Advertisement

The Intended Curriculum: Locating Nature in the Science Standards

  • Ajay Sharma
  • Cory Buxton
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents a critical discourse analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and two sets of Georgia science standards—the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) that were used till the end of the academic year 2016–17 and the Georgia Standards for Excellence (GSE) that were made operational for Georgia public schools from the academic year 2017–18. We analyze the implicit and explicit existential, propositional, value assumptions and logical implications in these documents. Next, through an iterative process of repeated reading and textual analysis, we identify the contours of the scientific and environmental discourses that animate science standards in the United States. We show how the intended curriculum, as reflected in these standards, represents the natural world as a biophysical system that can be “terraformed” and sustainably managed by science and technology to support “green” capitalist societies on this planet.

References

  1. Anderson, M. (2017). For Earth Day, here’s how Americans view environmental issues. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-day-heres-how-americans-view-environmental-issues/
  2. Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkowitz, A. R., Nilon, C. H., & Hollweg, K. S. (2003). Understanding urban ecosystems: A new frontier for science and education. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud and the attack on America’s public schools. New York, NY: Perseus.Google Scholar
  5. Cadenasso, M. L., Pickett, S. T., Weathers, K. C., & Jones, C. G. (2003). A framework for a theory of ecological boundaries. AIBS Bulletin, 53(8), 750–758.Google Scholar
  6. Chapin, F. S., Chapin, M. C., Matson, P. A., & Vitousek, P. (2011). Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. (2009). Opportunity equation: Transforming mathematics and science education for citizenship and the global economy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.Google Scholar
  8. Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Depaepe, M., & Smeyers, P. (2008). Educationalization as an ongoing modernization process. Educational Theory, 58(4), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the Earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ellis, E. C. (2015). Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecological Monographs, 85(3), 287–331.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2274.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, E. C., & Ramankutty, N. (2008). Putting people in the map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(8), 439–447.  https://doi.org/10.1890/070062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksen, T. H. (2014). Globalization: The key concepts. London, UK: A&C Black.Google Scholar
  14. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: Papers in the critical study of language. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Text analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Fairclough, N. (2004). Critical discourse analysis in researching language in the new capitalism: Overdetermination, transdisciplinarity and textual analysis. In L. Young & C. Harrison (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis (pp. 103–122). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Fath, B. D. (2014). Ecosystem ecology. In S. E. Jorgensen & B. D. Fath (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ecology (pp. 1125–1131). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  19. Fendler, L. (2008). New and improved educationalising: Faster, more powerful and longer lasting. Ethics and Education, 3(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flinders, D. J., Noddings, N., & Thornton, S. J. (1986). The null curriculum: Its theoretical basis and practical implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallagher, R., & Carpenter, B. (1997). Human-dominated ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 485–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gardiner, S. M. (2016). Geoengineering: Ethical questions for deliberate climate manipulators. In S. M. Gardiner & A. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). Georgia performance standards for science. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  24. Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). Georgia Standards of Excellence for Science. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  25. Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). Georgia performance standards. Retrieved from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Pages/BrowseStandards/BrowseGPS.aspx
  26. Georgia Science Teachers Association. (n.d.). Science standards for Georgia’s next generation. Retrieved from http://www.georgiascienceteacher.org/Next-Gen-Updates
  27. Goertz, M. E. (2009). Standards-based reform: Lessons from the past, directions for the future. In K. K. Wong & R. Rothman (Eds.), Clio at the table: Using history to inform and improve education policy (pp. 201–219). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  28. Goertz, M. E. (2010). National standards: Lessons from the past, directions for the future. In B. J. Reys & R. E. Reys (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions: 2010 yearbook (pp. 51–63). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  29. How to read the next generation science standards. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/How%20to%20Read%20NGSS%20-%20Final%2008.19.13.pdf
  30. Hufnagel, E., Kelly, G. J., & Henderson, J. A. (2017). How the environment is positioned in the Next Generation Science Standards: A critical discourse analysis. Environmental Education Research, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1334876
  31. Johnson, E., & Williams, F. (2010). Desegregation and multiculturalism in the Portland public schools. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 111(1), 6–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kraft, M. (2015). Environmental policy and politics. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  33. Luke, T. (1999). Eco-Managerialism. Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation. In F. Fischer & M. A. Hajer (Eds.), Living with nature. Environmental politics as cultural discourse (pp. 103–120). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macrine, S. L., McLaren, P., & Hill, D. (2010). Revolutionizing pedagogy: Education for social justice within and beyond global neo-liberalism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London, UK: Equinox Pub.Google Scholar
  36. Marzluff, J., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., … Simon, U. (2008). Urban ecology: An international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. New York, NY: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mazid, B. M. (2014). CDA and PDA made simple: Language, ideology and power in politics and media. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publisher.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council. (2001). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/
  41. Nelson, F. (Ed.). (2012). Community rights, conservation and contested land: The politics of natural resource governance in Africa. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Odum, E. P., & Barrett, G. W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  43. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Pruitt, S. L. (2014). The next generation science standards: The features and challenges. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E., … Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2).Google Scholar
  47. Rosa, E. A., Rudel, T. K., York, R., Jorgenson, A. K., & Dietz, T. (2015). The human (anthropogenic) driving forces of global climate change. In R. E. Dunlap & R. J. Brulle (Eds.), Climate change and society (pp. 32–60). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosa, E. A., York, R., & Dietz, T. (2004). Tracking the anthropogenic drivers of ecological impacts. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 33(8), 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharma, A. (2016). STEM-ification of education: The zombie reform strikes again. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 42–51.Google Scholar
  50. Shepard, L. A. (2015). If we know so much from research on learning, why are educational reforms not successful? In M. J. Feuer, A. I. Berman, & R. C. Atkinson (Eds.), Past as prologue (p. 41). Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  51. Shepherd, J., Iglesias-Rodriguez, D., & Yool, A. (2007). Geo-engineering might cause, not cure, problems. Nature, 449(7164), 781–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soneryd, L., & Uggla, Y. (2015). Green governmentality and responsibilization: New forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility’. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 913–931.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1055885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sowman, M., & Wynberg, R. (2014). Governance for justice and environmental sustainability: Lessons across natural resource sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  54. The need for standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/need-standards
  55. The next generation science standards: Executive summary. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Final%20Release%20NGSS%20Front%20Matter%20-%206.17.13%20Update_0.pdf
  56. Tran, D., Reys, B. J., Teuscher, D., Dingman, S., & Kasmer, L. (2016). Analysis of curriculum standards: An important research area. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(2), 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Travis, J. (1993). Schools stumble on an Afrocentric science essay. Science, 262(5136), 1121–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Veel, R. (2005). The greening of school science. In A. P. L. J. R. Martin, J. R. Martin, & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 115–151). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  59. Wixson, K. K., Dutro, E., & Athan, R. G. (2003). Chapter 3: The challenge of developing content standards. Review of Research in Education, 27(1), 69–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Writing Team. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nextgenscience.org/writing-team

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay Sharma
    • 1
  • Cory Buxton
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational Theory and PracticeUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations