Click for next page ( 102


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 101
5 Deeper Learning of English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science T his chapter addresses the second question in the study charge by analyzing how deeper learning and 21st century skills relate to aca- demic skills and content in the disciplines of reading, mathematics, and science,1 especially as the content and skill goals are described in the Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics and NRC’s A Framework for K-12 Science Education (hereafter referred to as the NRC science framework; National Research Council, 2012). The existing Common Core State Standards, as well as the Next Gen- eration Science Standards that are under development in 2012 based on the NRC science framework (National Research Council, 2012), are expected to strongly influence teaching and learning in the three disciplines, including efforts to support deeper learning and development of 21st century skills. The English language arts and mathematics standards were developed by state education leaders, through their membership in the National Gov- ernors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and have been adopted by nearly all (45) states, along with 2 territories and the District of Columbia. The Next Generation Science Standards are be- ing developed through a similar process and are also likely to be widely adopted by the states. 1  n keeping with its charge, the committee explored deeper learning in the individual disci- I plines of reading, mathematics, and science. It only briefly addressed integrated approaches to teaching across disciplines (see Box 5-2), as this topic lay outside its charge. A separate NRC committee has been charged to review the relevant research and develop a research agenda for integrated teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). 101

OCR for page 101
102 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK The first, second, and third sections of the chapter focus, respectively, on English language arts, mathematics, and science and engineering. For each discipline we • discuss how “deeper learning” has been characterized in the disci- pline, including issues and controversies that have played out over time; • describe the relevant parts of the Common Core State Standards or the NRC science framework (along with selected other reports outlining expectations for student learning) in light of the historical context; and • analyze how the new standards and framework map to our char- acterization of deeper learning and to the clusters of 21st century skills defined in Chapter 2. In the final section of the chapter, we present conclusions and recom- mendations based on a broad look across all three disciplines. In this broad look, we compare the expectations included in the Common Core State Standards and the NRC science framework with deeper learning (as char- acterized within each discipline) and 21st century skills. ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS The Context: A History of Controversy Discussions of how to teach reading and writing in the United States have a reputation for contentiousness, reflected in the military metaphors used to describe them, such as “the reading wars” or “a curricular bat- tleground.” The public debates surrounding the fairly regular pendulum swings of the curriculum reveal fundamental differences in philosophy and widely variant interpretations of a very large but sometimes inconsistent research base. Divergent Positions on Reading for Understanding Beliefs about how to develop reading for understanding diverge greatly, with the spectrum of opinions defined by two extreme positions. One posi- tion, which we will refer to as the simple view of reading, holds that reading comprehension is the product of listening comprehension and decoding. Proponents of this position argue that students in the early grades should learn all of the letters of the alphabet and their corresponding sounds to a high degree of accuracy and automaticity. Agile decoding combined with a strong oral language (i.e., listening vocabulary) base will lead to fluent

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 103 reading for understanding, limited only by the reader’s store of knowledge and language comprehension. After the code is mastered, further develop- ment of reading for understanding is expected through either or both of (a) a wide reading of literature and nonfiction to gather new ideas and insights about the natural and social world and (b) solid instruction in the disciplines—the sciences, the social sciences, mathematics, and the humanities. The polar opposite position, which might best be labeled a utilitarian view of reading, writing, and language, contends that from the outset of kindergarten, educators should engage children in a systematic quest to make sense of their world through deep engagement with the big ideas that have puzzled humankind for centuries. These are, of course, the very ideas that prompted humans to develop the disciplinary tools we use to understand and improve the natural and social world in which we live. Proponents of the utilitarian view argue that students will need to use, and hence refine, their reading and writing skills as they seek information to better understand and shape their worlds. Once students feel the need to learn to read, it will be much easier to teach students the lower-level skills needed to transform print into meaning. A side benefit is that students will have learned an important lesson about the purpose of reading—that it is always about making meaning and critiquing information on the way to acquiring knowledge. Disagreements Over Curricular Focus, Integration, and Complexity Disagreements on curriculum and epistemology both confound and intensify the polarized views on teaching reading for understanding. One area of disagreement is curricular focus. Instructional approaches based on the simple view tend to be curriculum centered. All students are expected to march through the same lessons and assessments, and whole-class instruc- tion is commonplace. By contrast, instructional approaches based on the utilitarian view tend to be student centered, and each student may consume a slightly different pedagogical diet. Teachers differentiate activities and assignments for individual students based on feedback about how they are progressing, and instruction is more likely to be delivered in small groups or individualized settings. A second area of disagreement focuses on whether the English language arts curriculum should be integrated with or separate from instruction in other disciplines. In the simple view, reading, writing, and language skills should be taught separately from the disciplinary curriculum, at least in the early stages of reading, until these fundamental skills become highly automatic. Then and only then, the argument goes, will students be ready to meet the challenges of disciplinary learning from text. The utilitarian view,

OCR for page 101
104 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK by contrast, calls for integration between English language arts and disci- plinary learning from the earliest stages. Acquiring disciplinary knowledge plus discourse and inquiry skills is the goal to which reading, writing, and language skills are bound, even as they are still being acquired. A third area of disagreement centers on strategies for coping with complexity. Advocates for the simple view argue for decomposing complex processes into component parts. For example, to help students learn to read words in connected text, they propose that teachers should first focus on teaching the parts of reading—the correspondences between individual letters (or groups of letters) and sounds. Only when students have learned these correspondences to a high degree of accuracy and automaticity should they be asked to synthesize the letters and corresponding sounds into words by reading aloud. Similarly, in writing, advocates of the simple view argue that teachers should first help students learn the parts—the correspondences between the sounds within spoken words and letters that represent these sounds. Only after students have mastered these correspondences should teachers ask them to synthesize the sounds and corresponding letters into the spelling of words. In contrast, advocates for the utilitarian view would cope with com- plexity through scaffolding. They argue that students should be encouraged to perform the ultimate target task, such as reading words in connected text. Teachers should scaffold students’ performance of the task with vari- ous tools, such as reading aloud to convey the “whole of the story”; repeated readings (I’ll read a sentence, then you read it); choral readings; and encouraging students to use context and picture cues to figure out pro- nunciations and word meanings. In writing, students would be encouraged to get their ideas on paper and to spell things the way they sound, with the expectation that later they would, with teacher guidance, transform their sound-based spellings into conventional spellings so that others will be able to read their stories. Students would also be expected to share their written pieces with peers even before they can write and spell fluently, in an effort to represent their attempts to communicate complex ideas. A fourth area of disagreement centers on where the locus of meaning lies—in the text, the reader, the context in which the reading is completed, or a hybrid space involving all three. A committee chaired by Snow (2002) specified a hybrid space by defining reading comprehension as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language.” The committee viewed the text as an important but insufficient determinant of reading comprehension. Kintsch (1998), in his widely accepted “construction–integration” model of reading comprehension, also discussed the importance of both extracting and constructing meaning, viewing the text as an important but insufficient resource for constructing a model of meaning. He proposed that readers

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 105 construct a mental representation of what they thought the text said (a text base) and then integrate it with key concepts from memory to create a representation (what he called the situation model) of what they thought the text meant. Pedagogical approaches reflect these different views of where meaning lies. Approaches based on the simple view tend to stay very close to the text. Teachers pose questions to lay out the “facts” of the text prior to any interpretation, critique, or application of what was learned through reading to accomplish a new task. Approaches based on the utilitarian view may engage students in using the text as a reservoir of evidence to evaluate the validity of different claims, interpretations, critiques, or uses of the text. The research base for reading, as reflected in key summary documents in the field—such as the report of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000), the National Academy of Sciences’ Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (National Research Council, 1998), and the four volumes of the Handbook of Reading Research (Pearson et al., 1984; Barr et al., 1991; Kamil et al., 2000, 2011)—tend to provide consistent support for a balanced position that emphasizes both basic and more advanced processes. Such a balanced approach strongly emphasizes the basic skills of phonemic awareness, alphabet knowledge, and decoding for accurate word learning in the early stages of reading acquisition, but places an equal emphasis on reading for meaning at all stages of learning to read. As students mature and the demands of school curriculum focus more on the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge, the emphasis on read- ing for meaning increases. Thus the polar views that define the extremes of the continuum of views on reading acquisition and pedagogy ultimately converge in a more comprehensive view of written language acquisition. For the all-important early stages of reading, while there is strong support for early emphasis on the basics, there is no evidence that such an emphasis should preclude an equally strong emphasis on learning to use the range of skills and knowledge acquired early on to engage in transfer to new situa- tions and in monitoring one’s reading and writing to see if it makes sense. Summary Although all the parties in the debate share the goal of deeper learning in English language arts, they propose different routes. Some want to start with shallower or more basic tasks as a foundation for deeper or higher- order tasks. Others want to start with the deeper learning tasks and engage the more basic tasks and information as resources to help students complete the more challenging tasks. In the final analysis, the research supports a more balanced view that incorporates both the “basics” and the need to monitor reading and writing for sense-making and to apply whatever is

OCR for page 101
106 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK learned about reading and writing to the acquisition of knowledge within disciplinary settings. The Four Resources Model as an Approach to Defining Deeper Learning In the early 1990s, Australian scholars Freebody and Luke took an important step forward in reconciling the various controversies described above (Freebody and Luke, 1990; Luke and Freebody, 1997). They created what is now known as the “four resources model.” The model consists of a set of different stances that readers can take toward a text, each of which approaches reading from a different point of view: that of the text, the reader, the task, or the context. Taken together, the stances constitute a complete “theory” of a reader who is capable of managing all of the resources at his or her disposal. The authors propose that any reader can assume any one of these four stances in the quest to make meaning in response to a text. The confluence of reader factors (how much a reader knows or is interested in a topic), text (an assessment of the complexity and topical challenge of the text), task (what a reader is supposed to do with the topic), and context (what is the purpose or challenge in dealing with this text) will determine the particular stance a reader assumes when reading a particular text. That stance can change from text to text, situation to situation, or even moment to moment when reading a given text. The various stances (resources) and the key questions associated with each are • The reader as decoder, who asks: What does the text say? In the process, the reader builds a coherent text base where each idea is tested for coherence with all of the previous ideas gleaned from a close reading of the text. • The reader as meaning maker, who asks: What does the text mean? In answering that question, the reader seeks to develop meaning based on: (a) the ideas currently in the text base and (b) the reader’s prior knowledge. • The reader as text analyst, who asks: What tools does the author use to achieve his or her goals and purposes? The text analyst con- siders how the author’s choice of words, form, and structure shape our regard for different characters or our stance toward an issue, a person, or a group. The text analyst reads through the texts to get to the author and tries to evaluate the validity of the arguments, ideas, and images presented. • The reader as text critic, who asks questions about intentions, subtexts, and political motives. The text critic assumes that no texts are ideologically neutral, asking such questions as: Whose interests are served or not served by this text? Who is privileged,

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 107 marginalized, or simply absent? What are the political, economic, epistemological, or ethical goals of the author? When the stances of the text critic and the text analyst are combined, the goals of truly critical reading can be achieved. The reader can examine both the assumptions (what knowledge base is required to make sense of the text) and consequences (whose views are privileged and whose are ignored) of a text. All four stances are in play as well when a writer creates texts for others to read. Writers have various conceptual intentions toward their readers— to inform, for example, or to entertain, persuade, or inspire. They some- times focus on the code in getting the words on paper. They always employ the two standards of the meaning maker—that what they write in any given segment is consistent with the ideas in the text up to this point, and that it is consistent with the assumed knowledge of the ideal reader. Writers are most expert at handling the form-function (or purpose-structure) relation- ship of the text analyst; in fact, the crux of the author’s craft is to seek and find just the right formal realization of each particular conceptual inten- tion toward the reader. Finally, writers have ulterior motives along with transparent ones. They privilege, marginalize, omit, or focus—sometimes intentionally and other times unwittingly as agents of the cultural forces that shape their work. The four resources model allows us to define deeper learning in English language arts in a way that recognizes the controversies in the discipline yet meets the need for a balanced approach that equips the reader or writer to take different stances toward the reading or writing of a text depending on the purposes, the context, and the actual task confronting the reader or writer. Reading and writing are simultaneously code-breaking, meaning making, analytic, and critical activities; which stance dominates at a par- ticular moment in processing depends upon the alignment of reader, text, task, and contextual factors. This perspective on deeper learning, recogniz- ing that the reader or writer may adopt various stances from moment to moment, contrasts sharply with the “simple view” of reading and writing. The simple view would limit beginning readers to the code-breaking stance and limit beginning writers to codifying language, by putting down letters and words. Drawing on the four resources model, we can now define deeper learn- ing in English language arts from two perspectives: (1) as privileging ac- tivities that are successively higher on the list—in which the reader acts as meaning maker, text analyst, or text critic; or (2) as privileging the management of all four stances in relation to the reader’s assessment of the difficulty of the text or task and the reader’s purpose and knowledge resources. In the first perspective on deeper learning, analysis and critique

OCR for page 101
108 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK take precedence over making meaning, which takes precedence over decod- ing. Such a hierarchy is consistent with the research base we will discuss in Chapter 6, in which we will describe the pedagogy of deeper learning as encouraging generative processing, elaboration, and questioning—all of which would lead us down the pathway toward meaning making, analysis, and critique. Indeed, the research on discussion protocols in reading text suggests that the effects of discussion questions are highly specific—that un- less one focuses directly on analysis and critique, it is not likely to emerge on its own (Murphy et al., 2009). In the second perspective on deeper learning, reflecting on and managing one’s own knowledge matters most in shaping the particular stance that one takes toward the understanding or construction of a text. This perspective builds on other principles of deeper learning elaborated in Chapter 4, namely, the notions of developing metacognitive strategies, self-monitoring, and self-explanation—all disposi- tions that encourage the learner to intentionally engage in his or her own comprehension and learning processes. This view also suggests that deeper learning involves knowing when and why to privilege lower-order over higher-order skills in pursuit of understanding or problem solving. These two perspectives on deeper learning in English language arts are not mutually exclusive. Deeper learning could involve the deliberate selec- tion of a stance that elicits the skills and processes that best fit the situation and problem that a learner faces at any given moment and also suggest a procedural preference for always selecting the highest level among alterna- tive stances when the situation or problem allows more than one approach. For example, if assuming either the meaning making stance or the analysis stance will allow the learner to solve a reading or writing problem, the learner should opt for an analytic stance to complete the task. From either perspective, beginning readers and writers as well as those who are more advanced, can engage in deeper learning. Common Core State Standards The widely adopted Common Core State Standards in English lan- guage arts (CCSS-ELA; Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010a) are likely to shape any attempt to infuse deeper learning initiatives into school curricula. In other words, it is likely that whatever purchase deeper learning initiatives accrue in the next decade will be filtered through this set of standards. From this perspective, the prospects for reading and writing instruction aligned with the four resources model seem promising. The full title of the CCSS-ELA, Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010a), provides the first indica- tion that these standards will be different from state English language arts

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 109 (ELA) standards created before 2010. The title signals the adoption of an integrated view of the topics of reading, writing, speaking/listening, and language. This integrated view is applied to two domains—literature and informational text—for reading and writing in grades K-5. The standards for grades 6-12 are first organized by ELA topic and then by subject matter (history and science) to distinguish which standards are the responsibility of the ELA teacher and which might better be addressed by science and his- tory teachers. Within ELA, the four topics are again applied to the domains of literature and informational text. By contrast, the subject area sections address only the topics of reading and writing, broken down according to history/social studies and science/technical subjects. This integrated view of ELA contrasts sharply with the heavy emphasis that in recent years has been placed on reading as a separate subject, almost to the exclusion of other language arts topics and other school subjects. The integration of reading with other topics and subjects represents a dramatic shift away from the “big five” approach—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—which has dominated reading instruction for over a decade (National Institute of Child Health and Hu- man Development, 2000). The new standards present reading, writing, and oral language as tools for knowledge acquisition, effective argumentation, and clear communication across the disciplines of literature, science (and technical subjects), and history (and social studies). The standards address phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency primarily in the foundational skills addendum to the K-5 standards. Vocabulary is highlighted in the language strand, and comprehension, alongside composition, is emphasized throughout. This combined with the standards’ focus on reading and writ- ing in the disciplines of history and science indicates that the CCSS-ELA can be interpreted as calling for a major shift from the current emphasis on decoding to comprehension of and learning with text. The CCSS-ELA include 10 college and career readiness anchor stan- dards, representing the “end state”—what high school graduates should know and be able to do if all of the specific grade-level and disciplinary variations of these 10 standards were to be successfully implemented. As shown in Box 5-1, the 10 anchor standards for reading are arranged in four clusters. The mapping of these standards onto the four resources model (Luke and Freebody, 1997) is reasonably transparent. The three standards in Cluster 1, Key Ideas and Details, reflect the stance of the reader as decoder, with a hint of reader as meaning maker (because of the requirement of invoking prior knowledge to complete each task). The three standards in Cluster 2, Craft and Structure, reflect the stance of the reader as text ana- lyst, focusing on form-function (or purpose-structure) relationships. The three standards in Cluster 3, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas, entail

OCR for page 101
110 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK BOX 5-1 College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading Key Ideas and Details  1.  ead closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make R logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.  2.  etermine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their develop- D ment; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.  3.  nalyze in detail where, when, why, and how events, ideas, and charac- A ters develop and interact over the course of a text. Craft and Structure  4.  Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including deter- mining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and explain how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.  5.  nalyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, para- A graphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section or chapter) relate to each other and the whole.  6.  ssess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a A text. Integration of Knowledge and Ideas  7.  ynthesize and apply information presented in diverse ways (e.g., S through words, images, graphs, and video) in print and digital sources in order to answer questions, solve problems, or compare modes of presentation.  8.  elineate and evaluate the reasoning and rhetoric within a text, includ- D ing assessing whether the evidence provided is relevant and sufficient to support the text’s claims.  9.  nalyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order A to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take. Range and Level of Text Complexity 10.  ead complex texts independently, proficiently, and fluently, sustaining R concentration, monitoring comprehension, and, when useful, rereading. SOURCE: Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010a). © Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 111 all four stances—decoder, meaning maker, analyst, and critic, but favor the text critic (especially 8) and meaning maker (especially 7 and 9). And, of course, the standard in Cluster 4, Range and Level of Text Complexity, involves all four stances in constant interaction.2 Relating the Standards to Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills The CCSS-ELA offer a policy framework that is highly supportive of deeper learning (as reflected in the four resources model) in English lan- guage arts. On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether the assess- ments that emerge from the two state assessment consortia, which have been funded by the Department of Education to develop next-generation assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards, will be equally supportive of the goal of deeper learning, a question we will return to in Chapter 7. In the previous chapters, we identified three broad domains of 21st century skills—cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. To examine the relationship between these clusters of 21st century skills and the various disciplinary standards documents, the committee created a list of some of the most frequently cited 21st century and deeper learning skills and then examined the standards for the degree of support provided for these skills.3 The domain of cognitive 21st century skills, developed through deeper learning, is well represented in the CCSS-ELA. What is missing, both from the new CCSS and from the larger discussion of goals for reading and writing instruction presented above, is any serious consideration of the intrapersonal and interpersonal domains (see Figure 5-1). Although the word “motivation” appears three times in the CCSS- ELA, the new standards do not seriously address the motivational factors (engagement, interest, identity, and self-efficacy) and dispositional fac- tors (conscientiousness, stamina, persistence, collaboration) that we know 2  t I is fortunate that we can continue this mapping of cognitive constructs of CCSS onto the NAEP infrastructure for cognitive targets for reading assessment. NAEP’s locate and recall target corresponds quite closely to the key ideas and details CCSS category. NAEP’s integrate and interpret corresponds to CCSS’s integration of knowledge and ideas, and NAEP’s critique and evaluate incorporates much of what falls into CCSS’s craft and structure (though it entails much more than craft and structure). This set of correspondences should facilitate longitudinal analyses of the course of reform engendered by the CCSS. 3  he classifications in the figures in this chapter represent common sense judgments by an T expert in each discipline who is familiar with the standards, with curriculum and practice, and with the cognitive and educational research literatures in the discipline. Undoubtedly other judges would classify some components differently. The study committee was not charged with conducting a more elaborate analytic study with multiple independent raters and assess- ments of reliability. Thus these diagrams and observations are meant to represent a plausible illustrative view rather than a definitive analysis.

OCR for page 101
132 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK • core disciplinary ideas, • crosscutting concepts, and • scientific and engineering practices Core Disciplinary Ideas One goal of the revision to the National Science Education Standards was to reduce the long catalog of factual knowledge students are expected to master in order to place a deeper and more sustained focus on a much smaller set of core ideas that have broad importance across scientific dis- ciplines and that are key for developing more complex ideas. Drawing on recent research on cognition, development, and learning in science,6 the new framework adopts a “learning progressions” approach to the core disciplinary ideas. In this approach, the learning standards are organized as integrated, continuous progressions of ideas that increase in sophistication over multiple years, from the early elementary grades through high school. The core ideas are grouped according to life sciences, earth and space sci- ences, physical sciences, and engineering and technology. Crosscutting Concepts The NRC science framework identifies seven crosscutting concepts, which are important scientific concepts that bridge across multiple disci- plines. They include patterns; cause and effect; scale, proportion, and quan- tity; systems and system models; energy and matter; structure and function; and stability and change. Scientific and Engineering Practices The NRC science framework conceptualizes practices as occurring in and connecting across three “spaces”: 1. Investigation and empirical inquiry, in which the dominant prac- tices are observing phenomena, planning experiments and data col- lection, deciding what and how to measure, and identifying sources of uncertainty. This space involves interaction with the natural or physical world. 2. Construction of explanations or designs, a conceptual theory- building space, focused on developing hypotheses, models, and solutions. 6  A comprehensive list of research references is included in an appendix that accompanies the NRC science framework.

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 133 3. Evaluation space, focused on analysis, argument, and evaluation, in which the dominant practices are the analysis and construction of arguments and the critique of fit of evidence in relation to pre- dictions (science) or of design outcomes to constraints and goals (engineering). Eight key practices, which collectively span these spaces, are high- lighted in the framework. Each is fairly richly described, so they are perhaps best thought of as complex activities rather than discrete skills. The key practices are as follows (National Research Council, 2012, p. 42): 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information While the three dimensions of the NRC science framework (i.e., core disciplinary ideas, crosscutting concepts, and science and engineering prac- tices) and the way in which they are conceptually organized do not map in a tidy way to 21st century skills, there is significant overlap. Furthermore, the framework allows (indeed, forces) distinct discipline-based interpreta- tions of what some of these skills mean in the context of science education. In the Taking Science to School report (National Research Council, 2007), an expert committee identified four strands of science proficiency: knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world; generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations; understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and participating productively in scientific practices and discourse. There are significant similarities between these strands for scientific proficiency and the framework’s three-dimensional organization, and the framework au- thors explicitly cite many of the findings summarized in Taking Science to School as the basis for similar recommendations. The framework is more detailed and specific than the Taking Science to School report in addressing the knowledge and practices students need to develop over the K-12 span. The framework also makes important connections to other disciplines— most notably English language arts and mathematics. The crosscutting

OCR for page 101
134 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK concepts include a special focus on the mathematical concepts of scale, quantity, and proportion, with the observation that scientific systems and processes span remarkable ranges of magnitudes on dimensions of time (e.g., nanoscale to geologic time) and space (e.g., atoms to galaxies). Stu- dents need to be fluent with systems of measurement for different types of quantities, with ratio relationships among different quantities, and with the relative magnitudes associated with various scientific concepts and phenom- ena. They also need to be able to create, interpret, and manipulate a variety of representations for quantitative data. Similarly, the framework emphasizes the importance of reading, writing, and speaking skills in science and engineering. It notes that scientists and engineers typically spend half of their working time reading, interpreting, BOX 5-4 An Example of Deeper Learning in Science Many of the elements of the vision for science education outlined in A Frame- work for K-12 Science Education are currently uncommon in science instruction in U.S. classrooms. These include the sustained development of a smaller set of core disciplinary ideas over longer periods of time, the cultivation of reasoning and problem-solving skills even in earlier grades, attention to scientific communication (both written and oral) that explicitly involves developing explanatory theories and models and using data as evidence to construct and evaluate explanations and arguments, and development of an understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. What might this look like as realized in the classroom? One particularly rich illustration comes from the work of Herrenkohl et al. (1999) who conducted a study of an extended unit of science instruction with third through fifth graders investigating sinking and floating. Over a period of 10 weeks, students worked in small groups to carry out a series of investigations based on cognitive research on the conceptual pathway that students follow in coming to understand when and why various objects will sink or float (Smith, Snir, and Grosslight, 1992; Smith et al., 1994). Conceptual development in this domain in- volves understanding and relating concepts of mass, volume, density, and relative density and is known to be conceptually challenging for many students. Students’ investigations were carefully scaffolded to support reasoning practices in science and were also interspersed with teacher-guided whole-class discussions in which students gained experience communicating, monitoring, and critiquing their own thinking and the thinking of their peers as they developed, tested, and evaluated theoretical explanations for the phenomena they were observing. The team of researchers, along with the classroom teachers, incorporated a number of instructional tools and practices. As students conducted their investiga- tions, they were introduced to explicit strategies in science, including predicting

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 135 and producing text. As noted above, the integration of literacy activities in disciplinary contexts provides students with opportunities to master the particular challenges posed by disciplinary materials. In science, for example, texts often include unfamiliar vocabulary and complex sentence structures and are also often multimodal, incorporating diagrams, tables, graphs, images, and mathematical expressions. Students must also learn discourse norms for discussion and critique in science—discerning, for in- stance, that a scientific “argument” is not the same thing as an interpersonal disagreement (see Box 5-4). Varying interpretations are adjudicated through reasoning with evidence, and changing one’s mind because of convincing evidence presented by a peer does not mean that one “lost the fight.” and theorizing, summarizing results, and relating predictions and theories to the results obtained. Through classroom discussions and repeated opportunities to practice these science strategies, students came to be able to distinguish between predictions and theories, to develop theory-based explanations of their observa- tions, and to use evidence to evaluate their theories, rejecting some and refining others. During whole-class discussion, as small groups reported on their work, students also became experienced at taking on several “audience roles,” taking responsibility for checking their peers’ predictions and theories; summarizing re- sults; and assessing the relation between the reporters’ predictions, theories, and results. Public documents in the classroom, such as a theory chart used to help students track the development of their thinking over time, and a questions chart, which they used to catalog good questions for the audience to ask reporters, were used to scaffold students’ awareness of how scientific thinking and knowledge develop and change over time and of the kinds of strategies that lead to progress. The researchers described their approach as “sociocognitive,” and we note that it requires students to develop and practice strategies from the cognitive, inter- personal, and intrapersonal domains. Students learned to apply explicit reasoning and planning strategies for designing, conducting, and interpreting their investiga- tions. They also became better able to monitor their thinking and to recognize when their ideas were or were not well developed or justified. They also became more comfortable with scientific discourse, learning not to become defensive when questioned by peers and learning the norms and expectations for scientific reasoning and discussion. Results from coded videotapes of classroom activities and discussions and from pretests and posttests indicated that students’ notions of scientific theorizing and their ability to engage in it evolved significantly, as did their conceptual understanding of the phenomena of floating and sinking. SOURCE: Created by the committee, based on Herrenkohl et al. (1999).

OCR for page 101
136 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK Relating the NRC Science Framework to Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills We asked how, from the point of view of the framework, a proposed 21st century skill might be characterized within science and engineering and what degree of support the framework would provide for incorporating such a skill as part of teaching and learning in the discipline. Our findings are shown in Figure 5-3 and discussed below. Cognitive Competencies Drawing on the framework (as well as other sources mentioned above), we found the strongest correspondence—and hence the strongest support— in the cluster of 21st century skills categorized as “cognitive.” In particular, critical thinking, nonroutine problem solving, constructing and evaluating evidence-based arguments, systems thinking, and complex communication Science and Engineering Deeper Discipline-Based Areas of Strongest Overlap Learning/21st Standards Century Skills Only • ConstrucƟng and Documents Only evaluaƟng evidence-based • Self-regulaƟon, arguments • Disciplinary execuƟve • NonrouƟne problem content funcƟoning solving • QuanƟtaƟve • Complex • Complex communicaƟon I literacy communicaƟon II o Disciplinary discourse (especially scale (social/inter- o CriƟcal reading and proporƟon) personal aspects) • Systems thinking • Epistemology • Cultural sensiƟvity, • CriƟcal thinking and history of valuing diversity • MoƟvaƟon, persistence science • IdenƟty • Aƫtudes • Self-development • CollaboraƟon/teamwork • Adaptability FIGURE 5-3 Overlap between science standards framework and 21st century skills. SOURCE: Created by the committee. Figure 5-3 replaced, vector

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 137 were all strongly supported in the framework and were construed as being central and indispensible to the disciplines of science and engineering. However, each of these abilities tends to be embodied in particular ways in the science and engineering standards. For example, “complex communication” entails mastering the discourse norms for framing and communicating scientific questions and hypotheses or engineering problems and design proposals. The framework emphasizes communicating findings and interpretations clearly and participating constructively in peer critiques and reviews as well as the capacity to engage in critical reading (including quantitative comprehension) of discipline-based texts, data archives, and other scientific information sources. Similarly, “constructing and evaluating evidence-based arguments” is framed in terms of generating, evaluating, and testing scientific hypotheses or engineering designs. In particular, the framework highlights the impor- tance of distinguishing scientific from nonscientific questions; distinguish- ing evidence from claims; and evaluating the reliability, completeness, and degree of uncertainty associated with evidence and interpretations. Intrapersonal Competencies In some respects, the intrapersonal category is the most difficult domain of skills to evaluate. Metacognitive reasoning about one’s own thinking and working processes and the capacity to engage in self-directed learning throughout one’s lifetime receive explicit support in the framework. How- ever, the degree of support for such factors as motivation and persistence, attitudes, identity and value issues, and self-regulation (if construed as a person being punctual, organized, taking on responsibility, and so forth) is weaker or more indirect. At the same time, though, there is no obvious conflict or lack of compatibility between the vision of science education presented by the framework and these 21st century skills. The NRC sci- ence framework is not mute on such topics as valuing diversity, being a conscientious and self-motivated learner, or appreciating the intellectual values of science and engineering. Rather, it seems to situate the issues as something other than disciplinary learning goals for individual students. Issues of diversity and equity, for instance, are treated as goals that are im- portant for the communal enterprise of science and its relation to societal needs and values. Personal qualities, such as engagement and persistence, seem to be viewed as means that can help support successful science learn- ing for more students, rather than as stand-alone end goals or outcomes of science education. To some degree, the difficulties encountered in aligning intrapersonal and interpersonal skills with disciplinary standards may be ontological in nature: The science and engineering standards are intended to characterize

OCR for page 101
138 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK a set of knowledge and skills that students are expected to master during the K-12 years, while at least some of the deeper learning and 21st century skills are intended to characterize desired qualities of a person as a lifelong learner, as a citizen, and as a member of the workforce (Conley, 2011). In this respect, some of these skills would be expected to be complementary to, rather than overlapping with, disciplinary standards—a view that is compatible with the vision presented in the NRC science framework. Interpersonal Competencies Within the domain of interpersonal skills, the framework provides strong support for collaboration and teamwork. A pervasive theme in the framework is the importance of understanding science and engineering as norm-governed enterprises conducted within a community, requiring well- developed skills for collaborating and communicating. In addition, the framework supports adaptability, construed as the ability and inclination to revise one’s thinking or strategy in response to evidence or peer review. There is less attention paid to interpersonal social skills and values, such as cultural sensitivity or valuing diversity. While these are not seen as being in conflict with learning about and practicing science and engineering, they are not strongly supported as explicit learning goals for students in the disciplines. Indeed, these almost seem to be emphasized more as important skills for teachers to use in engaging diverse students in science learning than as disciplinary learning goals for the students themselves. Findings Several important observations emerge from our mapping of science and engineering standards with 21st century skills. First, some of these skills correspond with the disciplinary standards, and standards documents value these skills highly as important for learning and practicing science and engineering. However, the standards documents value specific inter- pretations of these skills from a disciplinary perspective, and there may be other interpretations of these skills that differ substantially from these disciplinary interpretations. For example, there is very strong support in the framework for “complex communication” when viewed as sophisti- cated discourse within the discipline or as critical reading and quantitative literacy skills; however, there is considerably less support for complex com- munication skills if they are construed as involving interpersonal sensitivity, cultural awareness, or negotiation and persuasion skills. Another key observation is that, aside from the possible divergence of interpretations just mentioned, there is little in statements of 21st century

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 139 skills that would be viewed as directly in competition with or incompat- ible with standards for teaching and learning science and engineering. Of course, there is always room for conflict over relative emphasis and the competition for ever-scarce classroom time, and there would also likely be some potential for conflict depending on certain choices of pedagogical strategies, which are not strictly dictated by the framework. We note, how- ever, that one theme of a recent National Research Council workshop (Na- tional Research Council, 2010) was that those science education initiatives that aligned particularly well with 21st century skills tended to emphasize project-based and problem-solving approaches to curriculum and learning. The emphasis on the eight key practices in the Framework would converge in this direction as well. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS While we found substantial support for deeper learning and 21st cen- tury skills in the various standards documents and supporting research liter- ature, we also found a certain degree of unevenness in their prominence and coverage. A cluster of skills, primarily from the cognitive domain, appeared as central in each of the three disciplines, although the particular interpreta- tions of them varied from discipline to discipline. This set included critical reasoning, the ability to construct and evaluate arguments in relation to evidence, nonroutine problem solving, and complex communication (both written and oral) involving the discourse standards of the various disciplin- ary communities. However, the definitions of argumentation and standards of evidence differed across the three disciplines. • Conclusion: Some 21st century competencies are found in stan- dards documents, indicating that disciplinary goals have expanded beyond their traditional focus on basic academic content. A cluster of cognitive competencies—including critical thinking, nonroutine problem solving, and constructing and evaluating evidence-based arguments—is strongly supported in standards documents across all three disciplines. Intrapersonal skills and characteristics, such as persistence, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and one’s identity as a capable learner, were treated more variably across the standards documents, although the research literature on teaching and learning in the disciplines provides some support for their importance. We note that the smaller degree of attention paid to noncog- nitive dimensions in the standards documents stands in contrast to the evidence discussed in Chapter 3, which indicates that they are important for larger educational and workforce goals, such as staying in school,

OCR for page 101
140 EDUCATION FOR LIFE AND WORK completing degrees, and attaining higher levels of education. However, we also observe that they may be less likely to be emphasized in disciplinary standards because they may be crosscutting competencies and thus not unique to or distinctively expressed within a given discipline. • Conclusion: Coverage of other 21st century competencies— particularly those in the intrapersonal and interpersonal domains— is uneven. For example, standards documents across all three disciplines include cognitive and interpersonal competencies related to discourse structures and argumentation, but the disciplines dif- fer in their view of what counts as evidence and what the rules of argumentation are. This uneven coverage could potentially lead to learning environments for different subjects that do not equally support the development of 21st century competencies. Our review of the research on how the disciplines have characterized “deeper learning” and sought to foster it indicates that instruction for deeper learning is rare in current English language arts, mathematics, and science classrooms. • Conclusion: Development of higher-order 21st century competen- cies within the disciplines will require systematic instruction and sustained practice. It will be necessary to devote additional instruc- tional time and resources to advance these sophisticated disciplin- ary learning goals over what is common in current practice. The committee’s review of research on learning goals in the three dis- ciplines indicates that people in each of the disciplines desire to develop skills and knowledge that will transfer beyond the classroom. However, the goals for transfer are specific to each discipline. For example, the NRC science framework envisions that, by the end of twelfth grade, students will be prepared “to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, to be critical consumers of scientific information related to their everyday lives, and to continue to learn about science throughout their lives” (Na- tional Research Council, 2012, pp. 1-2). As we discuss further in Chapter 6, attempts to cultivate general problem-solving skills in the absence of substantive disciplinary or topical knowledge have not typically been effec- tive. We speculate that there may be a mismatch between the expectations of employers in this regard and what is known about learning and trans- fer. It is an open question as to whether a student who becomes an adept problem solver across a variety of academic disciplines would be better able to transfer problem-solving abilities to new areas than a student who was strong in just one discipline, or whether particular kinds of instructional

OCR for page 101
DEEPER LEARNING 141 practices and experiences in the K-12 setting would increase the likelihood of transfer of advanced skills across domains. More research is needed to address these questions. • Conclusion: Teaching for transfer within each discipline aims to increase transfer within that discipline. Research to date provides little guidance about how to help learners aggregate transferable knowledge and skills across disciplines. This may be a shortcom- ing in the research or a reflection of the domain-specific nature of transfer. • Recommendation 2: Foundations and federal agencies should sup- port programs of research designed to illuminate whether, and to what extent, teaching for transfer within an academic discipline can facilitate transfer across disciplines.

OCR for page 101