Advertisement

Cause and Because: Using Epistemic Network Analysis to Model Causality in the Next Generation Science Standards

  • Amanda Siebert-EvenstoneEmail author
  • David Williamson Shaffer
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)

Abstract

The Next Generation Science Standards propose an integrated and holistic view of science education that teaches science through three-dimensional learning. In this vision of science, content and practices are interconnected and inseparable. While the NGSS has influenced K-12 education standards in 40 states, there has not been a systematic analysis of the standards themselves. In this study, we investigate three-dimensional learning in order to identify new insights into underlying relationships between science concepts as well as make comparisons between different science disciplines. We used Epistemic Network Analysis to measure and models the structure of connections among crosscutting concepts and practices within and across disciplines. Results show systematic differences between how Physical and Life Sciences use and describe cause and effect relationships in which Physical Sciences predominantly focuses on the generation of causal relationships while Life Sciences focuses on the explanation of causal relationships.

Keywords

Epistemic network analysis Next generation science standards Three-dimensional learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (DRL-1661036, DRL-1713110), the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The opinions, findings, and conclusions do not reflect the views of the funding agencies, cooperating institutions, or other individuals.

References

  1. 1.
    Ford, M.J., Forman, E.A.: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Rev. Res. Educ. 30, 1–32 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    NGSS Lead States: Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States (Appendix F – Science and Engineering Practices). Achieve, Inc. behalf twenty-six states partners that Collab. NGSS, pp. 1–103 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
  3. 3.
    National Research Council: A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2012).  https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  4. 4.
    Lontok, K.S., Zhang, H., Dougherty, M.J.: Assessing the genetics content in the next generation science standards. PLoS One 10, 1–16 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feinstein, N.W., Kirchgasler, K.L.: Sustainability in science education? how the next generation science standards approach sustainability, and why it matters. Sci. Educ. 99, 121–144 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesnutt, K., et al.: Next generation crosscutting themes: factors that contribute to students’ understandings of size and scale. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55(6), 876–900 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaffer, D.W.: How Computer Games Help Children Learn. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230601994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiSessa, A.: Knowledge in pieces. Constr. Comput. age. 49–70 (1988).  https://doi.org/10.1159/000342945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R.: How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. (1999).  https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
  10. 10.
    Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., Glaser, R.: Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cogn. Sci. 5, 121–152 (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shaffer, D.W.: Quantitative Ethnography. Cathcart Press, Madison (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Science Teaching Association: Science and Engineering Practices (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Science Teaching Association: Crosscutting concepts (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shaffer, D.W., Ruis, A.R.: Epistemic network analysis: a worked example of theory-based learning analytics. In: Handbook of Learning Analytics Education data Mining (2017). in press.  https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berland, L.K., Schwarz, C.V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A.S., Reiser, B.J.: Epistemologies in practice: making scientific practices meaningful for students. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 53, 1082–1112 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reiser, B.J., Mcgill, T.A.W.: Coherence from the students’ perspective: why the vision of the framework for K-12 Science Requires More than Simply “ Combining ” Three Dimensions of Science Learning, 1 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Aalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations