Abstract

Science standards have a long history in the United States and currently form the backbone of efforts to improve primary and secondary education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Although there has been much political controversy over the influence of standards on teacher autonomy and student performance, little light has been shed on how well standards cover science content. We assessed the coverage of genetics content in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) using a consensus list of American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) core concepts. We also compared the NGSS against state science standards. Our goals were to assess the potential of the new standards to support genetic literacy and to determine if they improve the coverage of genetics concepts relative to state standards. We found that expert reviewers cannot identify ASHG core concepts within the new standards with high reliability, suggesting that the scope of content addressed by the standards may be inconsistently interpreted. Given results that indicate that the disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) included in the NGSS documents produced by Achieve, Inc. clarify the content covered by the standards statements themselves, we recommend that the NGSS standards statements always be viewed alongside their supporting disciplinary core ideas. In addition, gaps exist in the coverage of essential genetics concepts, most worryingly concepts dealing with patterns of inheritance, both Mendelian and complex. Finally, state standards vary widely in their coverage of genetics concepts when compared with the NGSS. On average, however, the NGSS support genetic literacy better than extant state standards.

Highlights

  • Standards in science education have a long history in the United States

  • Using a process very similar to that used in our 2011 analysis of state science standards [8], we have evaluated the– Generation Science Standards for coverage of 19 American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) core concepts in genetics

  • We chose to use the Alaska state standards in our training because there were ASHG core concepts that were unanimously scored 0, 1, or 2 against this particular set of standards in our previous analysis. Implementation of those two changes in the full analysis led to a marked increase in inter-rater reliability for reviewer groups that only saw the standards statements, but only a small increase for reviewer groups that saw the standards in the context of referenced disciplinary core ideas (Table 1)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Standards in science education have a long history in the United States. Assessing Genetics Content in the NGSS behind educational standards has been that they promote equality of opportunity by providing every student with the same education regardless of circumstance [2]. Implementation of the science standards portion of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has led each U.S state to enact its own set of science education standards. Published analyses of content in state science standards have revealed a wide range of quality and content coverage [4,5,6,7], despite the fact that NCLB was intended to push states to provide an education of equal rigor for all students

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call