Preparing Teachers of Science for 2020 and

Journal of Science Teacher Education
ISSN: 1046-560X (Print) 1573-1847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uste20
Preparing Teachers of Science for 2020 and
Beyond: Highlighting Changes to the NSTA/ASTE
Standards for Science Teacher Preparation
Patricia D. Morrell, Meredith A. Park Rogers, Eric J. Pyle, Gillian Roehrig &
William R. Veal
To cite this article: Patricia D. Morrell, Meredith A. Park Rogers, Eric J. Pyle, Gillian Roehrig &
William R. Veal (2020) Preparing Teachers of Science for 2020 and Beyond: Highlighting Changes
to the NSTA/ASTE Standards for Science Teacher Preparation, Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 31:1, 1-7, DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2019.1705536
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1705536
Published online: 06 Jan 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 71
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uste20
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
2020, VOL. 31, NO. 1, 1–7
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1705536
GUEST EDITORIAL
Preparing Teachers of Science for 2020 and Beyond:
Highlighting Changes to the NSTA/ASTE Standards for Science
Teacher Preparation
Patricia D. Morrell a, Meredith A. Park Rogers
and William R. Veal e
b
, Eric J. Pyle
c
, Gillian Roehrig
d
,
School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; bSchool of Education, Indiana University –
Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA; cGeology and Environmental Science, James Madison University,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA; dDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA; eDepartment of Teacher Education, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
a
KEYWORDS Science teacher preparation; preparation standards; culturally-relevant pedagogy; social justice; preparation
program evaluation
In 2012, the National Research Council (NRC) released A Framework for K-12 Science
Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (Framework), which informed
the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
These standards provide performance expectations that reflect a three-dimensional
approach to learning science that integrates (i) Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs) of the
life sciences, physical sciences, Earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology,
(ii) Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs) that connect knowledge across these disciplines, and
(iii) Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) that reflect the means by which scientists
and engineers engage “in a systematic practice of design” (NRC, 2012, p. 11) More
specifically, the Framework argues that these three dimensions (3D) should weave through
every aspect of science education, most critically, curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
This affects science teacher preparation.
In 2014, the National Science Teachers’ Association (NSTA) adopted the Framework as
the guiding principles for teaching and learning science and engineering. With this
adoption, it was realized the existing 2012 Science Teacher Preparation Standards needed
to be updated. To match the goals of the Framework, the 2012 Science Teacher Education
Standards were expanded to include K-12 grade bands beyond the prior focus on
secondary grades alone. This focus on secondary teacher preparation evolved from the
use of the 2012 Science Teacher Preparation Standards by the Council for Accreditation of
Education Programs (CAEP) for accrediting teacher preparation programs. With the
relationship between NSTA and CAEP now dissolved, NSTA had an opportunity to
rethink (in light of the Framework), what teachers should know and be able to do in
order to provide quality science education K-12.
In 2015, the NSTA Board of Directors reached out to the Association for Science
Teacher Education (ASTE) to develop a joint committee charged with revising/developing
a new set of science teacher preparation standards that would better reflect the goals of the
Framework. From 2016 to the early part of 2018, this committee designed and sought
multiple rounds of feedback from various professional subject-specific science teaching
CONTACT Patricia D. Morrell
[email protected]
© 2019 Association for Science Teacher Education
University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia
2
P. D. MORRELL ET AL.
organizations (e.g., National Association of Biology Teachers, American Chemical Society,
American Association of Physics Teachers, and National Association of Geoscience
Teachers), as well as the membership of ASTE and NSTA. At the 2018 summer board
meetings for both ASTE and NSTA, the new 2020 Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation (2020 SSTP) were approved and are now available on both the ASTE
(https://theaste.org/2020-nsta-aste-standards-for-science-teacher-preparation/) and the
NSTA (https://www.nsta.org/preservice) websites.
The purpose of this editorial is to describe changes to the format and theoretical
substance of the 2020 SSTP. Most significantly, the science content found in the
Content Analysis Form (a document used as the guideline for essential content coverage)
changed from a list of topics to a coherent array of guiding questions based upon the
Framework. In addition, ideas reflective of a social justice oriented approach to teaching
science (i.e., culturally relevant pedagogy) guided the rewording and conceptualization of
the core six standards. Lastly, intentional language related to the nature of Science and
Engineering Practices was included in the core six standards to ensure preservice teachers
will be prepared to incorporate these concepts in their teaching of science. The article
concludes with implications for using the 2020 SSTP by states, teacher preparation
programs, and instructors at the elementary, middle and secondary levels.
Content knowledge for science teaching
The most significant change from the 2012 Standards to the 2020 SSTP was an update to
the Content Analysis Form (CAF), to align with DCIs as described in the Framework, but
also, for the first time, to include specific elements for grade bands K-2 and 3–5. The CAF
outlines the subject matter knowledge science teachers should have to demonstrate
competency. The first step to developing the 2020 SSTP began with a review of the
2012 CAF, which outlined the pertinent subject matter knowledge and focused primarily
on secondary school science. The 2020 CAF, in line with the Framework’s structure, shows
a progression of the content across four grade bands (K-2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12); which also
better aligns with the variety of licensure frameworks found across states.
The 2020 CAF uses the structure of the DCIs in the Framework, and their component
ideas, to generate fundamental questions (see Table 1). The committee read the core and
component ideas, explanations, and content for the Grade Band Endpoints of the
Framework to develop bullet points that represented the most salient concepts of the
DCIs. Elaborating on the bullet points, the committee developed conceptual questions to
guide the specific content needed for understanding the fundamental question.
Conceptual questions were determined to be those that required a preservice teacher to
create or develop an answer rather than simply receive and repeat facts. For example,
a component idea for the Life Science DCIs is “Growth and Development of Organisms”.
The fundamental question is, “How do organisms grow and develop?” Examples of two
conceptual questions are, “What factors (genetic and environmental) impact the growth of
organisms?”, and “What is the relationship among mitosis, differentiation, and gene
expression in the development of multicellular organisms?” Unlike the 2012 CAF, the
2020 CAF requires programs to list courses for which completion would prepare
a preservice teacher to satisfactorily answer each conceptual question, rather than merely
introduce preservice teachers to a concept on a list. Once the salient concepts were
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
3
Table 1. Sample secondary (9–12) life sciences CAF structure.
Disciplinary Core Idea: LS1: From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes
Component Idea: Structure and Function
Unifying Principle: Cells are the basic unit of life.
Fundamental Question: How do organisms live, grow, respond to their environment, and reproduce?
Framework - Salient Concepts
● Systems of specialized cells within organisms help them
perform the essential functions of life, which involve
chemical reactions that take place between different
types of molecules, such as water, proteins,
carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids.
● All cells contain DNA.
● Multicellular organisms have a hierarchical structural
organization, in which any one system is made up of
numerous parts and is itself a component of the next
level.
2020 SSTP - Conceptual Questions
● What is a cell?
● How do cells function similarly and differently in unicellular and multicellular organisms?
● What are major organelles, and how do these impact cell
function?
● Which scientists were most important in the develop●
●
●
●
●
●
●
ment of cell theory and what did they contribute to the
theory?
What are the roles of DNA and chromosomes in determining an individual’s traits?
What are the relationships among DNA, genes, and protein synthesis?
What is the importance of proteins for cells?
How is cell theory an example of a scientific theory?
How can the relationships among the hierarchical system
of cells, issues, organs, and systems be modeled?
How do organismal systems interact to assist in an
organism’s life processes?
What tools are used to examine microscopic structures?
distilled from the Framework, the committee used the Framework’s Grade Band Endpoints
to guide the development and progression of conceptual questions for each disciplinary
core idea.
The CAFs at the different grade bands also contain supporting competencies that
preservice science teachers must develop. For example, the supporting competencies for
physics include conceptual questions in chemistry, life science, Earth and space science,
and mathematics. These conceptual questions are the most salient concepts a teacher of
a certain domain must know about other science domains. The mathematical competencies support the practical application of mathematics to the science domain or DCIs.
Within Earth and space science, for example, the mathematics conceptual questions are,
“How are statistics used by scientists to support arguments?” and “How are mathematical
models used in Earth and space science?” These supporting competencies form the basis
for preservice teachers to understand the role of SEPs and CCCs in NGSS Performance
Expectations.
Core standards: conceptual updates
The second step of development involved revising the language of the six core standards
to reflect a lens of social justice that all students should have access to a science education
that will afford them the opportunity to meet the goals of the Framework. The key
revisions to the language, therefore, included references to more culturally relevant
pedagogy, opportunities for learning about engineering practices in addition to science
practices, and calling out explicit connections to the nature of science as a socially and
culturally dependent enterprise.
4
P. D. MORRELL ET AL.
Using a social justice lens to teaching science means to “provide a comprehensive and
multidimensional education by purposefully developing students’ attitudes and values in
addition to content knowledge” (Brown, 2017, p. 1147). This requires educators to look at
educational contexts and learners, in such a way that differences in race, gender, ability,
class, and politics are viewed as an opportunity for promoting diversity in learning and
not a deficit for learning. Therefore, a significant conceptual update for the 2020 SSTP is
to reflect the idea that all students can achieve science literacy regardless of social inequality. While content knowledge is important for science teachers, most science teacher
educators would agree that knowledge of how to teach the content effectively (i.e.,
pedagogical content knowledge) is also essential. Therefore, the committee believed the
2020 SSTP needed to promote the idea of including students’ cultural backgrounds and
interests in the instruction of science. This means preservice teachers need opportunities
to develop lesson plans that are student-centered and equitable (Milner, 2017).
To meet these expectations, teachers must experience culturally relevant pedagogy.
Culturally relevant pedagogy is the implementation of teaching approaches that empower
students intellectually, culturally, and socially (Ladson-Billings, 1995). For example,
Standard 2 specifically requires science teachers to “plan learning units of study and
equitable, culturally-responsive opportunities for all [sic] students.” Culturally relevant
pedagogy is teaching concepts within the context of real-world problems to empower
students to solve complex issues in their own communities (i.e., schools, neighborhoods,
and local areas). This necessitates developing preservice teachers’ beliefs in their abilities
to teach diverse learners and use culturally responsive pedagogy to accommodate learners’
needs and avoid prejudices, stereotypes and biases that marginalize learners (Whitaker &
Valtierra, 2018).
In addition to making explicit the need for equitable learning opportunities for all
students, the committee ensured language was included in the six core standards that
addressed engineering concepts and practices. This was a completely new addition to the
2020 SSTP, as it was not until the Framework that the importance of teaching students
about the relationship between science and engineering became accepted in K-12 science
education. Central to the practices of engineering is an engineering design process, which
is an “iterative process that begins with the identification of a problem and ends with
a solution that takes into account the identified constraints and meets specifications for
desired performance” (NRC, 2010, pp. 6–7). The engineering design process is systematic
and like scientific inquiry does not follow a lock step process and series of steps. The
practice of engineering requires the application of science and mathematics to engineer
solutions for problems.
The Framework calls for K-12 students to have the opportunity to apply science,
mathematics, and engineering concepts in the context of solving real-world problems.
The NRC (2010) report titled, Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? promotes the
integration of engineering standards into science classes over stand-alone engineering
courses. Thus, the committee intentionally decided not to include engineering concepts to
the CAF to avoid the need for preparation programs to add engineering courses for
teachers in an already packed degree program. Rather, engineering was added into the six
core standards, to illustrate integrating engineering practices as an application of science
knowledge across all disciplines and licensing levels. Core Standard 2, for example, now
states that teachers should be able to, “Design and construct lessons that use engineering
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
5
practices in support of science learning wherein all students design, construct, test and
optimize possible solutions to a problem.” With the inclusion of engineering practices also
comes new safety concerns. Therefore, Core Standard 4 on classroom/lab safety now
reflects the need to make teachers aware of safety precautions using tools and materials
when investigating through the engineering design process (Love, 2014).
Lastly, although not explicitly outlined in the 3D learning of the Framework, the nature of
science (NOS) is implied as content integral to understanding and implementing the science and
engineering practices, as well as the crosscutting concepts (NRC, 2012). Lederman (2007, p. 833)
states that “NOS typically refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or
values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its development”. Given this definition
and its relationship to the dimensions of the practices and crosscutting concepts, the committee
felt it was important to make explicit in the 2020 SSTP that NOS is both content for preservice
teachers to learn, but also incorporated in how they teach science. For example, Core Standard 1
[Content Knowledge] states that to be effective teachers of science they need to “Use and apply
the major concepts, principles, theories, laws, and interrelationships of their fields. Explain the
nature of science and the cultural norms and values inherent to the current and historical
development of scientific knowledge.” With respect to knowledge of teaching content (Core
Standard 2), reference is made again to NOS in 2(b) whereby preservice teachers will design
lessons “Incorporating appropriate differentiation strategies, wherein all students develop conceptual knowledge and an understanding of nature of science. Lessons should engage students
in applying science practices, clarifying relationships, and identifying natural patterns form
empirical experiences.” Detailed references to NOS continue through Standards 3 and 5, both of
which focus on preservice teachers’ interactions with students.
The vision of the Framework is clear: all students must have the opportunity to engage with
culturally relevant and equitable science learning, to extend their thinking of science to its
application through engineering design process, and to become versed in the social enterprise
of science. For the vision of the Framework to come to fruition, preservice teachers must
develop competence with the conceptual questions for the content and the grade bands they
will be teaching, along with a multitude of pedagogical approaches that will support 3D
learning inclusive of engineering design and NOS, and all through the lens of teaching of
science for social justice. The 2020 SSTP were designed with each of these needs in mind.
Implications for 2020 SSTP
Although NSTA will no longer be working with CAEP as a means of providing guidance
on accrediting secondary science teacher programs, NSTA plans to use the SSTP to inform
a new national recognition framework for teacher education programs interested in
seeking other levels of recognition for their programs. It is also expected that the SSTP
will provide science teacher educators a well-informed research base for state level policy
discussions regarding science teacher preparation at all grade levels (K-12). Therefore, the
2020 SSTP standards have value to a variety of stakeholders for the following reasons:
(1) The 2020 SSTP is a useful document to assist in program reviews of science teacher
preparation programs at all levels (elementary, middle, and secondary) as it aligns
with the Framework and provides specific content and pedagogical necessities for
science teacher preparation.
6
P. D. MORRELL ET AL.
(2) Higher education faculty responsible for teaching science content courses designed
for preservice teachers, but who may not have knowledge of, or expertise in, what is
expected of K-12 science education, can refer to the 2020 SSTP to gain a better
understanding of what is expected in today’s science classroom and thus what
teachers of science need to prepare to teach. The 2020 SSTP will provide guidance
not only in helping with content decisions but will guide the manner of instruction
of that content as well.
(3) Those involved in making policy decisions about science teacher education can use
the 2020 SSTP as a tool, which is research-based and congruent with the
Framework. Given the current decline in enrollment in teacher preparation programs and a growing shortage of qualified teachers of science, policy makers should
hold both traditional and alternative preparation programs to standards such as the
2020 SSTP through which new teachers can face the challenges of entering, and
staying in, the teaching profession.
(4) Programs looking for an additional level of national recognition can use the 2020
SSTP in preparing documentation for recognition from NSTA for preparing highly
qualified science teachers across all grade levels K-12.
In conclusion, the 2020 SSTP is a useful and necessary tool in guiding the implementation of the Framework to meet the goals of developing a scientific literate populace who
appreciates science and embraces life-long learning driven by an increasingly scientific and
technologically complex world. The content of the 2020 SSTP and future process for
program recognition represent a significant shift from previous accreditation frameworks.
It will take time for teacher preparation programs, state departments of education, and
policy makers to embrace and implement the new standards The dialogue that the 2020
SSTP will generate should drive stakeholders to consider how to collaborate in the best
interests of our next generation of science teachers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Patricia D. Morrell
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6177-8567
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4026-3003
Meredith A. Park Rogers
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3762-3629
Eric J. Pyle
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6943-7820
Gillian Roehrig
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4918-1485
William R. Veal
References
Brown, J. C. (2017). A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquirybased science education in K-12 settings: Implications for advancing equitable science teaching
and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 1143–1173. doi:10.1002/tea.v54.9
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
7
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell &
N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Love, T. S. (2014). Safety and liability in STEM education laboratories: Using case law to inform
policy and practice. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(5), 1–13.
Milner, R. H. (2017). Race, talk, opportunity gaps, and curriculum shifts in (teacher) education.
Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66, 73–94.
National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12990
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/13165
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
Whitaker, M. C., & Valtierra, K. M. (2018). The dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy
scale. Journal for Multicultural Education, 12(1), 10–24. doi:10.1108/JME-11-2016-0060