What is Next?: Tracing the Impact of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with PISA scores

• In Event: Poster Group 4
  In Poster Session: What is Next?: Tracing the Impact of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with PISA scores

Proposal

The NGSS was introduced in 2013, and its fundamental vision for teaching science to all students has been found valuable by many scholars (Lee et al., 2014). NGSS emphasizes science learning for all students, specifically for economically-disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, and girls (NGSS, 2013, p.2), besides the importance of teacher support (NGSS, 2013). A positive attitude towards school and a higher sense of belonging of students have also been found to increase academic achievement (OECD, 2022).
According to the Utilization-Focused Evaluation Theory (Patton, 2008), the evaluation method should be designed considering the needs of stakeholders. A few studies evaluate the effects of NGSS-aligned curriculums on students’ academic achievement (Priester, 2019). I conducted multilevel analyses of PISA 2012 and 2018 science ability scores of the students (Please see Tables 1-4) in the US to understand:
- To what extent does students’ science performance vary between US schools?
- Do students' sense of belonging, perceived teacher support, attitude towards school, language and immigrant status, sex, economic, social, and cultural status predict the students’ science ability?
- Do the mentioned predictors for the science ability of students differ between 2012 and 2018?
Findings (Please see Tables 5 and 6) show that 16.5% of the variance in science scores of students is attributed to differences between schools, while 83.5% is due to differences between students within schools. It has been found that all within-school variables provided statistically significant contributions to the science achievement scores of the students in the US. Being female and having a lower SES negatively affected science achievement scores. The attitude towards school, perceived teacher support, and being an immigrant positively impacted the science ability in both years. However, the sense of belonging and ELL status negatively affected students' science scores. Creative extracurricular activities had statistically significant positive effects on students' science scores in both years. The effect of educational staff shortage was statistically significant only for PISA 2012 but not for 2018. Finally, being in public or private school had no significant effect.
The participants of PISA 2012 and PISA 2018 were different, and the coefficients of predictors cannot be numerically compared. However, the difference in predicting the ability of the same predictors for 2012 and 2018 PISA science achievement scores can be interpreted with the help of standard errors of coefficients. No difference has been found in the coefficients of predictors between PISA 2012 and PISA 2018.
These findings can be read in two ways. If PISA scores can measure students' academic achievement, and NGSS did not help increase US students' science scores, NGSS might need rethinking. If NGSS has been helpful for science teaching in classrooms, and PISA scores could not determine this change, we need to reconsider what PISA is for. In both options, we must challenge our understanding of standards and see that “another world is possible.” I would like to share my findings and solution recommendations as a refereed roundtable presentation in CIES 2024.

Author

• Bilgehan Ayik, George Mason University