A Framework for K–12 Science Education

A Framework for K–12 Science Education
Title	A Framework for K–12 Science Education
Author	National Research Council
Country	United States
Language	English
Subject	Science education
Publisher	National Academies Press
Pub date	2011
Pages	388
Isbn	978-0-309-21565-4

Contents

A Framework for K–12 Science Education

The Framework for K–12 Science Education is a 2011 consensus report produced by the National Research Council and published by the National Academies Press that informed the development of the Next Generation Science Standards and influenced curricula across the United States and internationally. The Framework synthesizes research from organizations such as the National Science Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Department of Education and draws on work by scholars affiliated with institutions like Harvard University, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of California, Berkeley.

Overview

The Framework articulates a vision of science learning aligned with workforce and civic needs identified by bodies including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and stakeholders such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and state education agencies like the California Department of Education. It frames goals connected to historical efforts exemplified by reports from John Dewey, inquiries by Benjamin Franklin, and standards efforts such as the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and Science for All Americans. The document situates K–12 science within policy contexts involving the No Child Left Behind Act, accountability debates tied to the Every Student Succeeds Act, and research priorities funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

The Framework establishes guiding principles grounded in cognitive science research from laboratories at Yale University, Columbia University, University of Chicago, and University of Michigan and builds on pedagogical theories influenced by thinkers like Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Jerome Bruner. Its structure was developed by committees chaired by experts affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and the University of California, Los Angeles and informed by advisory input from organizations such as the American Educational Research Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The report organizes content across grade bands in a manner resonant with curricular frameworks used in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, and the Ontario Ministry of Education.

Central to the Framework are three interrelated dimensions: scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas, reflecting methodologies practiced by communities including the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society of America, and the Society for Neuroscience. The scientific and engineering practices draw on traditions from laboratories like Bell Labs, projects such as the Human Genome Project, and engineering exemplars like the Boeing 747 development and the Apollo program. Crosscutting concepts link domains exemplified by work at the CERN, studies at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and investigations led by the Smithsonian Institution. Disciplinary core ideas are organized into life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering, reflecting research from centers such as Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NOAA, and the United States Geological Survey.

Implementation guidance in the Framework informed curriculum developers, textbook publishers, and state standards consortia including the Achieve, Inc. consortium that produced the Next Generation Science Standards, education publishers like Pearson PLC and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and nonprofit providers such as the Concord Consortium and the Tennessee STEM Innovation Network. Professional development models recommended draw on programs at institutions like Teachers College, Columbia University, the Khan Academy’s partnerships, and district initiatives in places such as New York City, Chicago Public Schools, and the Los Angeles Unified School District. The report influenced instructional materials reviewed by bodies like the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and adopted in systems including the Common Core State Standards Initiative alignment efforts.

The Framework advocates assessments that measure three-dimensional learning and recommends technologies and methods developed by organizations such as ETS (Educational Testing Service), the ACT, Inc., and the College Board, while aligning with standards-setting processes used by the National Assessment Governing Board and the Programme for International Student Assessment. It addresses formative and summative approaches informed by research from University of Cambridge measurement centers, evaluation practices used by the RAND Corporation, and psychometric standards upheld by the American Psychological Association. Pilot assessment consortia and state testing consortia in states like Massachusetts, Texas, and Florida considered Framework principles when designing performance tasks and item banks.

The Framework received endorsements and critiques from a wide range of stakeholders including state education agencies such as the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, advocacy groups like the National Science Teachers Association, science societies including the Royal Society and the National Wildlife Federation, and research organizations such as the Brookings Institution and the Pew Charitable Trusts. Its adoption influenced the development of Next Generation Science Standards and sparked debates in legislatures and school boards in states including Kansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. International educators and ministries such as the Ministry of Education (Singapore), the Ministry of Education (New Zealand), and the Department for Education (United Kingdom) studied the Framework’s model, while scholars publishing in journals like Science, Nature, and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching analyzed its pedagogical and policy impacts.

Category:Science education