Preparing Teachers of Science for 2020 and Beyond: Highlighting Changes to the NSTA/ASTE Standards for Science Teacher Preparation

KEYWORDS:

• Science teacher preparation
• preparation standards
• culturally-relevant pedagogy
• social justice
• preparation program evaluation

In 2012, the National Research Council (NRC) released A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (Framework), which informed the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). These standards provide performance expectations that reflect a three-dimensional approach to learning science that integrates (i) Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs) of the life sciences, physical sciences, Earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology, (ii) Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs) that connect knowledge across these disciplines, and (iii) Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) that reflect the means by which scientists and engineers engage “in a systematic practice of design” (NRC, 2012, p. 11) More specifically, the Framework argues that these three dimensions (3D) should weave through every aspect of science education, most critically, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This affects science teacher preparation.

In 2014, the National Science Teachers’ Association (NSTA) adopted the Framework as the guiding principles for teaching and learning science and engineering. With this adoption, it was realized the existing 2012 Science Teacher Preparation Standards needed to be updated. To match the goals of the Framework, the 2012 Science Teacher Education Standards were expanded to include K-12 grade bands beyond the prior focus on secondary grades alone. This focus on secondary teacher preparation evolved from the use of the 2012 Science Teacher Preparation Standards by the Council for Accreditation of Education Programs (CAEP) for accrediting teacher preparation programs. With the relationship between NSTA and CAEP now dissolved, NSTA had an opportunity to rethink (in light of the Framework), what teachers should know and be able to do in order to provide quality science education K-12.

In 2015, the NSTA Board of Directors reached out to the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) to develop a joint committee charged with revising/developing a new set of science teacher preparation standards that would better reflect the goals of the Framework. From 2016 to the early part of 2018, this committee designed and sought multiple rounds of feedback from various professional subject-specific science teaching organizations (e.g., National Association of Biology Teachers, American Chemical Society, American Association of Physics Teachers, and National Association of Geoscience Teachers), as well as the membership of ASTE and NSTA. At the 2018 summer board meetings for both ASTE and NSTA, the new 2020 Standards for Science Teacher Preparation (2020 SSTP) were approved and are now available on both the ASTE (https://theaste.org/2020-nsta-aste-standards-for-science-teacher-preparation/) and the NSTA (https://www.nsta.org/preservice) websites.

The purpose of this editorial is to describe changes to the format and theoretical substance of the 2020 SSTP. Most significantly, the science content found in the Content Analysis Form (a document used as the guideline for essential content coverage) changed from a list of topics to a coherent array of guiding questions based upon the Framework. In addition, ideas reflective of a social justice oriented approach to teaching science (i.e., culturally relevant pedagogy) guided the rewording and conceptualization of the core six standards. Lastly, intentional language related to the nature of Science and Engineering Practices was included in the core six standards to ensure preservice teachers will be prepared to incorporate these concepts in their teaching of science. The article concludes with implications for using the 2020 SSTP by states, teacher preparation programs, and instructors at the elementary, middle and secondary levels.

Content knowledge for science teaching

The most significant change from the 2012 Standards to the 2020 SSTP was an update to the Content Analysis Form (CAF), to align with DCIs as described in the Framework, but also, for the first time, to include specific elements for grade bands K-2 and 3–5. The CAF outlines the subject matter knowledge science teachers should have to demonstrate competency. The first step to developing the 2020 SSTP began with a review of the 2012 CAF, which outlined the pertinent subject matter knowledge and focused primarily on secondary school science. The 2020 CAF, in line with the Framework’s structure, shows a progression of the content across four grade bands (K-2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12); which also better aligns with the variety of licensure frameworks found across states.

The 2020 CAF uses the structure of the DCIs in the Framework, and their component ideas, to generate fundamental questions (see Table 1). The committee read the core and component ideas, explanations, and content for the Grade Band Endpoints of the Framework to develop bullet points that represented the most salient concepts of the DCIs. Elaborating on the bullet points, the committee developed conceptual questions to guide the specific content needed for understanding the fundamental question. Conceptual questions were determined to be those that required a preservice teacher to create or develop an answer rather than simply receive and repeat facts. For example, a component idea for the Life Science DCIs is “Growth and Development of Organisms”. The fundamental question is, “How do organisms grow and develop?” Examples of two conceptual questions are, “What factors (genetic and environmental) impact the growth of organisms?”, and “What is the relationship among mitosis, differentiation, and gene expression in the development of multicellular organisms?” Unlike the 2012 CAF, the 2020 CAF requires programs to list courses for which completion would prepare a preservice teacher to satisfactorily answer each conceptual question, rather than merely introduce preservice teachers to a concept on a list. Once the salient concepts were distilled from the Framework, the committee used the Framework’s Grade Band Endpoints to guide the development and progression of conceptual questions for each disciplinary core idea.

Table 1. Sample secondary (9–12) life sciences CAF structure.

Disciplinary Core Idea: LS1: From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes
Component Idea: Structure and Function
Unifying Principle: Cells are the basic unit of life.
Fundamental Question: How do organisms live, grow, respond to their environment, and reproduce?
Framework - Salient Concepts	2020 SSTP - Conceptual Questions
● Systems of specialized cells within organisms help them perform the essential functions of life, which involve chemical reactions that take place between different types of molecules, such as water, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids.● All cells contain DNA.● Multicellular organisms have a hierarchical structural organization, in which any one system is made up of numerous parts and is itself a component of the next level.	What is a cell? How do cells function similarly and differently in unicellular and multicellular organisms? What are major organelles, and how do these impact cell function? Which scientists were most important in the development of cell theory and what did they contribute to the theory? What are the roles of DNA and chromosomes in determining an individual’s traits? What are the relationships among DNA, genes, and protein synthesis? What is the importance of proteins for cells? How is cell theory an example of a scientific theory? How can the relationships among the hierarchical system of cells, issues, organs, and systems be modeled? How do organismal systems interact to assist in an organism’s life processes? What tools are used to examine microscopic structures?

The CAFs at the different grade bands also contain supporting competencies that preservice science teachers must develop. For example, the supporting competencies for physics include conceptual questions in chemistry, life science, Earth and space science, and mathematics. These conceptual questions are the most salient concepts a teacher of a certain domain must know about other science domains. The mathematical competencies support the practical application of mathematics to the science domain or DCIs. Within Earth and space science, for example, the mathematics conceptual questions are, “How are statistics used by scientists to support arguments?” and “How are mathematical models used in Earth and space science?” These supporting competencies form the basis for preservice teachers to understand the role of SEPs and CCCs in NGSS Performance Expectations.

Core standards: conceptual updates

The second step of development involved revising the language of the six core standards to reflect a lens of social justice that all students should have access to a science education that will afford them the opportunity to meet the goals of the Framework. The key revisions to the language, therefore, included references to more culturally relevant pedagogy, opportunities for learning about engineering practices in addition to science practices, and calling out explicit connections to the nature of science as a socially and culturally dependent enterprise.

Using a social justice lens to teaching science means to “provide a comprehensive and multidimensional education by purposefully developing students’ attitudes and values in addition to content knowledge” (Brown, 2017, p. 1147). This requires educators to look at educational contexts and learners, in such a way that differences in race, gender, ability, class, and politics are viewed as an opportunity for promoting diversity in learning and not a deficit for learning. Therefore, a significant conceptual update for the 2020 SSTP is to reflect the idea that all students can achieve science literacy regardless of social inequality. While content knowledge is important for science teachers, most science teacher educators would agree that knowledge of how to teach the content effectively (i.e., pedagogical content knowledge) is also essential. Therefore, the committee believed the 2020 SSTP needed to promote the idea of including students’ cultural backgrounds and interests in the instruction of science. This means preservice teachers need opportunities to develop lesson plans that are student-centered and equitable (Milner, 2017).

To meet these expectations, teachers must experience culturally relevant pedagogy. Culturally relevant pedagogy is the implementation of teaching approaches that empower students intellectually, culturally, and socially (Ladson-Billings, 1995). For example, Standard 2 specifically requires science teachers to “plan learning units of study and equitable, culturally-responsive opportunities for all [sic] students.” Culturally relevant pedagogy is teaching concepts within the context of real-world problems to empower students to solve complex issues in their own communities (i.e., schools, neighborhoods, and local areas). This necessitates developing preservice teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to teach diverse learners and use culturally responsive pedagogy to accommodate learners’ needs and avoid prejudices, stereotypes and biases that marginalize learners (Whitaker & Valtierra, 2018).

In addition to making explicit the need for equitable learning opportunities for all students, the committee ensured language was included in the six core standards that addressed engineering concepts and practices. This was a completely new addition to the 2020 SSTP, as it was not until the Framework that the importance of teaching students about the relationship between science and engineering became accepted in K-12 science education. Central to the practices of engineering is an engineering design process, which is an “iterative process that begins with the identification of a problem and ends with a solution that takes into account the identified constraints and meets specifications for desired performance” (NRC, 2010, pp. 6–7). The engineering design process is systematic and like scientific inquiry does not follow a lock step process and series of steps. The practice of engineering requires the application of science and mathematics to engineer solutions for problems.

The Framework calls for K-12 students to have the opportunity to apply science, mathematics, and engineering concepts in the context of solving real-world problems. The NRC (2010) report titled, Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? promotes the integration of engineering standards into science classes over stand-alone engineering courses. Thus, the committee intentionally decided not to include engineering concepts to the CAF to avoid the need for preparation programs to add engineering courses for teachers in an already packed degree program. Rather, engineering was added into the six core standards, to illustrate integrating engineering practices as an application of science knowledge across all disciplines and licensing levels. Core Standard 2, for example, now states that teachers should be able to, “Design and construct lessons that use engineering practices in support of science learning wherein all students design, construct, test and optimize possible solutions to a problem.” With the inclusion of engineering practices also comes new safety concerns. Therefore, Core Standard 4 on classroom/lab safety now reflects the need to make teachers aware of safety precautions using tools and materials when investigating through the engineering design process (Love, 2014).

Lastly, although not explicitly outlined in the 3D learning of the Framework, the nature of science (NOS) is implied as content integral to understanding and implementing the science and engineering practices, as well as the crosscutting concepts (NRC, 2012). Lederman (2007, p. 833) states that “NOS typically refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its development”. Given this definition and its relationship to the dimensions of the practices and crosscutting concepts, the committee felt it was important to make explicit in the 2020 SSTP that NOS is both content for preservice teachers to learn, but also incorporated in how they teach science. For example, Core Standard 1 [Content Knowledge] states that to be effective teachers of science they need to “Use and apply the major concepts, principles, theories, laws, and interrelationships of their fields. Explain the nature of science and the cultural norms and values inherent to the current and historical development of scientific knowledge.” With respect to knowledge of teaching content (Core Standard 2), reference is made again to NOS in 2(b) whereby preservice teachers will design lessons “Incorporating appropriate differentiation strategies, wherein all students develop conceptual knowledge and an understanding of nature of science. Lessons should engage students in applying science practices, clarifying relationships, and identifying natural patterns form empirical experiences.” Detailed references to NOS continue through Standards 3 and 5, both of which focus on preservice teachers’ interactions with students.

The vision of the Framework is clear: all students must have the opportunity to engage with culturally relevant and equitable science learning, to extend their thinking of science to its application through engineering design process, and to become versed in the social enterprise of science. For the vision of the Framework to come to fruition, preservice teachers must develop competence with the conceptual questions for the content and the grade bands they will be teaching, along with a multitude of pedagogical approaches that will support 3D learning inclusive of engineering design and NOS, and all through the lens of teaching of science for social justice. The 2020 SSTP were designed with each of these needs in mind.

Implications for 2020 SSTP

Although NSTA will no longer be working with CAEP as a means of providing guidance on accrediting secondary science teacher programs, NSTA plans to use the SSTP to inform a new national recognition framework for teacher education programs interested in seeking other levels of recognition for their programs. It is also expected that the SSTP will provide science teacher educators a well-informed research base for state level policy discussions regarding science teacher preparation at all grade levels (K-12). Therefore, the 2020 SSTP standards have value to a variety of stakeholders for the following reasons:

1. The 2020 SSTP is a useful document to assist in program reviews of science teacher preparation programs at all levels (elementary, middle, and secondary) as it aligns with the Framework and provides specific content and pedagogical necessities for science teacher preparation.

2. Higher education faculty responsible for teaching science content courses designed for preservice teachers, but who may not have knowledge of, or expertise in, what is expected of K-12 science education, can refer to the 2020 SSTP to gain a better understanding of what is expected in today’s science classroom and thus what teachers of science need to prepare to teach. The 2020 SSTP will provide guidance not only in helping with content decisions but will guide the manner of instruction of that content as well.

3. Those involved in making policy decisions about science teacher education can use the 2020 SSTP as a tool, which is research-based and congruent with the Framework. Given the current decline in enrollment in teacher preparation programs and a growing shortage of qualified teachers of science, policy makers should hold both traditional and alternative preparation programs to standards such as the 2020 SSTP through which new teachers can face the challenges of entering, and staying in, the teaching profession.

4. Programs looking for an additional level of national recognition can use the 2020 SSTP in preparing documentation for recognition from NSTA for preparing highly qualified science teachers across all grade levels K-12.

In conclusion, the 2020 SSTP is a useful and necessary tool in guiding the implementation of the Framework to meet the goals of developing a scientific literate populace who appreciates science and embraces life-long learning driven by an increasingly scientific and technologically complex world. The content of the 2020 SSTP and future process for program recognition represent a significant shift from previous accreditation frameworks. It will take time for teacher preparation programs, state departments of education, and policy makers to embrace and implement the new standards The dialogue that the 2020 SSTP will generate should drive stakeholders to consider how to collaborate in the best interests of our next generation of science teachers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.