NRC Framework, Chapter Three, Dimension #1: Science & Engineering Practices

Kristen Bergsman

NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education

Chapter Three: Dimension #1 Science & Engineering Practices

I recently witnessed a group of professional engineers react to the way that science and engineering practices are now being presented as part of a new visions for K-12 science classrooms. As part of a larger project, these engineers were tasked to work in collaboration with science teachers to design innovative science curriculum units that integrated engineering design challenges. As part of that challenge, the engineers were trained in the vision of the National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education and the new Next Generation Science Standards. When it was explained that engineering and the engineering design process was now a requirement of science education, I felt a general sense of agreement from the group. As the training facilitators presented the Framework’s eight practices of science and engineering education, again I felt like the engineers were on board with the vision.

However, when the facilitators shared a table (Box 3-2, p. 50-53) from the NRC Framework—“Distinguishing Practices in Science from those in Engineering”—the energy in the room shifted. I felt a general sense of, wait, what? A large portion of my job as an engineer is doing these very practices that are labeled as scientific processes. I do science as an engineer. My job relies on science. Why is it helpful to differentiate these processes, and could this artificial division be harmful to students’ understanding of science and engineering?

Since that moment in a training that took place over a month ago, I’ve held on to the engineers’ questions of both the benefits and the potential harms (confusion, artificial boundaries, etc.) of the way that science and engineering content and practices are presented in the new vision for K-12 science education. That conversation drove me to want to dig deeper into the vision and practices put forth by the NRC Framework. A major goal of this new vision is to support “…a better understanding of how scientific knowledge is produced and engineering solutions are developed” (NRC Framework, p. 41) with an intentional focus on the production of knowledge, the processes of inquiry, and the direct applications to the real world. The practices are designed to present a peek into the authentic work of practicing scientists and engineers (NRC Framework, p. 42).

The Eight Practices of Science & Engineering

Chapter Three of the NRC Framework introduces the first of three dimensions of K-12 science education—a set of eight science and engineering practices. The practices are to be taught in synchronicity with the other two dimensions (cross-cutting concepts and disciplinary core ideas). Why? As stated in theFramework, “any education that focuses predominately on the detailed products of science labor—the facts of science—without developing an understanding of how those facts were established or ignores the many important applications of science in the world misrepresents science and marginalizes the importance of engineering” (NRC Framework, p. 43). These practices are listed below; in parenthesis I have provided the page numbers from the Framework where more detailed information is available. I have added underlining for emphasis.

Dimension #1: The Eight Practices of Science & Engineering

(Source: NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education)

1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) (p. 54).
2. Developing and using models (p. 56).
3. Planning and carrying out investigations (p. 59).
4. Analyzing and interpreting data (p. 61).
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking (p. 64).
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) (p. 67).
7. Engaging in argument from evidence (p. 71).
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. (p. 74)

Practices as Part of the “New” Vision for K-12 Science Education

What about these practices is innovative and different from the traditional presentation of science in K-12 classrooms? What makes this vision “new”? The NRC Framework presents the practices as a way to help students understand the work of professionals, the ways in which understandings develop, and the interplay between the fields of science and engineering; the practices “makes students’ knowledge more meaningful and embeds it more deeply into their worldview” (NRC Framework, p. 42). Practices are a way of ushering science from the abstract to the authentic.

The fact that engineering and engineering design are included in a vision for science education is in itself new…groundbreaking, even. The vision presented in the NRC Framework, and later included in the Next Generation Science Standards, elevates the teaching of engineering content and practices to the same level as the teaching of traditional natural sciences. The authors of the Framework, however, take great care to differentiate what is similar and what is different between engineering and science practices. They point out that the goals, drive, and argumentation practices of scientist and engineers, in particular, have clear differences (NRC Framework, p. 47-48). 

A key shift in K-12 science education called for by the Framework is for an acknowledgment that the holy grail of classroom science instruction—the Scientific Method—is in reality, gulp, a myth. A myth, the Framework reports, that is “perpetuated to this day by many textbooks” (NRC Framework, p. 78). The practices in this new vision show scientific inquiry and engineering design as an iterative, complex process that—as one model suggests—consists of interplay between practices of Investigation & Empirical Inquiry; Construction of Explanations or Designs; and Evaluation of Explanations & Designs (NRC Framework, p. 44).

The practices also highlight the importance of practices that have been “previously underemphasized” in science instruction—modeling, developing explanations, and argumentation (NRC Framework, p. 44). Critique, including the peer review process, is particularly stressed as a fundamental practice in both science and engineering.

Summary

1.     Critical Reflection or Important Point

The new vision outlined in the NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education, and taken up by the Next Generation Science Standards, calls for the death of the scientific method in science instruction. The Framework states, “the notion that there is a single, scientific method of observation, hypothesis, deduction, and conclusion—a myth perpetuated to this day by many textbooks—is fundamentally wrong” (NRC Framework, p. 78). In its place is the teaching of content, practices, and cross-cutting concepts. Given that current classroom teachers were educated in a time when the scientific method was the focus of K-12 science instruction, the implementation of the Framework’s vision and NGSS will require substantial professional development of in-service and pre-service teachers.

2.     One Substantive Discussion Question Brought Up by the Reading

Working in pairs (8 groups needed), choose one of the eight practices. Examine how your chosen practice is represented in Box 3-2 on pages 50-53 of the NRC Framework. What are the similarities, differences, and interplay between this practice among scientists and engineers? What are the benefits and risks to students’ understanding by denoting what is different between science and engineering?