Representations of nature of science in U.S. science standards: A historical account with contemporary implications

Abstract

This study evaluated the representations of nature of science (NOS) in U.S. state science standards, and examined the changes in these representations from documents advanced in the 1980s through 2016. Drawing from the consensus perspective on NOS and prior studies focusing on the analysis of textual content, documents were inspected for 10 target NOS aspects: the empirical, tentative, inferential, creative, theory-driven, and social NOS, in addition to the myth of "The Scientific Method," the nature of scientific theories and laws, and the social and cultural embeddedness of science.Ninety-eight state documents from 48 states were analyzed and multiple editions were collected from 34 states. Additionally, relevant materials from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were assessed for their coverage of the same NOS aspects. Collected materials were scored as whole documents, including over 11,000 pages of text in total, on each target aspect, which reflected the treatment (naïve vs. informed) of NOS in text and the manner of presentation (explicit vs. implicit). Overall, surprisingly, state standards documents have improved very little with respect to their NOS coverage over the last 30 years. NOS standards documents remain silent on a majority of key aspects of NOS, and the number of aspects showing explicit, informed representations has held constant. The NGSS performed well compared to many contemporary documents, but they failed to address all target NOS aspects in a desirable manner. Further

Early elementary (K‐4) teachers' perceptions of the developmental appropriateness, importance, and potential for classroom inclusion of key nature of science aspects

“…In a content analysis of U.S. state science standards for 10 NOS aspects (empirical, tentative, inferential, creative, theory‐driven, and social dimension of science, the “scientific method”, nature of scientific theories and laws, and socio‐cultural embeddedness of NOS), researchers found that several key NOS aspects were not addressed and that standards had improved very little in their treatment of NOS in the past 30 years. Any representation of 10 NOS aspects ranged from 41% (scientific laws) to 95% (empirical) of 63 state standards documents from 2000 to 2016 (Summers et al, 2019). Note that, of these aspects, all except inferential are addressed explicitly to some degree in the K‐2 or 3–5 bands in Appendix H of the NGSS Appendix H (NGSS Lead States, 2013).…”

A review of literature that uses the lens of the next generation science crosscutting concepts: 2012–2019

“…When discussing the CCCs, eight articles focused on the relationship between the CCCs and the NOS or the role of science, technology, and society (STS) (Akerson et al, 2018; Gonzalez‐Garcia et al, 2019; Lederman & Lederman, 2014, 2016; McComas & Nouri, 2016; Summers et al, 2019; Summers & Abd‐El‐Khalick et al, 2019; Zeidler et al, 2016). A ninth article, Lederman (2019), discussed this relationship and pointed out particular activities related to the NOS that could also support student learning of the CCCs.…”

Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Views about the Tentative and Durable Nature of Scientific Knowledge

“…Furthermore, tentativeness is often highlighted as a particularly central aspect of nature of science (Bell, 2009 ). Accordingly, it has been identified as a component of numerous science education standard documents and curricula in various countries, as shown by McComas and Olson ( 1998 ) and Olson ( 2018 ), as well as Summers et al ( 2019 ). Additionally, scientists themselves frequently describe it as a characteristic of scientific knowledge (Wong & Hodson, 2009 ).…”