Next Generation Science Standards

McKenzie, Sarah C.; Ritter, Gary W.

doi:10.17226/18290

Cited by 474 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research-based knowledge current teaching practice related to NOSK Knowledge of NOSK has been a goal of science education for quite some time (Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers, 1907), and has continued to be emphasized in reform documents in seminal reform documents globally For example, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). From the U.S., as well as reform documents from all other continents, such as Asia, Australia, Europe, South Africa, and South America (Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2015; Department for Education, 2013; Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2011;MINEDUC, 2012;Ministry of Education, 2011). Nevertheless, the overwhelming empirical literature indicates that NOSK is not being effectively taught in schools.…”

Section: Main Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching and learning nature of scientific knowledge: Is it Déjà vu all over again?

Lederman

2019

Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review traces the history of research on the teaching and learning of nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK), and its implications for curriculum and instruction. Initially, the complex rubric of NOSK is clearly conceptualized, while recognizing that there is no singularly accepted definition. As part of this conceptualization NOSK is distinguished from the body of scientific knowledge and science practices/inquiry, the latter of which is often conflated with NOSK. The empirical research on NOSK related to teaching, learning, and assessment is briefly reviewed, followed by a discussion of the challenges that teachers face and a delineation of research foci that can help alleviate teachers' challenges. Finally, a variety of important questions yet to be answered are delineated and explained.

show abstract

Section: Main Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching and learning nature of scientific knowledge: Is it Déjà vu all over again?

Lederman

2019

Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, observer ratings could only be provided based on criterion specified by the instrument. Although Nicholas and Lomas (2009) found the RTOP acceptable for a single observer to rate one lesson, the ratings in this study only reflect a snapshot of the teacher's full range of instructional practices. When using the RTOP, ratings are dependent upon the rater's knowledge of teaching both science and T&E content and practices.…”

Section: Training and Interrater Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 69%

“…The RTOP is grounded in constructivism and was designed as an observational instrument to measure reformed teaching of mathematics and science. Various studies (e.g., Nicholas & Lomas, 2009;Ogletree, 2007;Park et al, 2011) have used it in conjunction with other instruments to measure teachers' PCK. Specifically, Nicholas and Lomas (2009) found that the fourth section of the RTOP was able to assess teachers' understanding of key content and provide valuable insight about their PCK.…”

Section: The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various studies (e.g., Nicholas & Lomas, 2009;Ogletree, 2007;Park et al, 2011) have used it in conjunction with other instruments to measure teachers' PCK. Specifically, Nicholas and Lomas (2009) found that the fourth section of the RTOP was able to assess teachers' understanding of key content and provide valuable insight about their PCK. Piburn and Sawada (2000) and Taylor et al (2013) found the RTOP to be a reliable and valid instrument aligned with national mathematics and science standards documents (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989[AAAS], , 1993; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989[NCTM], , 1991[NCTM], , 1995National Research Council [NRC], 1996).…”

Section: The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining the Teaching of Science, and Technology and Engineering Content and Practices: An Instrument Modification Study

Love¹,

Wells

Parkes

2017

Journal of Technology Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A modified Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Piburn & Sawada, 2000) instrument was used to separately examine eight technology and engineering (T&E) (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The modified RTOP presented in this article can help provide feedback to teachers at all grade levels concerning their reformed teaching of science content and practices, and T&E content and practices. The instrument achieved acceptable interrater reliability (> 80%) and was tested in a larger study (Love & Wells, 2017). Results revealed a significant difference among participants' teaching of science and T&E content and practices according to a myriad of variables, such as years of teaching experience, years of experience teaching the Foundations of Technology (FoT) curriculum, length of the FoT curriculum training attended, and select preparation experiences. Research implications suggest that the instrument affords equal applicability for examining science educators' teaching of T&E content and practices and informing pre-and in-service teacher preparation efforts by determining key factors that significantly influence educators' teaching of these concepts.Keywords: Technology and engineering education, science education, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), observation instrumentThe main goal of this research was to examine the teaching of science and technology and engineering (T&E) content and practices embedded within Foundations of Technology (FoT), an international T&E education curriculum. To investigate this, an observation instrument was needed to separately rate instructors' teaching of science content and practices and instructors' teaching of T&E content and practices. As a result, a reliable and practical observation instrument was developed to quantify the level at which P-12 educators teach these concepts. This instrument, modified from the widely used Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Piburn & Sawada, 2000) and a newly created rubric (Appendix B), helps raters provide more consistent scores for observed teaching practices while providing timely and detailed feedback for instructors to enhance their teaching of science and T&E content and practices. Journal of Technology EducationVol. Technology education is concerned with the broad spectrum of technology, which encompasses, but is not limited to, such areas as: design, making, problem solving, technological systems, resources and materials, criteria and constraints, processes, controls, optimization and trade-offs, invention, and many other human topics dealing with human innovation. (p. 31) T&E education requires the use of various technologies, materials, and tools to develop engineering solutions, which is distinctly different from educational technology (ITEEA, 2017). Understanding the difference between T&E education and educational technologies is critical for recognizing and accurately recording T&E content and practices ratings when using the instrument presented in this article.The modified instrument in this study was develop...

show abstract

“…There is a large pool of people who teach undergraduate physics who are shifting toward utilizing computation in some sense in their physics classes [2]. This shift is being motivated in some part by the NGSS standards, which are promoting this idea of helping the next generation of scientists develop computational thinking [3][4][5]. Those standards, designed with K-12 education in mind, are influencing instructors at the college level as well [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The difficulties associated with integrating computation into undergraduate physics.

Leary¹,

Irving²,

Caballero³

2019

2018 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a department being resistant to change to students not buying into the new computational activities, the challenges that are faced with integrating computation into the physics undergraduate curriculum are varied. The Partnership for Integration of Computation into Undergraduate Physics (PICUP) aims to expand the role of computation in the undergraduate physics curriculum. The research presented in this paper is part of a larger project examining the role of the PICUP workshop in facilitating both the integration of computation into classrooms and developing a supportive community to support this integration. An important part of providing the necessary supports for integration is understanding and categorizing the problems members of this community of integrators face when integrating computation in their courses. Through individual and group interviews, we discuss the barriers to integration that new and experienced community members of PICUP have experienced in the past or perceive could exist in the future.

show abstract

Next Generation Science Standards

Cited by 474 publications

References 0 publications

Teaching and learning nature of scientific knowledge: Is it Déjà vu all over again?

Teaching and learning nature of scientific knowledge: Is it Déjà vu all over again?

Examining the Teaching of Science, and Technology and Engineering Content and Practices: An Instrument Modification Study

The difficulties associated with integrating computation into undergraduate physics.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About