Considerations about the Presence of  Nature of Science  in Official Educational Documents:  A Very Brief Comparison between  DCN (Brazil) and NGSS (USA)

André Batista Noronha

doi:10.51724/ijpce.v10i3.25

Authors

André Batista Noronha Federal Institute of Science and Education of São Paulo (IFSP), Brazil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v10i3.25

Keywords:

Nature of science, Science Education Standards, NGSS, DCN

Abstract

.Nowadays the importance of History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science (HPSS) for science education is a consensus in the research area. After several years, it was built what is called today Consensus Vision of Nature of Science (CVNOS), based mostly in the works of Lederman and collaborators (2007) and also McComas (1998), among others. The CVNOS, or the “Lederman`s seven” as it is know (Matthews, 2012), was an important achievement in the area, however, only after some few years its contributions came up explicitly or effectively inside official educational documents worldwide. Nevertheless, when it became a new fashion, heated debates arose about the philosophical foundations of the CVNOS. And it paved the way for several critics (not only philosophical) over the so-called "Lederman's Seven." In this work we examined some of CVNOS impacts in the discourse of two official educational documents: the Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais (DCN, or National Curriculum Guidelines) in Brazil (Brasil, 2013) and the Next Generation Science Education Standards in the United States (NGSS, 2013). We point out to the similarities and differences on the NOS approach in both documents, discussing its failures and achievements.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Apple, M. (1979). O currículo oculto e a natureza do conflito [The hidden curriculum na the nature of conflict]. In M. Apple (Ed.), Ideologia e currículo (pp.125-150). Porto Alegre: Artmed.

Apple, M. (2006). Para além da lógica do Mercado: compreendendo e opondo-se ao neoliberalismo [Beyond neoliberalism in education: The citizen school and the struggle for democracy]. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A.

Au, W. (2001). Teaching under the new taylorism: high-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 25-45.

Au, W. (2009). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. New York: Routledge.

Brasil (2013). MEC, SEB, DICEI. Brailia: Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais da Educação Básica.

Ducrot, O. (1990). Polifonia y argumentación (Polyphonics and argumentation). Proceedings of Conferencias del seminário teoria de la argumentacion y analisis del discurso. Cali: Universidad del Valle.

Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.831-880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Leher, R. & Accioly, I. (Eds.). (2016). Commodifying education theoretical and methodological aspects of financialization of education policies in Brazil. Rotterdam: Sense.

Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From Nature of Science (NOS) to Features of Science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research. Dordrecht: Springer.

McComas, W. (1998). The Nature of Science (NOS) in science instruction within the context of U.S. public education: Critiquing the Next Generation Science Standards. Proceedings of IHPST Biennial International Conference. Rio de Janeiro.

McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53-70). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

McComas, W. F., & Nouri, N. (2016). The Nature of Science and the Next Generation Science Standards: Analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 555-576.

National Research Council (2013a). Next generation science standards. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards. Accessed 06 May, 2016.

National Research Council (2013b). Appendix H. www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20H%20-% 20The%20Nature%20of%20Science%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards%204.15.13.pdf. Accessed 06 May 2016.

Noronha, A. B., & Gurgel, I. (2016). On the relevance of a non-consensus view of nature of science in science education: a political-curricular argument. Proceedings of 11th ESERA Congress, Helsinki, Finland.

Noronha, A. B., & Gurgel, I. (2018). On the curricular relevance of nature of science: two arguments from critical curriculum theory. PhD thesis, University of São Paulo.

Noronha, A. B., Bagdonas, A., & Gurgel, I. (2018). Is the electron real? Who discovered the expanding universe? Debating non consensus topics of nature of science in science classrooms. In M. E. B. Prestes & C. C. Silva (Eds.), Teaching science within context: Historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches (pp. 99-112). Dordrecht: Springer.