DEVELOPING AND APPLYING FRAMEWORK OF MATHEMATIZATION IN PHYSICS EDUCATION IN DIGITALIZATION ERA

Over 10 years ago, a National Research Council committee led by Jim Pellegrino and Robert Glaser generated the fundamental text on educational assessment titled, Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment (NRC, 2001). In this document, the authors emphasize that assessment is a process of reasoning from evidence, ‘‘a process by which educators use students’ responses to specially created or naturally occurring stimuli to draw inferences about the students’ knowledge and skills’’ (National Research Council 2001, p. 20). Knowing What Students Know (NRC, 2001; KWSK) was fundamental to advancing the conversation on assessment in science and other disciplines for several reasons. First, KWSK provided a set of guiding principles for the development and evaluation of educational assessments. The assessment triangle, introduced as an assessment model, was particularly important as it brought recognition to the importance of using cognitive models to drive the design of the assessment and define the empirical evidence needed to support the interpretations derived from observed performance. Second, KWSK called for a ‘‘balanced assessment system’’ of classroom and large-scale assessments that are: comprehensive—using multiple sources of evidence about students’ learning; coherent—a shared learning model coordinating curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and continuous—longitudinal assessment of learning progress over time. This assessment system posed a model to follow in any educational system. Third, KWSK confirmed the idea that assessment should be designed with a specific purpose in mind and cannot serve multiple purposes. Fourth, KWSK emphasized the necessity for assessments to be sensitive to cultural and linguistic difference characteristics of the tested audience. Fifth, KWSK presented new advances in educational measurement, psychometrics, and technology. In all of these ways, KWSK set a high bar for quality assessments. At the

A modern understanding of the cell and its functions has been translated into learning goals for K-12 students by Project 2061's Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993 ) and by the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council [NRC], 1996 ). Nearly every state has used these national documents to develop their own science standards, so that there is now a fairly broad consensus on what it is that students need to know and be able to do in science generally and in biology more specifically. While this consensus represents an important first step toward improving science education, without curriculum, instruction, and assessments that are well aligned with these goals, teachers will find it extremely difficult to help their students achieve them. Here, we first highlight a few of the key findings regarding cell biology from Project 2061's study of high school textbooks and their alignment with standards. We then describe Project 2061's current efforts to develop new knowledge and tools that educators, researchers, and practitioners can use to help all students become literate in science, mathematics, and technology. Project 2061 is a long-term K–12 education initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Introduction to the special issue: A critical examination of the Next Generation Science Standards

References

Editorial| November 01 2016 The Next Generation Science Standards: How Many Dimensions of Learning Are There? William F. McComas William F. McComas Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar The American Biology Teacher (2016) 78 (9): 707. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.9.707 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation William F. McComas; The Next Generation Science Standards: How Many Dimensions of Learning Are There?. The American Biology Teacher 1 November 2016; 78 (9): 707. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.9.707 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe American Biology Teacher Search This is an exciting yet potentially challenging time to be a science teacher in the United States. We are fast approaching a reality in which schools in the majority of states will use the same document to guide science teaching and learning. Of course, I am talking about the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Representatives from across the country developed NGSS, followed by a brief opportunity for public comment and revision. Now, individual states are examining the final NGSS document and considering whether to adopt or not. When these decisions are made, for the first time since the founding of the nation, it is likely that more students than not in the K–12 arena will be guided in their science learning by a document that cuts across state lines. Most agree that the NGSS standards are generally well developed, particularly from the perspective of the science content recommendations. Having a... You do not currently have access to this content.

Call for papers: <i>Journal of Research in Science Teaching</i> – Special Issue: A critical examination of the Next Generation Science Standards

Recent documents pertaining to K-12 education have fostered a connection between engineering and science education to help better prepare our students and future citizens to better meet the current and future challenges of our modern and technological society. With that connection, there has been a concerted effort to raise the visibility of engineering within K-12 science education, which is reflected in the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the recently released Next Generation Science Standards. As states look towards the adoption and implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards, it is important to take a deeper look at the shift in K-12 science education that is being suggested by these documents and what that means in terms of the potential changes for states that have chosen to adopt these standards. The main research question that has guided the work for this paper is: What is the extent and quality of the engineering that is present in state science standards and the Next Generation Science Standards? This paper will present a detailed analysis of the landscape of engineering in K-12 policy before and after the release of the NGSS through a comparative case study of academic state science standards and Next Generation Science Standards. This comparison provides insight into what the widespread adoption of the NGSS would mean in terms of potential changes in the way we implement science education in the United States. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 296–318, 2015

When the USSR launched the satellite Sputnik shockwaves went through the United States. Science education was reformed and gains were made. Two decades after Sputnik , science education in the U.S. had regressed and a report from the government claimed that if the current state of education were imposed by another country it would be perceived as an act of war. The nation again mobilized in an attempt to rectify the perceived shortcomings in American education. Science for All Americans and Benchmarks in Science Literacy were first and closely followed by National Science Education Standards . All of these publications had dramatic effects on science education and American science education again moved forward. Another decade brought the world into the new century and found United States science education staying no more than afloat when compared globally. The National Research Council set out to determine what changes standards should undergo in order to best propel the United States as far forward as possible. They published A Framework for K-12 Science Education which was very influential and was the basis for the publication of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Polls show that the American public is ready and wanting new internationally-benchmarked science standards such as the NGSS are. The NGSS are heavily based on the three dimensions recommended in the Framework : Practices, Cross-Cutting Concepts, Core Ideas.

The most recent draft of the U.S. “next generation science standards” promoted a practice-oriented approach to inquiry-based science learning ([ 1 ][1]), guided by the 2011 U.S. National Research Council framework for K-12 science education ([ 2 ][2]). The key question is whether science teachers are able to implement practice-oriented, inquiry-based learning. Training is crucial to ensure the quality of teaching described in the “Next generation science standards” report. China faces similar challenges regarding how to offer effective training. The Ministry of Education of China began the National Teacher Training Project (NTTP) in 2010 ([ 3 ][3]) and has invested US$89.6 million every year to provide professional development opportunities for teachers, especially training in inquiry-based learning. The NTTP cultivates lead teachers, who in turn train local teachers. Approximately 68,700 middle school science teachers have taken the 15-day training to be lead teachers since 2010 ([ 3 ][3]). Lead teachers have provided training courses of 10 to 15 days to about 100,000 middle school science teachers ([ 3 ][3]). An effective science teacher training program, in China as well as in the United States, should engage scientists, education psychologists, and excellent middle school science teachers to provide trainees with research-oriented training. My experiences suggest that the NTTP program is meeting these goals. I have designed and led the lead science teacher training program of the NTTP in Soochow University for 4 years. We required the trainees to study science history, research the classic experiments underlying middle school science curriculum, identify problems in science and science teaching, research positive and negative cases of science instruction, and provide inquiry-based science lessons in our partner middle schools and report on the experience. We hope that such thorough training will fundamentally change science education in China. 1. [↵][4]Next Generation Science Standards ([www.nextgenscience.org][5]). 2. [↵][6]Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards, National Research Council, A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2011). 3. [↵][7]National Teacher Training Project ([www.gpjh.cn/cms][8]) [in Chinese]. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: http://www.nextgenscience.org [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [8]: http://www.gpjh.cn/cms

This study aims to determine the competence of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) of science and physics teachers in Aceh Tamiang District in the learning process. The survey method was used in this study and data to measure teachers' ICT competencies were obtained with a questionnaire instrument. The questionnaire were developed from ICT competences indicators as many as 19 items. The respondents were 40 science and physics teachers in Aceh Tamiang. Data were analyzed using quantitative descriptive analysis and correlation test. Based on the perceptions obtained from the research questionnaire data, the teachers' ICT competence is very high category. In terms of employment status, the average ICT competence of non-civil servant teachers is higher than civil servant teachers. Likewise, from the review of tenure, teachers who have &lt;5 years of service have higher ICT competencies compared to teachers who have 6-15 years and &gt;15 years of service. The correlation test results obtained a weak relationship between employment status and tenure of science and physics teachers in Aceh Tamiang on ICT competence. These results can be a concern for civil servant teachers and teachers who have a longer tenure can further improve ICT competencies in learning to produce quality graduates

In many science classes, students encounter ‘final form’ science (Duschl 1990, 1994) in which scientific knowledge is presented as a rhetoric of conclusions (Schwab 1962). Incorporation of the history of science in modern science classrooms combats this false image of linear science progression. History of science can facilitate student understanding of the nature of science, pique student interest, and expose the cultural and societal constraints in which a science developed, revealing science's ‘human side’ (Matthews 1994). Carefully selected and researched episodes from the history of science illustrate that scientists sometimes chose incorrect hypotheses, misinterpreted data, and argued about data analysis. Our research documented that historical vignettes can hook students' attention, and past controversies can be used to develop students' analysis and argumentation skills before turning class attention to modern controversial issues. Historical graphics also have educational potential, as they reveal the progression of a science and offer alternative vehicles for data interpretation. In the United States, the National Science Education Standards (United States National Research Council 1996) acknowledged the importance of the History and Nature of Science by designating it as one of eight science content strands. However, the new United States Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve 2013) no longer include this strand, although the importance of the nature of science is still emphasized in the science framework (United States National Research Council 2012). Therefore, it is crucial that science education researchers continue to research and implement the history of science via interdisciplinary approaches to ensure its inclusion in United States science classrooms for better student understanding of the nature of science.

Following up on efforts to improve the quality and quantity of international publications of lecturers and students of UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Postgraduate Schools, Master Program in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Science and Mathematics Education and Doctor Program in Science and Mathematics Education collaboratively conducted International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education 2019 on Saturday 29 June 2019 at the Grand Mercure Setiabudi Bandung.The theme of the conference was “Mathematics and Science Education Research for Sustainable Development”, with coverage of Mathematics Education, Physics Education and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics).The main objective of this conference is to improve the academic atmosphere within the UPI environment, particularly at the UPI Postgraduate School and strengthen the lecturer and student publications through the International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE )2019. Specific objectives to be achieved regarding this conference are (1). Increase the number of scientific publications of lecturers and Postgraduate students in conference proceedings, and (2). Increase the number of citation index lecturers and students of the UPI Graduate School in the Master Program in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Science and Mathematics Education and Doctor Program in Science and Mathematics Education.List of Committees and Conference Photographs are available in this PDF.

Assessments, understood as tools for tracking what and how well students have learned, play a critical role in the classroom. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards develops an approach to science assessment to meet the vision of science education for the future as it has been elaborated in A Framework for K-12 Science Education (Framework) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). These documents are brand new and the changes they call for are barely under way, but the new assessments will be needed as soon as states and districts begin the process of implementing the NGSS and changing their approach to science education. The new Framework and the NGSS are designed to guide educators in significantly altering the way K-12 science is taught. The Framework is aimed at making science education more closely resemble the way scientists actually work and think, and making instruction reflect research on learning that demonstrates the importance of building coherent understandings over time. It structures science education around three dimensions - the practices through which scientists and engineers do their work, the key crosscutting concepts that cut across disciplines, and the core ideas of the disciplines - and argues that they should be interwoven in every aspect of science education, building in sophistication as students progress through grades K-12. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards recommends strategies for developing assessments that yield valid measures of student proficiency in science as described in the new Framework. This report reviews recent and current work in science assessment to determine which aspects of the Framework's vision can be assessed with available techniques and what additional research and development will be needed to support an assessment system that fully meets that vision. The report offers a systems approach to science assessment, in which a range of assessment strategies are designed to answer different kinds of questions with appropriate degrees of specificity and provide results that complement one another. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards makes the case that a science assessment system that meets the Framework's vision should consist of assessments designed to support classroom instruction, assessments designed to monitor science learning on a broader scale, and indicators designed to track opportunity to learn. New standards for science education make clear that new modes of assessment designed to measure the integrated learning they promote are essential. The recommendations of this report will be key to making sure that the dramatic changes in curriculum and instruction signaled by Framework and the NGSS reduce inequities in science education and raise the level of science education for all students.

This is the inaugural issue for our editorial team. Its publication is by no means an extraordinary event. Far from it, this issue is simply one more signpost along the journey of JRST, now celebrating its 53rd birthday, and an embodiment of the unwavering commitment of our organization, journal, and community to improve science teaching and learning for all, through research. The uninterrupted nature of this journey will be manifest in the publication of a substantial number of manuscripts accepted under the outgoing editorial team in this issue and several JRST issues to come. Nonetheless, having now handled JRST submissions and peer review for a full calendar year, we find this an opportune time to share some emergent and significant matters that intertwine with the consequences of the NARST and JRST intentional and strategic move of going 'global.' Given the nature of the scientific enterprise and the ubiquity of science in modern society, culture, and economy—especially with the advent of "big science" following the Second World War—the science education community has been global in character and practice for several decades now. Yet, in 2011, NARST officially embraced the global nature of our community by adopting the title of "A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning through Research" in lieu of the previous, "National Association for Research in Science Teaching." The data for JRST submissions speak to the wisdom of this decision and its synergy with our community. In the first three quarters (January 1–September 30) of 2006—the year JRST switched to electronic submissions through the ScholarOne ManuscriptsTM system that has allowed the retention and analysis of historical data—about 65% of all JRST submissions were US-based, while 35% were non-US based, coming from 30 countries. A short decade later, the same 9-month period of 2015 featured the substantial increase of non-US submissions to about 47% (a 57% increase in percentage of non-US submissions), coming from 44 different countries (a 46% increase in the number of submitting countries). No doubt, JRST now speaks, more than ever, for the global science education community. This shift has surely brought numerous benefits to science teaching and learning, by fostering a global dialogue around issues of significance to science education. This dialogue serves to show, simultaneously, the commonality of our aspirations and the challenges we face, along with the diversity and uniquenesses of educating learners in the sciences, in particular contexts across the globe. The shift has also brought to bear some challenges, even tensions, in terms of the proper framing and topical foci of manuscripts submitted to JRST. Before addressing these tensions, we turn to a challenge of our own which, nonetheless, also speaks to the range and diversity of the communities that we strive to represent in, and serve through, JRST. We fully embrace going global. Indeed, the official organizational shift occurred under Dana Zeidler's term as NARST president. When considering a new cover design for JRST, we gravitated immediately toward embossing our global footprint on the very cover. What followed was probably a frustrating experience for Wiley's graphic designers, who patiently attempted to translate our concept of global science education research into a concrete graphical image. We said 'No' to one designer-selected image after another. For example, we said 'No' to images that could signify a certain discipline (such as images of molecules, which would seem to favor the chemical sciences; and cells or petri dishes, which would appear to favor the biological sciences). Similarly, images of school-age students would suggest that JRST especially privileges formal, precollege science education. None of those images seemed to capture what JRST is about. After all, JRST is agnostic, for lack of a better term, as to specific scientific disciplines or particular learning contexts. The common thread that binds our collective fabric is that of model cases of scholarship. Accordingly, our editorial team welcomes rigorous, cutting-edge, impactful research that addresses significant issues pertaining to the teaching and learning of the sciences across learning settings, both formal and informal, and across the life span. We next shifted our designers' direction toward 'abstract' images, only to respond with similarly lackluster reactions, to one image after another, as none captured our intent. Finally, our designers took the prudent step of suggesting gently that we troll the image databases ourselves to find the elusive one that would satisfy our quest to capture the wide range and global nature of our science education community. Our trolling led to the image that now appears on the cover of this issue. We both knew it when we saw it! We intend for the fabric motif to speak to the diversity and global nature of our science education research community: Individual, unique strands that, nevertheless, coordinate and systematically weave together into a robust body of knowledge, flexible enough to accommodate the variety of goals and contexts which it can, and should, inform, and strong enough to uphold our standards of a top-tier research journal. This imagery and metaphor can surely extend further. However, as alluded to above, we quickly came to realize that, like many of our authors, we also needed to come to terms with some substantial matters and tensions inherent in writing for a global audience. Signs of one tension became apparent near the outset of our editorship. In one review of a US manuscript focused on inquiry learning, a US-based reviewer rejected the manuscript outright, noting that the advent of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013), with their focus on scientific practices, rendered 'inquiry' a dated construct. In a different case, authors of a non-US based 2015 submission situated their decade-long study in the NGSS, which had only been released in 2013! Clearly, these illustrative cases speak to the underlying and crucial matter of referent or golden standard, if you will, for suitably framing a study or choosing a topical area for publication in JRST. The two cases seem to reflect the assumption that US priorities, as manifested in the NGSS, are the referent and should define the priorities for JRST authors, both in the US and around the globe. This is not necessarily the case, as there are many alternative robust and valid frames of reference for science education research and practice. What our colleagues—both reviewers and authors—seem to have missed, is that labels should not be conflated with underlying substantive constructs that are internally coherent and cogent in practice. For instance, "asking questions, planning and conducting investigations, … constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and communicating scientific arguments" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 105) have long been prominent among the abilities deemed necessary for science students to engage with inquiry. This inventory of abilities is virtually identical to that provided in the description of NGSS science practices, which includes, "1. Asking questions … 3. Planning and carrying out investigations … 6. Constructing explanations … [and] 7. Engaging in argument from evidence" (NGSS Lead States, 2013, Vol. 2, p. 48). The substantive constructs embedded in 'inquiry' teaching and learning remain relevant and current to science education; they continue to represent significant goals and make for legitimate frames for science education researchers (until such time that conceptual and/or empirical studies demonstrate that "a scientific practice" is genuinely different from "an ability to engage with the doing of science"). These statements should not be taken to mean that the NGSS did not bring novel things to the table. Indeed, the NGSS could serve as one robust framework for science education research undertaken by US-based researchers and others around the globe. The important point is that research framed around inquiry teaching and/or learning should not be dismissed as dated, by either reviewers or authors, on the grounds that the term is no longer emphasized in the current, major US science education reform document for K-12 science education. This non-dismissive stance is incredibly important for numerous colleagues around the world who respond to research priorities set in their national science education reform documents, many of which include explicit pronouncements about the centrality of certain constructs, organizing principles, and goals related to domains (including—among many others—expansive conceptual understanding of scientific knowledge, inquiry, scientific literacy, nature of science, responsible citizenship, and socioscientific issues), even if not afforded the same status in current US-based reform documents. It follows that authors preparing manuscripts for submission to JRST, and reviewers examining those submissions, are better served by leveraging the substantive and enduring nature of the core constructs and organizing principles that motivate, and the theories that inform, their research and peer reviews, rather than attempting to artificially and inauthentically force their creative ideas or substantive feedback into the mold of what is assumed to be a preferred referent for JRST. Equally important, this stance should not be interpreted as a license to use national reform documents as the sole basis for establishing the significance or legitimacy of a research study that is suitable for a global audience. Thus, a statement such as, "the algorithmic application of scientific formulae to solve end-of-chapter word problems continues to be central to science education in my nation" is surely a non-starter for a JRST submission. There is a canonical and globally accessible body of knowledge in science education, and closely related fields, as well as a shared wisdom, built over decades of meticulous theoretical and empirical inquiry, which needs to be carefully considered and worked into decisions about what frames of reference might inform, and what topical domains might be appropriate for, research studies published in JRST. For instance, a submission investigating whether students' naïve conceptions evident in one context also are manifest in another would most likely fail to receive favorable reactions from JRST reviewers. Alternatively, we suspect that favorable reviews might meet a submission that convincingly and rigorously shows that unique cultural, educational, or other attributes of a specific population or context resulted in generating learner conceptions that are substantially different from those documented in the literature for the same science concept. The latter scenario exemplifies the advantages that could accrue from globally informed science education research. To continue with this example, JRST readers and reviewers now expect the documentation of some naïve conceptions to serve as only the first step in a research effort, to be complemented in the same study with a theoretically-informed intervention to meaningfully address those conceptions. By the same token, JRST reviewers and readers expect that certain conceptual and methodological standards be met, irrespective of the topical area or frame for a given submission. For instance, research that draws on self-report data to make claims about changes in teacher instructional practices would hardly meet JRST standards. Similarly, input-output research, with "black-box" designs that gloss over or fail to meaningfully address the intervening events, factors, processes, etc., by reference to some underlying conceptual or theoretical framework, is not likely to make the JRST cut. Additionally, conceptual or theoretical scholarship that proposes claims or advances ideologies without detailing the underlying analytical frameworks to justify the development of those claims would fall short of the mark. It follows that non-US based researchers submitting manuscripts to JRST should not feel that it is required to anchor their work in US national priorities, albeit they surely are free to do just that. In the same vein, US-based researchers should not think it is required to demonstrate that their work is relevant to all global JRST audiences, albeit they surely are welcome to do just that. What we believe our reviewers and readers should expect, and rightly so, is that works submitted for publication in JRST speak to the substantive elements embedded in one or more of the central themes, constructs, or organizing principles that currently are woven into the global fabric of our community. We also expect that JRST authors seriously consult, build on, extend, refine, and/or challenge the existing science education literature, that they deploy state-of-art theoretical frameworks to inform their work, and that they utilize cutting-edge methodological imperatives to validate their claims. This is the manner in which JRST-published manuscripts become robust, meaningful, contextual case studies, which continue to expand and enrich the fabric of our knowledge and understandings. All this might come across as a very complex balancing act. It surely is. After all, there is an art and science to writing for JRST. Still, many science education researchers from countries around the world have taken and continue to take this challenge head on and gloriously succeed; not only meeting, but also exceeding our expectations. These individuals have contributed scholarship that is nailed down to a science and elevated up to an art. We look forward to JRST becoming the home for many more such voices from across the globe.

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provide a vision for contemporary science education with all students, including the fast‐growing population of multilingual learners in the United States K‐12 context. The shifts heralded by the NGSS have resulted in significant changes to English language proficiency (ELP) or English language development (ELD) standards so they better align with content standards and support all students, including multilingual learners, to engage in language‐rich disciplinary practices (e.g., arguing from evidence). The purpose of this article is to describe ELP/ELD standards aligned with content standards. Specifically, we describe how the policy initiatives of the NGSS as science standards and WIDA 2020 as ELP/ELD standards reflect each other in terms of conceptual foundations and architecture of the standards guiding classroom practices. By becoming more explicitly aware of how science standards and language standards present “mirror images” of each other, science educators will be better positioned to collaborate with their language education colleagues. As this article is intended to engage science educators who are generally familiar with the NGSS but likely new to ELP/ELD standards, we describe WIDA 2020 in detail and in ways accessible to a broad audience. In doing so, we aim to ensure the science education and language education communities are coordinated in their efforts to promote equitable science learning for all students, including multilingual learners. We close with implications for research, policy, and practice through collaboration between science education (as well as other content areas) and language education.