CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 199Science Education and PedagogyEducational Theory and Curriculum StudiesCareer Development and Diversity

What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards

Rodriguez, Alberto J.·2015·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.21232
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this paper, I offer a critique of A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012) and of the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013). While the new version of the science education standards and the arguments put forward to support them are an improvement from the previous version of the NRC Science Education Standards, we must pause and reflect on the implications on jumping on another education reform, fast moving train. Using sociotransformative constructivism as a guiding theoretical lens, I argued that the Conceptual Framework and NGSS documents fall short due to the lack of retrospection, the on‐going contradictory discourses, and the lack of voice and representation in the development of these important policy documents. Suggestions for improvement and discussion are offered in hope that we might prevent the NGSS from having as little impact on teachers' practice and on students' learning as the previous version of the national science education standards had. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 1031–1051, 2015.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.21232

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A commitment to color-blindness swept through the U.S. and color-blind rhetoric was taken up heartily in education as evidenced by education policies and practices using color-blind language.

    “A commitment to color-blindness swept through the U.S. and color-blind rhetoric was taken up heartily in the field of education as evidenced by several education policies and practices that utilize color-blind language (Rodriguez 2015; U.S. Department of Education 2010).”

    From Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society (2017) · cites this paper as Rodriguez 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rodriguez, A. J.
Affiliations
Department of Curriculum & Instruction College of Education, Purdue University Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education 100 N. University Street West Lafayette Indiana 47907‐2098
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-10
Volume
52
Issue
7
Pages
1031-1051
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.21232
OpenAlex
W1496743911
Cited by
199
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7
FWCI
49.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
Next Generation Science Standards, Framework for K-12 Science Education, science education standards, equity in science education, diversity in science education, student engagement, K-12 science curriculum

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review