Envisioning the Changes in Teaching Framed by the National Science Education Standards-Teaching Standards

Todd Campell, Emma Smith
2.982 570


The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) have been one of the leading reformed documents in the U.S. since its release. It has served as a foundation for all state standards and has supported the development of the newest standards documents recently released in the U.S. (i.e., Achieve Inc., 2013; NRC 2012). One of the most important contributions this document has made is in the area of teaching, as it puts forth explicit standards for teaching science grounded framed by constructivism. These standards are quite different than what has traditionally been found in U.S. schools. This article examine each of the teaching standards outlined in the NSES, 1) to better explain the bases and importance of the teaching standard and specific less/more emphasis indicators found in the Changing Emphasis table in the teaching standards, before 2) current science education research that is forming the foundations of each of the standards moving forward is shared. Finally, examination of each teaching standard in the article concludes with exemplar vignettes to provide a vision for the enactment of each standard in the context of teachersâ and studentsâ everyday classroom and school experiences.


Science Standards, Science Teaching, Student Learning

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)


Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.

Achieve Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-sciencestandards.

Ackerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activitybased approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.

Adamson, A.E., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox III, F., Judson, E., Turley, J.B., Benford, R. & Lawson, A.E. (2003). Reformed Undergraduate Instruction and Its Subsequent Impact on Secondary School Teaching Practice and Student Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 939-958.

Aguiar, O., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and Responding to Students' Questions: The Authoritative and Dialogic Tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-93.

Akcay, H. & Yager, R. E. (2010). The Impact of a Science/Technology/Society Teaching Approach on Student Learning in Five Domains. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 602-611.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Author, Washington.

Amann, G. (2005). Exploring Physics in the Classroom. AAPT Press: College Park, MD.

Austin, A., Campa, H., Pfund, C., Gillian-Daniel, D., Mathieu, R., & Stoddart, J. (2009). Preparing STEM doctoral students for future faculty careers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83-95.

Aylward, G. (2010). Visual formative assessments: The use of images to quickly assess and record student learning. Science Scope, 33(6), 41-5.

Blanton, P. (2008). Using interactive whiteboard to enhance student learning. Physics Teacher, 46(3), 188-189. Beuckman, J., Rebello, N., & Zollman, D. (2007). Impact of a classroom interaction system on student learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 883(1), 129-132.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for the constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brown, D., & Cox, A. (2009). Innovative Uses of Video Analysis. Physics Teacher, 47(3), 145-150.

Buck, G., & Trauth-Nare, A. (2009). Preparing teachers to make the formative assessment process integral to science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 475-94.

Bursal, M., & Paznokas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary teachers' confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 173-80.

Bybee, R., & Van Scotter, P. (2007). Reinventing the Science Curricul-um.Educational Leadership, 64(4), 43-7. Campbell, T. (2012). Building Community in Triads Involved in Science Teacher Education: An Innovative Professional Develop-ment Model. Brock Education Journal, 21(2), 53-69.

Campbell, T. (2011). Using Metaphors to investigate the Personal Frameworks of Pre-Service Science Teachers as they Experience a Science in Society Course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(1), 71–90. Campbell, T. (2008). The capacity of instructional technologists to provide systemic support for science education reform. Teacher Development, 12(1), 67-83.

Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N, & Chapman, H. (2010). Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 13-30.

Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., Shin, M. & Zhang, D. (2010). Classroom Instructions Observed from the Perspectives of Current Reform in Science Education: Comparisons between Korean and U.S. classrooms. Eurasian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(3), 151-162.

Campbell, T. & Lott, K. (2010). Triad dynamics: Investigating the importance of social forces, positions, and storylines. Teaching Education. 21(4), 349–366.

Campbell, T., Wang, S., Hsu, H., Duffy, A., & Wolf, P. (2010). Learning with Web Tools, Simulations, and Other Technologies in Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 505

Campbell, T., Zhang, D., & Neilson, D. (2010). Model Based Inquiry in the High School Physics Classroom: An Exploratory Study of Implementation and Outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology. First published online 23 August 2010. DOI 10.1007/s10956-010-9251-6.

Catley, Lehrer, & Reiser (2005). Tracing a Prospective Learning Progression for Developing Understanding of Evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Evolution.pdf

Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 7-15.

Chiappetta, E.L. (2008). Historical development of teaching science as inquiry. In Luft, J., Bell, R. L., & GessNewsome, J. (Eds.) Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 21-30). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness: How Teacher Performance Assessments Can Measure and Improve Teaching. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/ teacher_effectiveness .html

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

Erdogan, I. & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education. 30(14), 1891-1914.

Exley, B. E. & Luke, A. (2009). Uncritical framing : lesson and knowledge structure in school science. In: Cole, David & Pullen, Darren L. (Eds.) Multiliteracies in Motion : Current Theory & Practice. Routledge, London, pp. 17-41.

Ferguson, R. (2008). If Multicultural Science Education Standards’ Existed, What Would They Look Like? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 547–564.

Flick, L. B. (1998). Integrating elements of inquiry into the flow of middle level teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

Frazier, W., & Sterling, D. (2005). What should my science classroom rules be and how can I get my students to follow them? Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(1), 31.

French, D. (2005). Was “inquiry” a mistake? Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 60-62.

Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-141.

Gilmore, J., Hurst, M., & Maher, M. (2009). Professional identity development in teachers of science, technology, engineering, math, and science and math education. Proceedings of the NARST 2009 Annual Meeting.

Gioka, O. (2009). Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education. 39(4), 411-28.

Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gordon, M. (2008). Between constructivism and connectedness. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 322-331. Hruby, G. G. (2002). Social constructivism and social constructionism. In: Guzzetti B (ed) Encyclopedia of literacy research in America. ABCCLIO Press, Santa Barbara.

Huffman, D., Thomas, K., & Lawrenz, F. (2008). Science and Mathematics Instruction in a Reform based Teacher Preparation Program. School Science and Mathematics, 108(4), 137-48.

Ibe, H. N. (2009). Metacognitive strategies on classroom participation and student achievement in senior secondary school science classrooms. Science Education International. 20(1-2), 25-31.

Jang, S. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744-51.

Johnston, A. (2008). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to Settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 11–13.

Lotter, C., Harwood, H. & Bonner, J. (2006). Overcoming a learning bottleneck: Inquiry professional development for secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 71(3), 185-216.

Könings, K., van Zundert, M., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. (2007). Participatory design in secondary education: is it a good idea? Students' and teachers' opinions on its desirability and feasibility. Educational Studies, 33(4), 445-465.

Kwan,T, & Texley, J. (2003). Inquiring safely: A guide for middle school teachers. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Kwan, T., Texley, J., (2002). Exploring safely: A guide for elementary teachers. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Lawrenz, F.,Huffman, D., & Welch, W. (2001). The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats. Science Education, 85(3), 279-90.

Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607-636.

Melville, W., Campbell, T., Fazio, X., & Bartley, A. (2012). The Departmental Script as an Ongoing Conversation into the Phronesis of Teaching Science as Inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 835-850.

Milne, C. (2009). Assessing self-evaluation in a science methods course: Power, agency, authority and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 758-66.

Morrison, J., & McDuffe, A. (2009). Connecting science and mathematics: Using inquiry investigations to learn about data collection, analysis, and display. School Science & Mathematics,109(1), 31-40.

Morrison, J., McDuffie, A., & Akerson, V. (2005). Preservice teachers’ development and implementation of science performance assessment tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(3), 379-406.

Moss, K., & Crowley, M. (2011). Effective learning in science: The use of personal response systems with a wide range of audiences. Computers & Education, 56(1), 36-43.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, experience and school. J.R. Bransford, A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K- Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academy Press, Washington.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2007) NSTA position statement scientific inquiry. Retrieved 7 Nov 2008 from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx.

Neilson, D., Campbell, T., & Allred, B. (2010). Model-based inquiry. The Science Teacher, 77(8), 38-43.

Paley, J. D., Weiss, I. R., Shimkus, E. S., & Smith, P. S., (2004). Looking inside the classroom: Science teaching in the United States. Science Educator, (13)1, 1-12.

Passmore, C., J. Stewart, and J. Cartier. 2009. Model-based inquiry and school science: Creating connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109 (7), 394–402.

Piaget, J. (1983). "Piaget's theory". In P. Mussen (ed). Handbook of Child Psychology. 4th edition. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.

Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) reference manual. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.

Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. (2005). Toward implementing distri-buted scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.

Roth, W., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2005). Coordination in Coteaching: Producing Alignment in Real Time. Science Education, 89(4), 675-702.

Ruebush, L., Grossman, E., Miller, S., North, S., Schielack, J., & Sima-nek, E. (2009). Roth, W., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2005). Coordination in coteaching: Producing alignment in real time. Science Education, 89(4), 675-702.

Ruebush, L. E., Grossman, E. L., Miller, S. A., North, S. W. Schielack, J. F.,& Simanek, E. E. (2009). Scientists' perspective on introducing authentic inquiry to high school teachers during an intensive three-week summer professional development experience. School Science & Mathematics, 109(3), 1621

Ruiz-Primo, M., Li, M., Ayala, C., & Shavelson, R. (2004). Evaluating students' science notebooks as an assessment tool. Research report. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477-506.

Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.

Sampson, V. (2004). The Science Management Observation Protocol: Using Structured Observations to Improve Teachers' Management of Inquiry-Based Classrooms. Science Teacher, 71(10), 30-3.

Schwab, J.J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, 68(2), 176-195.

Stinson, K., Harkness, S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and Science Integration: Models and Characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153-61.

Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). FOCUS ARTICLE: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 4(1-2), 1-98.

Smithhenry, D., & Gallagher-Bolos, J. (2009). Whole-class inquiry: Creating student-centered science communities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Smolleck, L. A., & Yoder, E. P. (2008). Further development and validation of the Teaching Science as Inquiry (TSI) instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 108(7), 291-297.

Squires, G. (1999). Teaching as a professional discipline. London: Falmer.

Stanulis, R. N., & Floden, R. E. (2009). Intensive mentoring as a way to help beginning teachers develop balanced instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 112-122.

Texley, J., Kwan, T., & Summers, J. (2004). Investigating safely: A guide for high school teachers. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Toulmin, S. (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, S., Hsu, H., & Campbell, T. (2009, December). Integrating Technology into Science Instruction: Science Learning, Literacy, and the Development of 21st Century Digital Literacy.

In Besnoy, K.D., & Clarke L. (Eds.), High-Tech Teaching Success! A Step-by-Step Guide to Using Innovative Technology in Your Classroom (pp. 71-119). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., et al. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe J. (2006). Understanding by Design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Alexandria, VA).

Williams, J., & Kane, D. (2009). Assessment and feedback: Institutional experiences of student feedback, 1996 to 200 Higher Education Quarterly, 63(3), 264-86.

Wilson, C. D., Taylor,, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The Relative Effects and Equity of Inquiry-Based and Commonplace Science Teaching on Students’ Knowledge, Reasoning, and Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (3), 276–301.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model ‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.