Scoville 6322 Researchpaper

Evolution of Science, Page 1
Evolution of Science:
Next Generation Science Standards and STEM
Janice Scoville
University of West Georgia

Evolution of Science
Education has been in a state of distress according to many reports since the
1940s. The 21
st
century is bringing with it a greater emphasis on the skills necessary to
be successful in the modern, technologically driven age. In her book, Save Our
Science, Ainissa Ramirez says, The 21st century requires a new kind of learner -- not
someone who can simply churn out answers by rote, as has been done in the past, but
a student who can think expansively and solve problems resourcefully. In order to solve
the complex problems of tomorrow, the traditional academic skills of reading, 'riting, and
'rithmetic must be replaced with creativity, curiosity, critical thinking, problem solving,
and collaboration skills -- skills inherent in scientific research. (Ramirez, 2012) For
many decades there has been a cry for a dramatic change in science education.
Recently, in the United States, a cooperative effort to incite change has taken place.
The status of the United States with regard to science came into focus when in
1945 President Roosevelt, looking ahead to after the war, wrote to Vannevar Bush the
Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development saying, the research
experience developed by the Office of Scientific Research and Development and by the
thousands of scientists in the universities and in private industry, should be used in the
days of peace ahead for the improvement of the national health, the creation of new
enterprises bringing new jobs, and the betterment of the national standard of living.
President Roosevelt went on to ask Dr. Bush to resolve four questions for him. What
resulted in response was titled, Science the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President
by Vannevar Bush, July 1945. (Bush, 1945) In his report (summarized below), Dr. Bush
cautioned that the government will need to become involved in the scientific community
promoting, supporting, and funding programs and initiatives. Dr. Bush claimed that the

security of the United States depended on a top notch, forward thinking science
community.

President Roosevelts
Question
Highlights within Dr. Bushs Response
What can be done,
consistent with military
security, and with the prior
approval of the military
authorities, to make
known to the world as
soon as possible the
contributions which have
been made during our war
effort to scientific
knowledge?
The Government should accept new responsibilities for
promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the
development of scientific talent in our youth.
The effective discharge of these new responsibilities will
require the full attention of some over-all agency devoted to
that purpose. Therefore I recommend that a new agency for
these purposes be established.

With particular reference
to the war of science
against disease, what can
be done now to organize a
program for continuing in
the future the work which
has been done in
medicine and related
sciences?
There must be a stream of new scientific knowledge to turn
the wheels of private and public enterprise. There must be
plenty of men and women trained in science and technology
for upon them depend both the creation of new knowledge
and its application to practical purposes.
What can the Government
do now and in the future to
aid research activities by
public and private
organizations?
If the colleges, universities, and research institutes are to
meet the rapidly increasing demands of industry and
Government for new scientific knowledge, their basic
research should be strengthened by use of public funds.
A permanent Science Advisory Board should be created to
consult with these scientific bureaus and to advise the
executive and legislative branches of Government as to the
policies and budgets of Government agencies engaged in
scientific research.
Can an effective program
be proposed for
discovering and
developing scientific talent
in American youth so that
the continuing future of
scientific research in this
country may be assured
on a level comparable to
Remove [socioeconomic] barriers.
Encourage servicemen who would have otherwise become
scientists if not for the war to enter in to the sciences.
Improvement in the teaching of science is imperative; for
students of latent scientific ability are particularly vulnerable
to high school teaching which fails to awaken interest or to
provide adequate instruction.
undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships
fellowships for advanced training and fundamental research
Highlights of the exchange between President Roosevelt and Vennevar Bush

what has been done
during the war?
Figure 1- Source of information (Bush, 1945)
In the United States today there is much discussion and debate as to why our
students do not fare well on science and math tests against other nations. Today, it is
still viewed as an urgent cry to improve the way science and math are taught, again in
the interest of national security. This discord gained impetus after Russia launched
Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit the earth, in 1957. Since Sputnik (Russia sent a
satellite to orbit the earth first), the United States has viewed the education of future
scientists in this country lacking. In a 1983 report to the nation claims, Our Nation is at
risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and
technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.
(Education, 1983)
In confirmation to this, an article in Education Next in 2003 indicates that it is
possible to link cognitive skills to economic growth. What we discovered gives
credence to the concerns expressed in A Nation at Risk. The level of cognitive skills of a
nations students has a large effect on its subsequent economic growth rate. Increasing
the average number of years of schooling attained by the labor force boosts the
economy only when increased levels of school attainment also boost cognitive skills. In
other words, it is not enough simply to spend more time in school; something has to be
learned there. (Eric A. Hanushek, 2008)


Comparing Cognitive Skills
For the first time, all international test administered between 1964 and 2003 have been placed on a
common scale, allowing readers to identify changes in test performance over time. Notice that students in
the United States and Germany and Hungary have slipped, while students in the Netherlands and Finland
have improved.
1960s-1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
500s Israel
New Zealand
Japan
France
Hungary
Germany
Australia
Finland
United Kingdom
Sweden
Japan
Netherlands
Korea Rep
Hungary
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Korea
Republic
Japan
Singapore
Finland
Slovak Rep.
Czech Rep
Australia
Slovenia
Hong Kong
Bulgaria
Austria
Russian
Fed.
Netherlands
Hungary
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Belgium
Canada
Finland
Korea Rep.
Taiwan
Japan
Hong Kong
Estonia
Singapore
Macao-
China
Canada
Australia
Netherland
s
Ireland
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Sweden
New Zealand
United
Kingdom
Belgium
Austria
Czech Rep.
France
400s

Italy
United States
Thailand
Chile
India
Iran
Finland
France
Norway
Sweden
Australia
Poland
Belgium
United
Kingdom
Singapore
Canada
New Zealand
Italy
Israel
United States
Thailand
Luxemburg
Switzerland
Nigeria
Philippines
Switzerland
United States
France New
Zealand
Germany
Norway
Ireland
Italy
Iceland
Yugoslavia
Malaysia
Denmark
Latvia
Spain Greece
Lithuania
Thailand
Portugal
Israel
Romania
Cyprus
Trinidad &
Tobago
Moldova
Macedonia
Iran
Columbia
Jordan
Nigeria
Venezuela
Kuwait
Tunisia
Lithuania
Hungary
United
States
Iceland
Germany
Denmark
Slovak Rep.
Malaysia
Latvia
Poland
Spain
Italy
Norway
Russian
Fed.
Slovenia
Greece
Bulgaria
Romania
Portugal
Moldova
Luxemburg
Israel
Cyprus
Armenia
Serbia
Jordan
Turkey
Uruguay
Thailand
Macedonia
Colombia
Iran
Bahrain
Argentina
Palestine
Mexico
Egypt
300s Malawi Turkey
Indonesia
Zimbabwe
Chile
Botswana
Philippines

Chile
Lebanon
Kuwait
Indonesia
Brazil
Tunisia
Albania
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Morocco
Botswana
Belize
Peru

200s South Africa
Morocco

Ghana
South Africa

Figure 2 (Eric A. Hanushek, 2008)

In fact, a comparison of students in 2011 by the National Center for Science Statistics
shows students continue to not score at the top of the list in science and math.
According to the National Center for Science
Statistics, students in the United States while above
the international average still do not perform as well
as many other countries. Also, indicated in the report
is that science and math scores did not improve much
between 2007 and 2011. Looking at the figure below,
the United States average on the 8
th
grade science test from 1995-2011 indicates that
after 16 years of educational reform, we still rank 11
th
.

Average Scores of 8
th
Grade Students on the TIMSS Science Test from 1995-2011

Rank Country Average Rank Country Average
1 Singapore 576 19 Malaysia 475
2 Chinese Taipei 566 20 Thailand 468
3 Korea, Rep of 554 21 Romania 468
4 Japan 554 22 Jordan 464
5 Hungary 539 23 Iran, Islamic Rep of 459
6 England 539 24 Bahrain 452
7 Hong Kong SAR 535 25 Armenia 449
8 Finland 532 26 Syrian Arab republic 439
9 Slovenia 531 27 Macedonia, Rep of 438
10 Russian Federation 528 28 Chile 431
11 United States 521 29 Tunisia 430
12 Sweden 520 30 Oman 422
13 Australia 519 31 Georgia 421
14 New Zealand 514 32 Palestinian Nat'l
Auth
420
15 Lithuania 505 33 Indonesia 417
16 Italy 495 34 Lebanon 404
17 Norway 495 35 Ghana 288
18 Ukraine 493
Figure 4-Data source (ies, Institute of Science and Education, 2011)

Grade
TIMSS
Mathematics
2007-2011
TIMSS
Science
2007-2011
4

8

Figure 3-Data source NSF 2013

National Science Standards for:
Science teaching
Professional development of teachers of science
Assessment in science education
Science content
Science education programs
Science for education systems
So in almost 60 years of striving to be the best there is still a long way to go. Our
Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science,
and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.
(Education, A Nation at Risk:, 1983)
In 1996 the National Research Council from National Academy of Science
established national standards in science. (Council, 1996) The report suggests that
implementing these comprehensive standards will require change in current science
educational practice. The council established a set of National Science Standards.

Furthermore, the report called to create scientific and technological literacy for everyone
because the problem solving skills are important to everyday life. They suggest that
through the use of inquiry students will develop science skills as well as reasoning and
thinking skills that will translate into the workplace. Science and technology are
important to todays technology laden workplace, and to keep globally competitive, the
educational systems of the United States need to create a science and technical literate
society.
Figure 5 (Council, National Science Education Standards, 1996)

Establish on ongoing system to improve the quality of education.
Goal 1
Increase significantly the number of mathematics and science teachers
and improve the quality of their education.
Goal 2
Improve the working environment and make the teaching profession
attractive for k-12 mathematics and science teachers.
Goal 3
Additionally, in 1999, the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, commisioned a
team of 25 individuals to report on the quality of science and mathematics in the United
States for the 21
st
century. In the opening remarks of this report, Before Its Too Late,
the chairman of the commission, John Glenn, states First, at the daybreak of this new
century and millennium, the Commission is convinced that the future well-being of our
nation and people depends not just on how well we educate our children generally, but
on how well we educate them in mathematics and science specifically. Quite simply
this report calls for action, The time has come to move from the information and
analysis we have gathered and to the resolution we need. (Century, 2000, p6) The
report establishes three main goals for the mathematical and science educational
systems:

Like previous reports, Before Its Too Late, sends out an alarm that we are not
producing a sufficient workforce that will be able to compete in the global world. It
Goals for Math and Science Educational Systems
Figure 6 (Century, 2000)

reports that 60% of jobs in the 21
st
century will require skills that are possed by 20% of
the current workforce. This report, similar to the Bush Vanneger report in 1944, warns
that our democracy and national security are at risk if improvements are not made soon.
At the core of the solution, is better math and science teaching.
Based on the report from the National Research Council (NRC) and the call for
action from Before Its Too Late the Next Generation Science Standards were born.
Twenty-six states, stakeholders in science, science education, higher education and
industry, the National Research Council, the National Teachers Association, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve all worked to
accomplish creating a framework for the standards writing standards that are rich in
content and practice, arranged in a coherent manner across disciplines and grades to
provide all students an internationally-benchmarked science education. (The NGSS)
Forty-five states in the United States have adopted a similar effort in the Common Core
Standards for Math and Language Arts in an unprecedented national unity to raise
standards with a focus on critical thinking and primary investigation. In April of 2013,
the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released. For reasons similar to
the ones for adopting Common Core Standards, schools across the nation will consider
adopting these standards. As of this writing 6 states already have.
NGSS is a paradigm shift for educators. More important than the standards is the
framework for science. Lessons are designed around the framework, and the standards
are written as performance expectations. When learning about science, the students will
be expected to ask questions, develop a plan and discover the answer. Since NGSS
includes engineering into its framework, a slightly different approach will be required. In

NGSS
Conceptual Framework
Major Practices: These
are the behaviors that
studetns will nedd to do
science, asking
questions, developing
ideas, analyzing data...
Crosscutting Concepts:
These concepts are
applicable accross all
domains of science. p2
Disciplinary Core Ideas:
4 science domains
(Physical science, life
science, earth and
space sciences,
engineering,
technology, and
applications of science)
with 2-4 ideas in each.
this case the student will perceive a problem and then set out to solve the problem. So,
inherent to the lesson will be the discoveries that will address the standards a must for
the NGSS.

The NGSS promise to alleviate the mile wide and inch deep attention to science.
It implements a framework that focuses on a holistic science approach from
kindergarten to grade twelve. In every lesson are the three domains, crosscutting
concepts, major practices, and disciplinary core.

Figure 7-Source of information (Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas,
2012)

Physical
Science
Earth and
Space p15
Life Science
Engineering,
Technology,
and
Applications of
Science
To begin with, NGSS has established four science domains, physical science, life
science, earth and space sciences, engineering and technology. The disciplines are not
necessarily taught in isolation, but build on each as necessary. Furthermore, each
discipline will intersect in at least three grade levels.

Secondly, within the disciplines, physical science, life science, earth science and
space, engineering, technology, application of science there are major practices. It
mirrors how a scientist would work to answer a question or solve a problem, through
scientific inquiry. These practices indicate what the child will do, and they occur in
sequential in order and overlap from one to the next. There may be commonalities
between disciplines, such as asking questions, developing and using models, or
engaging in argument from evidence may exist. However, some practices belong to the
particular discipline. Students are not expected to make the next great discovery but
rather obtain the ability to reach and support their conclusions. They are tools that allow
students to understand the development of scientific knowledge. The NGSS consider
these eight practices essential:
Figure 8-Information Source (Council, A Framework for K-12 Science
Education Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, 2012)

Asking
Questions
Developing and
Using Models
Planning and
Carrying Out
Investigations
Analyizing and
Interpreting
Data
Using Math and
Computational
Thinking
Constructing
Explanations
p42
Engaging in
Arguement
from Evidence

Next, there are seven crosscutting concepts that apply to all concentrations in
science. The crosscutting concepts are the concepts that may apply to all areas within
the domains. They are not specific to only one discipline. The crosscutting concepts
have potential application in all grade levels and disciplines.

The design of the NGSS is expected to help prepare the nation with a highly
qualified work force that has the requisite skills for science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM). STEM jobs are expected to dominate the future job market. The
Figure 9-Information Source (Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas, 2012)
Figure 10 Information Source (Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core
Ideas, 2012)

U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration has
predicted that
In 2010, there were 7.6 million STEM workers in the United States,
representing about 1 in 18 workers.
STEM occupations are projected to grow by 17.0 percent from 2008 to 2018,
compared to 9.8 percent growth for non-STEM occupations.
STEM workers command higher wages, earning 26 percent more than their
non- STEM counterparts.
More than two-thirds of STEM workers have at least a college degree,
compared to less than one-third of non-STEM workers.
STEM degree holders enjoy higher earnings, regardless of whether they work
in STEM or non-STEM occupations.
The government has also made provisions to fill those jobs with qualified workers from
other countries. The STEM Jobs Act allows employers to fill their talent needs with
foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced degrees in STEM so that they can
continue creating jobs and growing our economy. (The STEM Jobs Act)
The four STEM fields, science, technology, engineering and math correspond to
the NGSS. NGSS has the potential to significantly improve science education by
establishing educational goals for all students to prepare them to enter college or the
STEM workforce and to be informed citizens. (NSTA)

Figure 11- (David Langdon, 2011)
Schools too are looking to create classrooms and certify teachers based on STEM. One
of the ways that a state may find relief from the expectations of No Child Left Behind, a
government program that is supposed to enforce rigor within the schools, is to establish
college and career ready expectations for all students. (Education, Department of,
2012) If the Federal Government approves the expectations, then a state may apply for
a waiver from No Child Left Behind. The state of Georgia has gained approval for their
College and Career Readiness Index, CCRPI. In this program schools are awarded
points for meeting specific requirements. Furthermore, schools may earn additional
points for having other programs such as a STEM certified program within their schools.
(Georgia Department of Education, 2013, p. 4) There is now a push to receive this
certification.
NGSS and STEM classes are primarily taught using the constructivists theory of
learning. According to Hoover (Hoover, 1996), the central idea of constructivism is that

1. Learners construct new understandings from what they already know.

Learners come to learning situations with knowledge gained from previous experience.
That prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge they will construct from new learning
experiences.

2. If learning is based on prior knowledge, then teachers must note that knowledge and provide learning
environments that exploit inconsistencies between learners' current understandings.

Teacher cannot assume that all children understand something the same way
Children may need different experiences to advance to different levels of understanding

3. If students must apply their current understandings in new situations in order to build new knowledge, then
teachers must engage studetns in learning, bring students' learning to the forefront.
Incorporate problems that are important to students, not teacher or school district.
Children may need different experiences to advance to different levels.
Encourage group interaction allowing for a comparison of views to peers
4. If new knowledge is actively built, then time is needed to build it. Ample time facilitates students
reflectionabout new experiences.
how those experiences line up against current understandings
How different understandings might provide students with and improved (not correct) view of the world.
human learning is constructed. A learner constructs new knowledge based off of the
prior knowledge the learner for which a learner has already acquired. Since the NGSS
has aligned the standards vertically, it should increase the students ability to assimilate
the new information into the schema that has already been established through prior
acquisition or exposure of corresponding concepts, ideas, and practices. Essentially,
when new learning occurs, it requires the learner to actively consider the divergence
that is taking place between the old information and the new knowledge gained, the
learner needs to resolve the issues and make sense out of the new information. In a
nutshell, they have to construct the knowledge, hence the name, Constructivism.
Hoover (Hoover, 1996) points out that there are four implications for teachers when
designing instruction:

Figure 12-Information Source (Hoover, 1996)

Within the constructivist realm of educational models there are many choices.
Within these choices there is quite a bit of overlap. For instance, in Don Clarks
explanation for Discovery Learning (Clark) he states, Discovery Learning is an
inquiry-based learning methodDiscovery learning takes place most notably in
problem solving situations where the learner draws on his own experience and prior
knowledge to discover the truths that are to be learned. Here Clark combines the
terminology for three models of learning, Inquiry, Problem Based, and Discovery
Learning. As quoted by Dr. Putney, a professor at West Georgia University, in a
recent email, All instructional design models are based on ADDIE and then
redefined and described by each person using a model. It almost becomes more a
matter of what title an individual wants to give a model rather than the actual process
involved in a model. We really find ourselves adopting or adapting a particular
interpretation of a model rather than a pure model.
Currently the adaptation of the Problem Based Learning (PBL) Model, a
constructivists theory approach, seems to be catching steam as schools are trying to
strengthen the science programs within the school districts. PBL is a perfect match
to teaching the NGSS as well as STEM classes. As summarized by (Maudsley,
1999) First, knowledge is acquired in an active, iterative, and self-directed way,
predominantly by working on a progressive framework of problems unconstrained by
subject divisions. Second, acquiring new subject knowledge is not the starting point
for learning. Third process details may vary but only within this philosophy, which
should not be undermined by other curricular elements. (p180) Problem based
learning is ill structured which means it does not necessarily have one solution. So in

order to achieve problem based learning in a middle school situation, a teacher
becomes the facilitator and the builder.
In creating a science curriculum or rather framework such as the NGSS that has
a focus on the real world, there is hope that the workforce will be better prepared to fill
the need. Through the use of inquiry, the students will become scientific thinkers. This is
the most comprehensive, unified science curriculum to date. The framers of the NGSS
which was a well-rounded and diversified group have gone into designing this program
NGSS with the students as well as our nations future in mind. That being said, there is
a still skepticism and implementation issues that may threaten the success of this
program.
To begin with, the constructivist theory itself has a few shortcomings in particular
PBL. Sweller and others (Mayer, 2001; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003, 2004; Sweller,
1999, 2004;Winn, 2003) noted that despite the alleged advantages of unguided
environments to help students to derive meaning from learning materials, cognitive load
theory suggests that the free exploration of a highly complex environment may generate
a heavy working memory load that is detrimental to learning. (Paul Kirschner, 2010)
Kirschners study found the following:
After a half-century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal
guidance, it appears that there is no body of research supporting the
technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it
almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather than
constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to
intermediate learners. Even for students with considerable prior
knowledge, strong guidance while learning is most often found to be

equally effective as unguided approaches. Not only is unguided instruction
normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative
results when students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or
disorganized knowledge. (Paul Kirschner, 2010)
In a recent review of a research study on scaffolding in a PBL environment
(B.R.Belland, 2010), it was evident that the problem in the learning environment
had not been well established. The teacher of the class has been using problem
based lessons in her classroom 5 of her 19 years as a teacher. The researcher
developed a scaffold for the learning to observe its effectiveness. The empirical
data in this study showed that scaffolding had little or no impact. However, in this
case, no amount of scaffolding will support a poorly conceived problem. In the
end, the students were unable to demonstrate that any learning regarding the
original problem had taken place.
As the PBL research study above demonstrated, teacher preparedness for
the NGSS is a concern. In order to teach science to a deeper understanding,
science teachers are going to need to have it as well. Elementary school
teachers have been trained to teach science a mile wide instead of a mile deep.
They themselves are only expected to have a basic knowledge of many of the
disciplines. In a study by The National Center for Education and Statistics only
75 % of teachers were teaching in an assignment for which they majored and
were certified. (Jason Hill, 2011) In the Report of the 2012 National Survey of
Science and Mathematics Education states that with regards to science college
coursework, high school teachers have the most education, middle school
teachers are in the middle, and elementary school teachers have the least. In

addition, few teachers at any grade level feel well prepared to teach engineering,
a key element of the Next Generation Science Standards. (p 30) Finally, NGSS
and STEM are designed to use the inquiry method as the mode for instruction.
However, many believe that students should be given definitions for new
vocabulary at the beginning of instruction, that teachers should explain an idea to
students before Horizon Research, Inc. 32 February 2013 having them consider
evidence for it, and that hands-on activities should be used primarily to reinforce
ideas students have already learned. (Eric R. Banilower, 2012, p. 30) Are the
schools going to fire all the veteran teachers who are not prepared to go a mile
deep? How will they invest in their teachers? In a down economy, preparing
teachers and classrooms to implement the NGSS or STEM classes will require a
large time and financial commitment. NGSS may be a great tool, however, if
teachers are not well prepared, history may repeat itself.
Are states, school districts and teachers ready to reorganize the structure
and and organization of their staff and classes to accommodate the needs of a
STEM curriculum. Math, technology, and science teachers will need to work in
conjunction with one another in order to make this successful. In a recent
yearlong study of STEM integration into Minnesota schools indicated that the
most successful STEM classes were those that had co-taught teaching with
mathematics and science along with individual classes in each subject. In the
end the study found Our cases suggest that full STEM integration may require
new school organizational structures that facilitate the teaming of science and
mathematics teachers. (Gillian H. Roehrig, 2012, p. 33)

Additionally, there are some concerns with the standards themselves.
Paul Bruno a middle school teacher in California found the standards confusing
to read and understand, and the framework is overwhelming to read. He found
Californias standards more rigorous and complete. The NGSS standards are
also vague, especially in the lower grades. Furthermore, he believes that
Californias standards are more complete and rigorous than the NGSS.
Insufficient specificity is a recurring problem in the NGSS, which means that the
document as a whole fails to provide adequate guidance for science teachers
and will make the meaningful interpretation of yet-to-be designed common tests
difficult. (Bruno, 2013)
The cooperation and input into creating the Next generation Science
Standards is unprecedented. The excitement over the possibility of creating a
world class science program in palpable. A recent request for information on the
NSTA list serve created the most responses of a subject in the year that I have
subscribed to it. Overwhelmingly, the teachers are excited. Obviously, too there
is a cry for such standards and STEM in the community as whole with the
increasing need for STEM workers. As in any history, only time will tell if the
standards will garner the full attention they require from the policy makers,
funding programs, administrators, and teachers.


Resources
Achieve Inc. (2013). (Achieve, Producer) Retrieved 2013, from The Next Generation
Science Standards: http://www.nextgenscience.org/
Bruno, P. (2013, April 25). EdSource. Retrieved from California Should not Adopt Next
Generation Science Standards: http://www.edsource.org/today/2013/california-
should-not-adopt-next-generation-science-standards/30954#.Udhws5JnDSs
Bush, V. (1945, July). Science The Endless Frontier. (United States Orinting Company)
Retrieved from National Science Foundation:
https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm#transmittal
Century, T. N. (2000). Before It's Too Late. Jessup: Education Publications Center.
Retrieved from http://www.ptec.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=4059
Clark, D. (n.d.). Discovery Learning. Retrieved from History of Learning and Training:
https://westga.view.usg.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=491858&
tId=6688273
Council, N. R. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy of
Sciences. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=R2
Council, N. R. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas. (C. o.-1. Standards, Ed.) Washington D.C.: The
National Academics Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13165&page=R1
David Langdon, G. M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Chief
Economist. Retrieved from STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED522129.pdf
Education, Department of. (2012, June 7). ESEA Flexibility. Retrieved from ED.gov:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html
Education, T. N. (1983). A Nation at Risk:. Retrieved from
http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/sotw_a_nation_at_risk_1983.pdf
Education, T. N. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.
Retrieved from
http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/sotw_a_nation_at_risk_1983.pdf

Eric A. Hanushek, L. W. (2008, Spring). Education and Economic Growth, 8(2).
Retrieved from Education Next: http://educationnext.org/education-and-
economic-growth/
Georgia Department of Education. (2013, January 31). College and Career Readiness
Index (Indicators). Retrieved from Georgia Department of Education:
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/Curriculum-Instruction-and-
Assessment/Accountability/Documents/CCRPI%20Indicators%20-
%20FINAL%2001.31.13.pdf
Hoover, W. A. (1996). The Practice Implications of Constructivism. Retrieved from
SEDL:
https://westga.view.usg.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?tId=6688273
&ou=491858
Jason Hill, K. G. (2011). Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized
Public High School-Level Teachers of Core Subject: Evidence from the 2007-08
Schools and Staffing Survey. U.S Department of Education, National Center for
Education and Statistics, Washington D.C. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
Maudsley, G. (1999). Do We All Mean the Same Thing by "Problem-Based Learning?"
A Review of the Concepts and a Formulation of the Ground Rules. Academic
Medicine, 178-85. Retrieved June 20, 2013, from ERIC.
National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2013, from http://www.nsf.gov/#1
National Science Foundation. (n.d.). A Timeline of NSF History. Retrieved July 3, 2013,
from National Science Foundation Where Discoveries Begin:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/history-nsf/timeline/index.jsp
NSTA. (n.d.). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from National Science
Teachers Association: http://www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate/
Paul Kirschner, J. S. (2010, June 8). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does
Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-
Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 75-
86. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Ramirez, A. (2012, April 24). Duke University Libraries. Retrieved from Ramirez,
Ainissa: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/6775?show=full

RONALD L. CARR, L. D. (2012, July). Engineering in the K-12 STEM Standards.
Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539-564. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bdc5377e-6b8f-4d65-
af56-809d1b436cb0%40sessionmgr113&vid=4&hid=107
The STEM Jobs Act. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2013, from U.S. Hoeuse of
Representatives-Committee on the Judiciary:
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_STEM%20Jobs%20Act.html

Scoville 6322 Researchpaper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scoville 6322 Researchpaper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evolution of Science, Page 1

You might also like