Comparison of Science and Engineering Concepts in Next Generation Science Standards with Jordan Science Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this Science Standards Content Crosswalk study is to compare the degree of alignment between Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and Jordan’s science standards in K-8. A team of 5 science educators worked together to review each NGSS standard and decide whether there is a conceptual match for it in current Jordan science standards. Rigorous content analysis and interpretation approach was used to make decisions about matches between both sets of standards. Results revealed significant misalignments between the science learning outcomes identified by NGSS and those of Jordan. Results also showed that, Physical Sciences concepts had the highest percentage (58%) of not addressed concepts in 3-5 grade band followed by Earth and Space Sciences (42%) and Life Sciences concepts (36%). However, the highest percentage of not addressed concepts in grade band 6-8 were Earth and Space Sciences (58%) followed by Physical Sciences (46%) and Life Sciences (36%) concepts. This finding can support projections of the needs for new instructional materials and for subject-specific teachers’ professional development. The results also provide a clear direction for the newly established national center for curriculum to revise the national science standards and curricula.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".