Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Comparison of Science and Engineering Concepts in Next Generation Science Standards with Jordan Science Standards
Ahmad Qablan
1,2
1
The Hashemite University, Zarqa, JORDAN
2
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA
Online publication date: 2018-04-22
Publication date: 2018-04-22
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(6):2693-2709
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this Science Standards Content Crosswalk study is to compare the degree of alignment between Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and Jordan’s science standards in K-8. A team of 5 science educators worked together to review each NGSS standard and decide whether there is a conceptual match for it in current Jordan science standards. Rigorous content analysis and interpretation approach was used to make decisions about matches between both sets of standards. Results revealed significant misalignments between the science learning outcomes identified by NGSS and those of Jordan. Results also showed that, Physical Sciences concepts had the highest percentage (58%) of not addressed concepts in 3-5 grade band followed by Earth and Space Sciences (42%) and Life Sciences concepts (36%). However, the highest percentage of not addressed concepts in grade band 6-8 were Earth and Space Sciences (58%) followed by Physical Sciences (46%) and Life Sciences (36%) concepts. This finding can support projections of the needs for new instructional materials and for subject-specific teachers’ professional development. The results also provide a clear direction for the newly established national center for curriculum to revise the national science standards and curricula.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Ababneh, E., Al-Tweissi, A., & Abulibdeh, K. (2016). TIMSS and PISA impact – the case of Jordan. Research Papers in Education, 31(5), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/026715....
2.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10....
3.
Achieve. (2010). International Science Benchmarking Report: Taking the Lead in Science Education: Forging Next-Generation Science Standards. Retrieved on April 16 from https://www.achieve.org/files/....
4.
Aldahmash, A., Mansour, N., & Alshamrani, S., (2016). An Analysis of Activities in Saudi Arabian Middle School Science Textbooks and Workbooks for the Inclusion of Essential Features of Inquiry. Research in Science Education, 26(6), 879–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
5.
ALECSO. (2014). Analyzing the results of international TIMSS for the year 2011 in Arab States. Tunisia.
6.
Baxter, J. (1989). Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 11(Special issue), 502-513. http://doi.org/10.1080/0950069....
7.
Brook, A., & Driver, R. (1989). Progression in Science: The development of pupils’ understanding of physical characteristics of air across the age range 5-16 years. Children’s Learning in Science Project, University of Leeds.
9.
Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1989). Designing science textbooks to enhance students’ understanding. Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326....
10.
Chiappetta, E., & Fillman, D. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
11.
Clement, P. (2008). Critical analysis of school science textbooks. Science Education International, 19(2), 93- 96.
12.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2013). Science Standards Content Crosswalk Report. Connecticut, USA.
13.
Holding, B. (1987). Investigation of schoolchildren’s understanding of the process of dissolving with special reference to the conservation of matter and the development of atomistic ideas (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Leeds.
14.
IEA. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston College. USA.
15.
Koppal, M., & Caldwell, A. (2004). Meeting the challenge of science literacy: Project 2061 efforts to improve science education. Cell Biology Education, 3, 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03....
16.
Mansour, N. (2010). The representation of scientific literacy in Egyptian science textbooks. Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 91-95.
17.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Making Meaning in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
18.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/ti....
19.
National Center for Human Resources Development. (2013). Jordan Students Performance on international TIMSS and PISA tests.
20.
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.
21.
National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
22.
Nussbaum, J. (1985). The earth as a cosmic body. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science (pp. 170-192). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
23.
Qablan, A. (in press). Continuous Decline of Jordanian Science Students’ Academic Performance in TIMSS: Reasons and Resolutions. Mutah Lil -Buhuth Wad-dirasat.
24.
Queen Rania Foundation. (2015). Comparative Curricular Review of the Old and Revised Science Textbooks in Jordan, Grades 1-3 (Unpublished report). Amman: Jordan.
25.
Royal Hashemite Court. (n.d.). The Education Reform for Knowledge Economy (ERfKE). Retrieved on 31 July, 2016 from http:// www.kingabdullah.jo/index.php/en_US/initiatives/view/id/81.html.
26.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1996). Splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education: Executive summary. Lansing, MI: U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Michigan State University.
27.
Strauss, S., & Stavy, R. (1982). U-shaped Behavioral Growth. Academic Press: New York.
28.
UNESCO. (2014). Global Citizenship Education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-first century. Paris, France.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
