I was wrong. With the help of some Coalition experts, I investigated this strange situation and here are my basic findings.
In a nutshell, which is explained more fully below, only the happy half of the scientific method is being taught. This is the fun formulation of possible hypotheses and models that might explain what we observe. The hard half, where these tentative explanations get evaluated and likely fail, is not taught.
Now, let’s look at it in some detail. It is all about what are called “standards” which are actually State regulations saying what topics will be taught at each grade level. About two decades ago, there began a push for national standards because while most states taught the same topics, they were often in different grades, which created problems –textbooks, for example.
The Feds paid the States to adopt Common Core standards in math and English, but they punted science to the National Academy of Sciences. Agencies often did this with science issues.
In 2012, the NAS produced its blueprint for science standards — “A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas”, which is often simply called the Framework.
A bunch of State people then formed a huge working group that wrote standards to fit the Framework. These are called the “Next Generation Science Standards,” or NGSS for short. Today, 20 States have officially adopted the NGSS, while another 29 are reported to have standards that are based on the Framework. (The sole holdout is Florida.)
The Framework and NGSS are very different from the pre-existing State science standards. These older standards taught scientific knowledge, basically the fundamental facts that underlie each of the primary scientific areas. Electricity, cell structure, the solar system, and stuff like that.
Some of this is still taught as the Core Ideas, plus there are Crosscutting Concepts like causality. But the method is what is called Practices. These are supposed to be how scientists work, plus they have added engineering. Students do projects instead of learning facts.
Here are the listed practices from the Framework (and the NGSS):
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 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
Note that the list basically is sequential. It ends with formulating, arguing for, and communicating explanations.
There is nothing about testing, evaluating, or criticizing these explanations. But this sort of critical evaluation is the essence of science. It sets science apart from unconstrained belief. This is the very heart of the scientific method, so the CO2 Coalition is dead right.
Then, it gets very puzzling because the Framework actually presents evaluation as a central activity. The Practices list is Box 3.1 in the Framework. Just three pages later, we find Figure 3.1 which looks to be a diagram version and is labeled “The three spheres of activity for scientists and engineers.”
The central sphere is labeled “Evaluating” and lists “ARGUE, CRITIQUE, and ANALYZE” as its activities. There is an arrow pointing directly to “FORMULATE HYPOTHESES” under the heading “Developing Explanations.”
I have no idea why evaluating proposed explanations (and models) was not included in the list of practices. Perhaps they simply wanted to make science fun by avoiding the unpleasant part. After all, progressives are often against grading students and especially against failing them.
But whatever the reason, the Framework and NGSS only teach the happy half of the scientific method. The crucial part where hypothesis meets reality is not there. So, they are actually failing to teach how scientists think and work.
I propose a simple fix taken right from the Framework. The NGSS and the States should simply add this activity to the list:
“Activity 9: Proposed models and explanations will be evaluated using analysis, critique, and argument from evidence.”
Now we just have to get this out to the 49 States.
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an inDr. David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science. This article was first published HERE
Now, let’s look at it in some detail. It is all about what are called “standards” which are actually State regulations saying what topics will be taught at each grade level. About two decades ago, there began a push for national standards because while most states taught the same topics, they were often in different grades, which created problems –textbooks, for example.
The Feds paid the States to adopt Common Core standards in math and English, but they punted science to the National Academy of Sciences. Agencies often did this with science issues.
In 2012, the NAS produced its blueprint for science standards — “A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas”, which is often simply called the Framework.
A bunch of State people then formed a huge working group that wrote standards to fit the Framework. These are called the “Next Generation Science Standards,” or NGSS for short. Today, 20 States have officially adopted the NGSS, while another 29 are reported to have standards that are based on the Framework. (The sole holdout is Florida.)
The Framework and NGSS are very different from the pre-existing State science standards. These older standards taught scientific knowledge, basically the fundamental facts that underlie each of the primary scientific areas. Electricity, cell structure, the solar system, and stuff like that.
Some of this is still taught as the Core Ideas, plus there are Crosscutting Concepts like causality. But the method is what is called Practices. These are supposed to be how scientists work, plus they have added engineering. Students do projects instead of learning facts.
Here are the listed practices from the Framework (and the NGSS):
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 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
Note that the list basically is sequential. It ends with formulating, arguing for, and communicating explanations.
There is nothing about testing, evaluating, or criticizing these explanations. But this sort of critical evaluation is the essence of science. It sets science apart from unconstrained belief. This is the very heart of the scientific method, so the CO2 Coalition is dead right.
Then, it gets very puzzling because the Framework actually presents evaluation as a central activity. The Practices list is Box 3.1 in the Framework. Just three pages later, we find Figure 3.1 which looks to be a diagram version and is labeled “The three spheres of activity for scientists and engineers.”
The central sphere is labeled “Evaluating” and lists “ARGUE, CRITIQUE, and ANALYZE” as its activities. There is an arrow pointing directly to “FORMULATE HYPOTHESES” under the heading “Developing Explanations.”
I have no idea why evaluating proposed explanations (and models) was not included in the list of practices. Perhaps they simply wanted to make science fun by avoiding the unpleasant part. After all, progressives are often against grading students and especially against failing them.
But whatever the reason, the Framework and NGSS only teach the happy half of the scientific method. The crucial part where hypothesis meets reality is not there. So, they are actually failing to teach how scientists think and work.
I propose a simple fix taken right from the Framework. The NGSS and the States should simply add this activity to the list:
“Activity 9: Proposed models and explanations will be evaluated using analysis, critique, and argument from evidence.”
Now we just have to get this out to the 49 States.
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an inDr. David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
I agree with Hazel's summary of what our schools have become.
Forty -five years of Whole Language has destroyed our academic standards in reading. Ideology dominated over real science in this crucial area of basic learning. Junk deceitful 'science' was used to keep this thoroughly destructive reading methods in our schools.
Science is nothing without truth but post modernism favours ideology over truth.
Could have sworn I lived in New Zealand. Why would I be in the slightest bit interested in what's taught or not taught in the US. If the moderators of this platform think there's some sort of message embedded in the article of relevance to us, then perhaps they should say so in an introduction. Otherwise it's about as useful to the New Zealand reader as an article on how the Taliban teach science to their women.
Post a Comment