Contextualizing the environment in Next Generation Science Standards

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were developed by scientific and education organizations across the US. They aim to connect scientific content to scientific processes strategies so K-12 students understand more than scientific facts. The NGSS focuses on three discipline areas—physical science, life science, and earth and space science. This study suggests that there is a notable divide between general science education and environmental education. Environmental education takes a more holistic approach by developing knowledge, awareness, and appreciation for the planet to help citizens make informed decisions. On the other hand, science education is focused on hard science topics and practices. The researchers examined the how the environment is positioned in the NGSS and identified the implications for science education.

The NGSS utilizes performance expectations (PEs), also referred to as standards, which are assessable statements of what the students should understand after completing a lesson on a topic. Researchers read all PEs in the NGSS, then selected relevant PEs based on three criteria:
The inclusion of the word “environment” (or other referent)
The inclusion of the word “organism” (or other referent)
The description of an environmental issue

A total of 112 PEs were selected to be used in the study: 56 life sciences, 44 earth and space science, 7 physical science and 5 in engineering, technology, and society. The PEs were then organized into four categories—description of environment, description of organisms, framing of environmental problems, and other forms of positioning the environment. There were many PEs that did not fall into the “environmental problem” or “not an environmental problem” categories, so the researchers added a third category of “masked environmental problem”, where the role of humans in causing the problem is not clear. Some PEs were not categorized because of their wording and were placed into their own category.

The researchers found that the word “environment” or one of its referents was frequently used in the standards but was never defined. Its use was also inconsistent; the term environment was used in elementary and high school standards, but not in middle school standards. The environment was often portrayed as a vague image that omitted organisms, including humans, which could impact students' understanding of and reaction to environmental issues.

Within the PEs, the researchers noted that there were few references to organisms and the environment together. In some cases, organisms were intentionally divided from the term environment. Humans were mentioned as being part of the environment only twice in the NGSS, suggesting that students' concepts of environment did not include humans or their impacts. Overall, there was a distinct lack of humans as part of the environment, including their influential role over the environment.

Environmental problems were included in the NGSS, but often not explicitly. Of the 41 mentions of environmental problems in the PEs, causes of problems were generally broad and vague. Phrases such as human activity, abiotic/ biotic conditions, or access to resources were used to describe these issues. Human impact was distanced from environmental problems through this ambiguous language. Only 14 PEs included solutions to environmental problems. These solutions generally had a more technical focus, rather than inclusive of social or political options, again separating humans from environmental problems. The authors argued this disconnect is problematic, as it perpetuates the notion that humans are separate from the environment and detaches people from environmental responsibility.

This study had limitations. Performance expectations are not intended to limit curricula, meaning that some educators may add topics related to the environment into their individual curriculums. Also, this study pertains specifically to the NGSS, which is only used in 18 states in the United States. Other state curricula or science curricula in other countries may include environmental issues in different contexts.

The researchers had some recommendations. Science literacy standards, such as the NGSS, should include environmental education. Though the NGSS currently includes climate change and human sustainability, it is largely on a surface level and does not address the complex nature of these issues. The more holistic approach used in environmental education may be helpful in addressing these more complex topics and better promote positive change in human and environment relationships. The researchers emphasized the importance of additional research related to this topic to provide additional support for the inclusion of environmental education in future iterations of science education standards.