Toward a more coherent model for science education than the crosscutting concepts of the next generation science standards: The affordances of styles of reasoning

Abstract

In this article, we argue for a new rationale for the science curriculum that is more coherent and more useful than the crosscutting concepts of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). In an effort to provide both clarity and justification for the science curriculum, we contend that a framework based on the idea that there are six styles of scientific reasoning will better guide teachers, curriculum designers, and assessment developers. While the NGSS set out to articulate the learning outcomes of the science curriculum as a set of performance expectations within three major scientific disciplines, we argue that the crosscutting concepts have no scholarly basis for what the sciences have in common. The consequence is that the NGSS make no case for the over-arching importance of specific performance expectations, include cross cutting concepts inconsistently across different grades, and provide no rationale for each standard. In contrast, we argue that the framework of styles of scientific reasoning does offer a coherent curriculum framework for the science curriculum from grades K through 12, a justification for each performance expectation, and a vision of how each standard might support the development of scientific reasoning. Implications for curriculum designers and educators are discussed. K E Y W O R D S argument, coherence, curriculum models, scientific reasoning J Res Sci Teach. 2018;1-20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea V C 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1

Toward coherence in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A review of learning progression literature

“…Inspired by Osborne, Rafanelli, and Kind (), we differentiate between two types of scientific reasoning. First, scientific reasoning can be about an ontic entity (e.g., pattern, matter, and energy) and therefore is useful within a certain range, such as several content topics or a scientific practice.…”

“…Second, scientific reasoning can also have broad coverage and application. Osborne and colleagues (Osborne et al, ) proposed using six “styles of scientific reasoning” (e.g., mathematical deduction and experimental exploration) to unify science curriculum. These styles of reasoning were used in the history of science for conducting scientific investigations and for learning scientific knowledge across disciplines.…”

Defining the Third Dimension, A Necessary Precursor to Fulmer et al.’s Challenges

“…Fundamentally, there is confusion about what the CCCs are, what they are not, and whether they are a worthwhile concept (e.g., McComas & Nouri, ; Osborne et al, ). As Fulmer and colleagues appropriately demonstrate, multiple lines of research have examined the integration of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) with science and engineering practices (SEP), and, fundamentally, the concepts are approached from similar perspectives with some disagreement about the nuances.…”

Response to “Defining the Third Dimension, A Necessary Precursor to Fulmer et al.’s Challenges”

“…As we read the comment, we also considered whether the very nature of the CCCs may contribute to their apparent vagueness. Much like what Osborne, Rafanelli, and Kind () noted, the CCCs are addressed across the full grade range in the PEs—but not unpacked within grades. Like SEPS, the same idea can look very different across grades and disciplines.…”