[CITASA] Fwd: NRC proposed science ed standards - input needed
FYI
contributions and replies should be directed to Lee Herring at
Herring@asanet.org
Gustavo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: NRC proposed science ed standards - input needed
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:39:31 -0400
From: Lee Herring Herring@asanet.org
To: Lee Herring Herring@asanet.org
Dear ASA Section Officer,
I am writing on behalf of the ASA Executive Office to ask that you
consider distributing this note to your Section membership for individuals
to consider responding to the National Academies proposed STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) education standards. This is the
latest effort to advance some much-needed national standards in K-12 math
and science teaching. The National Research Council has made available a
draft framework by its Board on Science Education (BOSE), a component
within the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
(DBASSE) at the National Academy of Sciences. This draft conceptual
framework for new science education standards had an original open comment
period deadline of August 2, 2010, which has been extended to Monday, Aug.
16, for the social science community. See
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html.
Science and education policy staff of a number of behavioral and social
science societies (eg, American Psychological Association, American
Educational Research Association, Consortium of Social Science
Associations, Society for Research on Child Development, Federation of
Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences) have been working on issues
related to the behavioral and social sciences (and related education
research) in STEM education with renewed attention in recent months (e.g.,
making comments to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology). We have discussed this only-recently-released framework and
in July participated in an NIH-hosted workshop on STEM education that
featured BOSE staff explaining the framework. We believe it is important
for our communities to comment on this proposed framework. Attached for
your background is a letter by the social science community leadership to
BOSE. Attached also are some comments by Consortium of Social Science
Associations (COSSA) director Howard Silver.
Time is short, and we apologize for that, but we hope you will examine the
120-page framework and weigh in with comments either by letter and/or
through the online survey. We need to maximize input by the social and
behavioral science communities. Some additional ideas you might consider
as you develop feedback to the Academies is the following:
The draft BOSE framework insightfully acknowledges some very important
social science knowledge and function within science and society
(especially within "Cross-cutting Elements," and even in the "Earth and
Space Sciences" section). But, to be more complete and consistent, the
framework should include within the "Life Sciences" section the following
now-absent "Core Disciplinary Idea" (or something approximating this idea):
Individual human behavior and human social interactions (and how they
change over time) can be studied systematically/scientifically -- both
observationally/empirically and through theory-based hypothesis testing --
using data collection and analyses (eg, of socioeconomic status, culture,
education level, gender, age); the results can be applied to improving both
the human condition and that of the earth's life-supporting biosphere more
generally. In other words, the current Life Science section is highly
constrained by a focus on functional relations between "organisms" and how
they live. The section appears to ignore humans as organisms, implying that
there are some natural phenomena that lie outside science's ability to
observe, analyze, and study. That is a dangerous message that opens the
door (especially among school-age children) to entertaining myths, fads,
and worse explanations and assumptions about what influences, modulates,
and controls human behavior. It presents science as an incomplete, flawed
method of inquiry in need of assistance from other perspectives (e.g.,
creationism).
Under the Cross-cutting Element section, there needs to be acknowledgement
of both direct and indirect causal effects and mention of the more complex
associational/correlation relations among variables, not just a simple
emphasis on direct causal relations.
The "Topics in Science, Engineering, Technology, and Society" section also
appropriately mentions interactive functions involving culture and science,
etc., but some mention needs to be made of the very significant role of
human society and practices (eg, through medicine and antibiotics, habitat
destruction, agricultural practices including fisheries, animal
husbandry/domestication, selective breeding, genetic engineering) in
altering other species' diversity, populations, genetics, adaptability,
vitality, and environmental dispersion across the globe. That is, various
stakeholders (eg, political, social, economic) shape environments for
different purposes and those environments, in turn, iteratively shape the
shapers, so to speak. Social science also helps us understand and
promulgate more efficient diffusion of knowledge and innovation within
human society. A new American Chemical Society "Chemistry in the
Community" high school textbook (WH Freeman & Company, 2006) presents
chemistry in a social/economic context, much like what we would advocate
for K-12 ed in terms of incorporating the functional relations studied by
social and behavioral scientists.
Lee Herring
Lee Herring
Director of Public Affairs & Public Information
American Sociological Association
1430 K St., NW, #600
Washington, DC 20005
202-383-9005 x-320, 202-527-7877 (fax)