for grade-by-
grade standards may be too difficult for the schools in some states to meet, and
it would perhaps be inappropriate for those localities to begin with. By contrast,
specification by grade bands gives curriculum developers, states, districts, schools,
and teachers the professional autonomy to ensure that content can be taught in a
manner appropriate to the local context. This autonomy includes choosing from
various possible strategies for course sequences and course organization at the
middle and high school levels.
However, because it is recognized that many states require grade-by-grade
standards for K-8 and course standards at the high school level, an example set
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
304
OCR for page 305
of such standards may need to be provided. The intent of this recommendation is
that states or districts wishing to offer alternative course sequences and organiza-
tion at the high school level or alternative within grade band organization of con-
tent at the K-8 level can adopt the grade band standards.
This recommendation should not be interpreted as suggesting that students
in some areas need not or cannot learn particular topics until later grade levels,
but rather that the transition to a single common set of grade-by-grade standards
is perhaps more onerous for schools and districts in term of curriculum materials,
equipment, and teacher professional development needs than a transition to the
somewhat more flexible definition of sequence given by grade band standards.
Recommendation 10: If grade-by-grade standards are written based on the
grade band descriptions provided in the framework, these standards should be
designed to provide a coherent progression within each grade band.
The content described in the framework is designed to be distributed over
each grade band in a manner that builds on previous learning and is not repetitive.
If standards developers choose to create grade-by-grade standards, it is necessary
that these standards provide clear articulation of the content across grades within
a band and attend to the progression of science learning from grade to grade with-
in the band. At the middle and high school levels, course standards and suggested
course sequences may be more appropriate than grade-level standards.
Recommendation 11: Any assumptions about the resources, time, and teach-
er expertise needed for students to achieve particular standards should be
made explicit.
In designing the framework, the committee tried to set goals for science edu-
cation that would not only improve its quality but also be attainable under cur-
rent resources and other constraints. In addition, the committee intended for the
framework’s goals to act as levers for much-needed improvement in how schools
are able to deliver high-quality science education to all students. For example, in
order to meet the goals for science education in the elementary grades, more time
may need to be devoted to science than is currently allocated. The committee rec-
ognizes as well that new curricula aligned to the framework will need to be devel-
oped and that professional development for teachers will need to be updated.
305
Guidance for Standards Developers
OCR for page 306
Standards developers should be cautious about limiting the rigor of stan-
dards in response to perceptions about the system’s constraints. Research clearly
demonstrates that all students have the capacity to learn science when motivated
to do so and provided with adequate opportunities to acquire the requisite literacy
and numeracy skills [4, 5]. Thus standards should catalyze change in the system
when necessary, motivating states, school districts, and schools to ensure that all
students have access to rich learning experiences.
Recommendation 12: The standards for the sciences and engineering should
align coherently with those for other K-12 subjects. Alignment with the
Common Core Standards in mathematics and English/language arts is espe-
cially important.
As noted earlier, achieving coherence within the system is critical for ensur-
ing an effective science education for all students. An important aspect of coher-
ence is continuity across different subjects within a grade or grade band. By this
we mean “sensible connections and coordination [among] the topics that students
study in each subject within a grade and as they advance through the grades” [3,
p. 298]. The underlying argument is that coherence across subject areas contrib-
utes to increased student learning because it provides opportunities for reinforce-
ment and additional uses of practices in each area.
For example, students’ writing and reading, particularly nonfiction, can
cut across science and literacy learning. Uses of mathematical concepts and tools
are critical to scientific progress and understanding. Examples from history of
how scientists developed and argued about evidence for different scientific theo-
ries could support students’ understanding of how their own classroom scientific
practices play a role in validating knowledge. Similarly, there should be coherence
between science and social studies (as these terms are currently used in schools).
Applications of natural sciences and engineering to address important global
issues—such as climate change, the production and distribution of food, the
supply of water, and population growth—require knowledge from the social sci-
ences about social systems, cultures, and economics; societal decisions about the
advancement of science also require a knowledge of ethics. Basically, a coherent
set of science standards will not be sufficient to prepare citizens for the 21st cen-
tury unless there is also coherence across all subject areas of the K-12 curriculum.
Greater coherence may also enhance students’ motivation because their
development of competence is better supported. And it could increase teacher
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
306
OCR for page 307
effectiveness across subjects, as teachers could be mutually supportive of one
another in weaving connections across the curriculum [3]. All in all, better align-
ment across the standards in the different subjects would contribute to the devel-
opment of the knowledge and skills that students need in order to make progress
in each of their subjects.
Recommendation 13: In designing standards and performance expectations,
issues related to diversity and equity need to be taken into account. In particu-
lar, performance expectations should provide students with multiple ways of
demonstrating competence in science.
As discussed in Chapter 11, the committee is convinced that, given appropri-
ate opportunities to learn and sufficient motivation, students from all backgrounds
can become competent in science. It is equally important that all students be pro-
vided with opportunities to demonstrate their competence in ways that do not
create unnecessary barriers. Standards should promote broadening participation in
science and engineering by focusing the education system on inclusive and mean-
ingful learning as well as on assessment experiences that maintain high academic
expectations for all students.
Previous standards for K-12 science education have been criticized for
obscuring the educational histories and circumstances of specific cultural groups
[18]. Diversity should be made visible in the new standards in ways that might,
for example, involve (a) presenting some performance tasks in the context of
historical scientific accomplishments, which include a broad variety of cultural
examples and do not focus exclusively on scientific discoveries made by scientists
in a limited set of countries; (b) addressing the educational issues encountered by
English language learners when defining performance expectations; (c) attending
to the funds of knowledge that specific communities possess with regard to spe-
cific core ideas and practices (e.g., knowledge of ecosystem dynamics in Native
American communities, knowledge of living organisms in agricultural communi-
ties) and with regard to performance expectations; (d) drawing on examples that
are not dominated by the interests of one gender, race, or culture; (e) ensuring that
students with particular learning disabilities are not excluded from appropriate
science learning; and (f) providing examples of performance tasks appropriate to
the special needs of such students.
The variety of issues raised by the above list illustrates the challenges of
providing learning opportunities and assessments that support all students in their
307
Guidance for Standards Developers
OCR for page 308
development of competence and confidence as science learners. To ensure equity
in a diverse student population, these challenges must be directly addressed not
only by teachers in the classroom but also in the design and implementation of the
standards, the curricula that fulfill them, the assessment system that evaluates stu-
dent progress, and the accompanying research on learning and teaching in science.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
308
OCR for page 309
REFERENCES
1. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2011). Common Core State Standards
Initiative Home Page. Available: http://www.corestandards.org/ [June 2011].
2. National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.). Committee on
Developments in the Science of Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. National Research Council. (2006). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee
on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal
(Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
4. National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching
Science in Grades K-8. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.).
Committee on Science Learning—Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade, Board on
Science Education. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
5. National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments:
People, Places, and Pursuits. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder
(Eds.). Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Board on Science
Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
6. Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F., Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., Gutiérrez, K., Heath, S.B.,
Lee, C.D., Lee, Y., Mahiri, J., Nasir, N.S., Valdes, G., and Zhou, M. (2007). Learning
In and Out of School in Diverse Environments: Lifelong, Life-wide, Life-deep.
Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.
7. Lee, O., and Buxton, C. (2010). Diversity and Equity in Science Education: Theory,
Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Barton, A.C., Tan, E., and Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging
school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research
Journal, 45(1), 68-103.
9. Brotman, J.S., and Moore, F.M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in
the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971-
1,002.
10. Enfield, M., Smith, E.L., and Grueber, D.J. (2008). “A sketch is like a sentence”:
Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science
Education, 92(4), 608-630.
309
Guidance for Standards Developers
OCR for page 310
11. Lee, O., Deaktor, R.A., Hart, J.E., Cuevars, P., and Enders, C. (2005). An instruc-
tional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and
linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
42(8), 857-887.
12. Page, S. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups,
Firms, Schools, and Societies. Woodstock, England: Princeton University Press.
13. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for
Science Literacy. Project 2061. Available: http://www.project2061.org/publications/
bsl/online/index.php?txtRef=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eproject2061%2Eorg%2
Fpublications%2Fbsl%2Fdefault%2Ehtm%3FtxtRef%3D%26txtURIOld%3D%252
Ftools%252Fbsl%252Fdefault%2Ehtm&txtURIOld=%2Fpublications%2Fbsl%2
Fonline%2Fbolintro%2Ehtm [June 2011].
14. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National
Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
15. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). Science Framework. National
Assessment Governing Board. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Available: http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf [June 2011].
16. College Board. (2009). Science College Board Standards for College Success.
Available: http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science-
standards-2009.pdf [June 2011].
17. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Atlas of Science
Literacy, Volumes 1 and 2. Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.
18. Rodriguez, A.J. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the
National Research Council’s National Science Education Standards. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 19-37.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
310
Print copies of the Next Generation Science Standards are available for pre-order now or you can view the online version at nextgenscience.org
The standards are based largely on the 2011 National Research Council report A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
