Limits...
Assessing the Genetics Content in the Next Generation Science Standards.

Lontok KS, Zhang H, Dougherty MJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: We found that expert reviewers cannot identify ASHG core concepts within the new standards with high reliability, suggesting that the scope of content addressed by the standards may be inconsistently interpreted.Finally, state standards vary widely in their coverage of genetics concepts when compared with the NGSS.On average, however, the NGSS support genetic literacy better than extant state standards.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: American Society of Human Genetics, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Science standards have a long history in the United States and currently form the backbone of efforts to improve primary and secondary education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Although there has been much political controversy over the influence of standards on teacher autonomy and student performance, little light has been shed on how well standards cover science content. We assessed the coverage of genetics content in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) using a consensus list of American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) core concepts. We also compared the NGSS against state science standards. Our goals were to assess the potential of the new standards to support genetic literacy and to determine if they improve the coverage of genetics concepts relative to state standards. We found that expert reviewers cannot identify ASHG core concepts within the new standards with high reliability, suggesting that the scope of content addressed by the standards may be inconsistently interpreted. Given results that indicate that the disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) included in the NGSS documents produced by Achieve, Inc. clarify the content covered by the standards statements themselves, we recommend that the NGSS standards statements always be viewed alongside their supporting disciplinary core ideas. In addition, gaps exist in the coverage of essential genetics concepts, most worryingly concepts dealing with patterns of inheritance, both Mendelian and complex. Finally, state standards vary widely in their coverage of genetics concepts when compared with the NGSS. On average, however, the NGSS support genetic literacy better than extant state standards.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Average score for each ASHG genetics core concept and across concept categories within the “NGSS only” and the “NGSS+DCI,” compared to previous scores across state standards [8].Numerical scores: 0–0.5 = Not present (orange); 0.6–1.4 = Present, inadequate (yellow); 1.5–2.0 = Present, adequate (blue). These rough bins correspond to score bins used in [8]. * indicates significant difference with a p-value <0.01 using Mann-Whitney rank score test.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519196&req=5

pone.0132742.g001: Average score for each ASHG genetics core concept and across concept categories within the “NGSS only” and the “NGSS+DCI,” compared to previous scores across state standards [8].Numerical scores: 0–0.5 = Not present (orange); 0.6–1.4 = Present, inadequate (yellow); 1.5–2.0 = Present, adequate (blue). These rough bins correspond to score bins used in [8]. * indicates significant difference with a p-value <0.01 using Mann-Whitney rank score test.

Mentions: Because of weak inter-rater reliability in the pilot analysis, we made two changes for the full analysis. First, to combat “reviewer fatigue,” reviewers were split into four groups rather than two: “NGSS only, even ASHG core concepts”; “NGSS only, odd ASHG core concepts”; “NGSS+DCI, even ASHG core concepts”; and “NGSS+DCI, odd ASHG core concepts” (“even” and “odd” refer to the numbering of the concepts in Fig 1). Concepts were divided by number rather than topic category (e.g., nature of genetic material, genetic variation) so that each group analyzed fewer concepts overall, but still considered a similar breadth of content. Each of the four groups contained 23 reviewers from the full reviewer pool, and groups were matched for select demographic characteristics as described in the pilot analysis. No reviewers from the pilot analysis participated in the full analysis.


Assessing the Genetics Content in the Next Generation Science Standards.

Lontok KS, Zhang H, Dougherty MJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Average score for each ASHG genetics core concept and across concept categories within the “NGSS only” and the “NGSS+DCI,” compared to previous scores across state standards [8].Numerical scores: 0–0.5 = Not present (orange); 0.6–1.4 = Present, inadequate (yellow); 1.5–2.0 = Present, adequate (blue). These rough bins correspond to score bins used in [8]. * indicates significant difference with a p-value <0.01 using Mann-Whitney rank score test.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519196&req=5

pone.0132742.g001: Average score for each ASHG genetics core concept and across concept categories within the “NGSS only” and the “NGSS+DCI,” compared to previous scores across state standards [8].Numerical scores: 0–0.5 = Not present (orange); 0.6–1.4 = Present, inadequate (yellow); 1.5–2.0 = Present, adequate (blue). These rough bins correspond to score bins used in [8]. * indicates significant difference with a p-value <0.01 using Mann-Whitney rank score test.
Mentions: Because of weak inter-rater reliability in the pilot analysis, we made two changes for the full analysis. First, to combat “reviewer fatigue,” reviewers were split into four groups rather than two: “NGSS only, even ASHG core concepts”; “NGSS only, odd ASHG core concepts”; “NGSS+DCI, even ASHG core concepts”; and “NGSS+DCI, odd ASHG core concepts” (“even” and “odd” refer to the numbering of the concepts in Fig 1). Concepts were divided by number rather than topic category (e.g., nature of genetic material, genetic variation) so that each group analyzed fewer concepts overall, but still considered a similar breadth of content. Each of the four groups contained 23 reviewers from the full reviewer pool, and groups were matched for select demographic characteristics as described in the pilot analysis. No reviewers from the pilot analysis participated in the full analysis.

Bottom Line: We found that expert reviewers cannot identify ASHG core concepts within the new standards with high reliability, suggesting that the scope of content addressed by the standards may be inconsistently interpreted.Finally, state standards vary widely in their coverage of genetics concepts when compared with the NGSS.On average, however, the NGSS support genetic literacy better than extant state standards.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: American Society of Human Genetics, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Science standards have a long history in the United States and currently form the backbone of efforts to improve primary and secondary education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Although there has been much political controversy over the influence of standards on teacher autonomy and student performance, little light has been shed on how well standards cover science content. We assessed the coverage of genetics content in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) using a consensus list of American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) core concepts. We also compared the NGSS against state science standards. Our goals were to assess the potential of the new standards to support genetic literacy and to determine if they improve the coverage of genetics concepts relative to state standards. We found that expert reviewers cannot identify ASHG core concepts within the new standards with high reliability, suggesting that the scope of content addressed by the standards may be inconsistently interpreted. Given results that indicate that the disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) included in the NGSS documents produced by Achieve, Inc. clarify the content covered by the standards statements themselves, we recommend that the NGSS standards statements always be viewed alongside their supporting disciplinary core ideas. In addition, gaps exist in the coverage of essential genetics concepts, most worryingly concepts dealing with patterns of inheritance, both Mendelian and complex. Finally, state standards vary widely in their coverage of genetics concepts when compared with the NGSS. On average, however, the NGSS support genetic literacy better than extant state standards.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus