Attending to the public understanding of science education: A response to Furtak and Penuel

This commentary is a response to Furtak and Penuel (2019), and raises four key points. The first is to reframe Furtak and Penuel's argument as an appeal for a public understanding of science education, and by extension, science education reform. The second is to note that such a public understanding of science education must include attention to more than the structure and content of science curricula and the enactment of a "practice turn"; it must also include a robust vision of science pedagogy-something that is markedly absent from the recent Next Generation Science Standards and Framework documents. The third is to make the case that the use of terminology like "hands-on" is really a marker for a conception of science education, and by attempting to communicate a competing model of science education, reformers are aiming to effect conceptual change among the public about science education itself. Finally, I argue that logical and rational efforts to communicate a public understanding of science education are likely to fall short if affective factors-which are highly activated when discussing science and science education publicly-are not taken into account.