User:Mxf1209/Science education

Plan/Objectives for improving the Wiki-article:

1. Focus primarily on the subsection that addresses Science Education in the United States

2. First goal would be to improve upon some of the overgeneralization that are being made in this section by referencing research that has been done regarding K-12 science education in the United States.

3. The use of the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core education standards will be addressed as this is something that is very prominent in the United States but absent from this article thus far.

4. Equity in education will be addressed. This is a very broad topic so at the very least learning disabilities and their impact on students' learning in the United States will be addressed, as this is not yet addressed in the article.

5. Add in more current sources regarding the framework of science education in the U.S. that have working references.

6. Address teachers in the United States and the expectations that are placed on them regarding Science Education.

Yoon, S. A., Goh, S. E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K–12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285-325. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0034654317746090?casa_token=FUBVmgbe_9UAAAAA:Jpn5vAzkgIUY302QaBE4FsWt-xuIhjrrkrrz_FskgbOtALGriBi98uUqe7ZtE2ACxGuah2H0wq4 Bybee. (2014). NGSS and the Next Generation of Science Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4
 * This paper explores complex systems as a common theme of K-12 science education. The idea of complex systems is broad, but is basically explained in the article as scientific systems that we see present in many areas of science. This article delves into the framework of current K-12 science education and its learning goals for students, and looks at previous research done on the use of complex systems as a theme in science education. The primary purpose of this article was to analyze data collected from 1995 to 2015 regarding the use of complex systems in science education.
 * This article would be useful in objectives 2 and 5 on the list for improvement because it covers a large time span and analyzes research regarding the impact of complex systems in science education in different student populations and educational settings in the United States The article analyzes how the use of complex systems in science education aligns with the framework and goals of science education for students in the United States.

Hurt, T., Greenwald, E., Allan, S., Cannady, M. A., Krakowski, A., Brodsky, L.,. . . Dorph, R. (2023). The computational thinking for science (CT-S) framework: Operationalizing CT-S for K–12 science education researchers and educators. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00391-7
 * This article addresses the Next Generation Science Standards and the impact of these standards on teachers as they relate to teaching multiple core science disciplines to students and how this relates to Common Core science curriculum. The article addresses the history of how the NGSS were created, provides a summary of the framework, and discusses the impact of the NGSS on the educational system and on teachers.
 * This is a great article that addresses many of the key concepts I listed for improvement above. There is a flowchart in the article which outlines how these education frameworks trickle down the education system and ultimately affect student learning. This article addresses common core, NGSS, teacher expectations/development, and provides great definitions for what science education really means and is really all about (the goals and core concepts).


 * This article addresses the concept of computational thinking and its use by the NGSS as a core theme that must be taught in science eduacation. the article explains that computational technologies are becoming increasingly prevalent and important in science, but that the NGSS now encourages computational thinking to be taught to students by teachers. This article aims to define computational thinking and clarify this NGSS standard.
 * This article addresses NGSS standards and address the impact of current technology on education standards in the United States. This article is very current so I think this is an improvement from some of the dated/unavailable sources currently in the article (objective number 3).

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106


 * This article details the role that laboratory education has in science education. The research discussed in this article explores how laboratory education is performed. There is exploration into how students learn in the laboratory and how the laboratory can foster the meeting of learning goals, among related other topics.
 * This article will expand upon a key concept of science education which is laboratory learning. This is not yet discussed in the WIki-article.

Scruggs, T., Brigham, F., Mastropieri, M. (2013). Common Core Standards: Implications for Students with Learning Dissabilities. https://web-s-ebscohost-com.unh.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=ec5f0920-cb9d-4ba3-810e-7a27175baee7%40redis#

Scruggs, Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading Versus Doing: The Relative Effects of Textbook-Based and Inquiry-Oriented Approaches to Science Learning in Special Education Classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302700101
 * This article discusses Common Core science standards and how these standards may impact students with learning disabilities. It discusses the key areas of science education that are addressed under common core standards. The authors assert that students could benefit from the science education standards outlined by common core, but may need more support from teachers as a result.
 * This article addresses many of the ways in which there is room for improvement in this Wiki-article. It is more current than some of the existing sources, and discusses specifically the Common Core standards for science education and its impact on both students and teachers. It also addressing equity in education which is a significant problem but currently not a topic in the Wiki-article.


 * Experiment about different types of science learning

Next Generation Science Standards
Science education curriculum in the United States is outlined by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) which were released in April 2013. The purpose of the NGSS is to establish a standardized Kindergarten to 12th Grade science curriculum. These standards were instituted in hopes that they would reform the past science education system, and foster higher student achievement through improved curriculum and teacher development. The Next Generation Science Standards are made up of three components listed as follows: disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts.These are referred to as the three dimensions of the Next Generation Science Standards. Within these standards, there is emphasis on alignment with K-12 Common Core state standards. The dimension entitled "science and engineering practices" focuses on students' learning of the scientific method. This means that this dimension centers around practicing science in a hands-on manner, giving students the opportunity to observe scientific processes, hypothesize, and observe results. This dimension highlights the empirical methods of science. The dimension entitled "crosscutting concepts" emphasizes the understanding of key themes within the field of science. The "crosscutting concepts" are themes that are consistently relevant throughout many different scientific disciplines, such as the flow of energy/matter, cause/effect, systems/system practices, patterns, the relationship between structure and function, and stability/change. The purpose of outlining these key themes relates to generalized learning, meaning that the effectiveness of these themes could lie in the fact that these concepts are important throughout all of the scientific disciplines. The intention is that by learning them, students will create a broad understanding of science. The dimension entitled "disciplinary core ideas" outlines a set of key ideas for each scientific field. For example, physical science has a certain set of core ideas laid out by the framework.

Science Education and Common Core
Common Core education standards emphasize on reading, writing, and communication skills. The purpose of these standards for English and Mathematics was to create measurable goals for student learning that are aligned with the standards in place in other nations, such that students in the United States become prepared to succeed at a global level. It is meant to set standards for academics that are rigorous in nature and prepare students for higher education. It is also outlined that students with disabilities must be properly accommodated for under Common Core standards via an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Under these standards, the comprehension of scientific writing has become an important skill for students to learn through textbooks.

Science Education Strategies
Evidence suggests, however, that students learn science more effectively under hands-on, activity and inquiry based learning, rather than learning from a textbook. It has been seen that students, in particular those with learning disabilities, perform better on unit tests after learning science through activities, rather than textbook-based learning. Thus, it is argued that science is better learned through experiential activities. Additionally, it has reported that students, specifically those with learning disabilities, prefer and feel that they learn more effectively through activity-based learning. Information like this can help inform the way science is taught and how it can be taught most effectively for students of all abilities. The laboratory is a foundational example of hands-on, activity-based learning. In the laboratory, students use materials to observe scientific concepts and phenomena. The laboratory in science education can include multiple different phases. These phases include planning and design, performance, and analysis and interpretation. It is believed by many educators that laboratory work promotes their students' scientific thinking, problem solving skills, and cognitive development. Since 1960, instructional strategies for science education have taken into account Jean Piaget's developmental model, and therefore started introducing concrete materials and laboratory settings, which required students to actively participate in their learning.

In addition to the importance of the laboratory in learning and teaching science, there has been an increase in the importance of learning using computational tools. The use of computational tools, which have become extremely prevalent in STEM fields as a result of the advancement of technology, has been shown to support science learning. The learning of computational science in the classroom is becoming foundational to students' learning of modern science concepts. In fact, the Next Generation Science Standards specifically reference the use of computational tools and simulations. Through the use of computational tools, students participate in computational thinking, a cognitive process in which interacting with computational tools such as computers is a key aspect. As computational thinking becomes increasingly relevant in science, it becomes an increasingly important aspect of learning for science educators to act on.

References