Lessons from the Past: Reviewing How We Teach Science, What’s Changed, and Why It Matters (original) (raw)

Overview: Science curriculum reform

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2007

Science education in the United States is once again in the midst of reform. As of this writing, numerous publicly funded materials development projects and teacher preparation and enhancement programs, as well as private foundation and business supported initiatives are underway. The reform efforts are bound by a common theme: to ensure a scientifically literate citizenry for the 21st century. But a perceived challenge to our world dominance in technological markets is providing fuel to the fires of reform. Whereas the "need to catch up with the Russians" following the launching of Sputnik stimulated curricular reforms in the 60s and 70s, reports such as A narion at risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and Educating Americans for the 2Zst century (National Science Board, 1983) spurred current reform efforts. The recently published America 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 1991) and Educating America: State strategies for achieving the national education goals (National Governors' Association Task Force on Education, 1990) continue to fan the flames of reform. Current reform initiatives beg the basic questions: "Where are we going in this reform?' "Why are we going there?" and "How will we get there?' In this Special Issue we have gathered articles that directly or indirectly address one or more of these questions. The collection begins with an article by us that emerged from a meeting held in conjunction with the NARST and NSTA conventions held in Atlanta in April, 1990. A group of about 35 persons with interests in science curricula and educational reform offered ideas and raised questions about science curriculum reform. The discussions were broad ranging, and critical issues regarding the where, why, and how of science curriculum reform were identified. A consistent theme emerged from discussions at the meeting: that science and school cannot be isolated from the larger societal and cultural context. There seemed to be a further consensus that science curriculum reform involves much more than producing new materials and retraining teachers. In our article, "Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform," we have attempted to capture that broad theme and the specific issues raised by participants. As you read our report of the Atlanta meeting, you will no doubt see that it echoes many of the issues raised in the report of the 1986 Berkeley conference, "Establishing a research base for science education: Challenges, trends, and recommendations" (Linn, 1987).

Science education reform: Building on the research base

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2007

Those concerned with science education are united in calling for reform, yet divided in specifying the nature of this reform. Several recent conferences (Gardner et al., 1990; Linn, 1987b; Shymansky & Kyle, 1992) have focused on reform as a joint collaborative process involving experts in cognition, science education, precollege teaching, the subject matter disciplines, teacher preparation, and curriculum design. This article (a) contrasts several perspectives on science education reform by examining recommendations for introductory science courses, (b) identifies research findings that can guide reform, (c) discusses the impact of research on national precollege curriculum reform, and (d) offers a set of recommendations to guide research and practice concerned with science education reform.

K–12 science education reform—a primer for scientists

1999

refocused public attention on current deficiencies in science education for US students and possible solutions for its improvement. Reports resulting from TIMSS, a 5-year international project comparing curricula and achievement in 50 countries, ranked twelfth-grade US student performance-among the lowest of participating countries in general knowledge of mathematics and science and more specific knowledge of physics and advanced math (NCES 1998). However, at the same time a new vision of science education for K-12 students has emerged. This vision, which calls for excellence in science education for all children, is expressed in the NRC Standards, which, along with Project 2061's Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS 1993), provides recommendations and guidelines for student learning, classroom practices, teacher professional development, and overall organization of educational systems. Development, writing, and review of the NRC Standards involved more than 18,000 people over a 4-year period, including classroom teachers, science educators, engineers, scientists from a variety of disciplines, and representatives from 22 science education and scientific organizations (NRC 1997). NRC Standards are voluntary, yet they are being adapted and applied by local school districts throughout the country, as well as by state educational organizations responsible for creating or implementing educational guidelines. The NRC Standards clearly identifies the need for ongoing partnerships among scientists, teacher educators, teachers, and school districts as a way to address shortcomings in the nation's current approaches to science education. Although such partnerships can take many forms, it is almost universally accepted that K-12 science education improves when scientists contribute their knowledge and skills (Wheeler 1998). For most scientists, the world of K-12 education is long forgotten, left in a distant past before years of advanced study. Even scientists with children sometimes find the K-12 culture of teaching and learning-with its own vocabulary, policies, and procedures-difficult to enter and navigate. In addition, members of the science community can unintentionally intimidate teachers and nonscientists and, at the same time, ignore the realities and challenges facing science education today. A useful beginning step toward enhancing the ability of scientists to work with teachers and schools is to promote basic understanding of the issues by all participants. Scientists, teachers, school administrators, and parents all need to recognize the contributions that each of them can make and be able to talk about their potential contributions using a common language. Mutual understanding of key concepts, approaches, strengths, weaknesses, and barriers is especially important in helping all parties to communicate clearly and work together in meaningful ways. Many scientists now active in science education reform have discovered that this growing field has developed its own vocabulary-borrowed from both science and traditional education. Simple words and phrases, such as "assessment," "cooperative

SCIENCE EDUCATION AT THE CROSSROADS

2005

Abstract Science education seeks to change society, but does little to produce change in itself. Our initial effort into changing ourselves and our discipline resulted in Science Education at the Crossroads. This conference brought together stakeholders in science education to present their problems, rather than research results, and discuss methods of addressing these. In this paper, we describe this conference, its development, and its future.

Viewpoint: What we did not learn from the 60s about science curriculum reform

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2007

An analysis of our efforts with curriculum reform in science during the 60s is offered. Failure to state the problems and to engage all those interested, involved, and affected is noted. Instead of proceeding with the same tactics and using the same rationale for new reforms, a rationale for focusing upon instructional goals and enlarging the research and development team is presented. Basically, a call for treating science curriculum reform as a science rather than an art is advocated. 0