Developing Science Curriculum in a Culture of Controversy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school
Science Education, 2003
pair of teachers, Amanda and Geoff, who developed a strong collegial relationship as beginning teachers working across the hall from each other, and draws further on the interaction between Bill and Johanna working together in the same classroom. Eight aspects, or dimensions, that capture the qualities of collaboration are developed from the case material in this chapter. The other chapter in this section, Chapter 9, is about research ethics, and dwells more on the collaboration between teachers and researchers. The experiences of Malcolm and Simon, two teachers who voiced objection to the way their teaching was characterized by researchers, illustrate one set of considerations about research ethics. Mr. Ward's story is revisited also, in terms of creating a narrative that looked at the situation more from the teacher's point of view than the requirements of the new syllabus. Finally, issues raised by the authors of a casebook of teachers' stories, each accompanied by commentaries from other teachers, are examined in light of standard ethical procedures of anonymity and informed consent. In Section V (Chapter 10, "Conclusion"), the authors draw together the threads of the preceding four sections to comment on the possibility of change in education, specifically science education, in view of the complexity of teacher learning as developed in this book. It is here that they discuss the "constructivist paradox," a phrase that gives a lot of meaning to the disappointing results of many curriculum change efforts. While the authors don't provide any recipes (that would be a different book), they certainly develop a sound argument to support their contention that curriculum reform efforts regularly underestimate the significance of teacher learning as a vital aspect of successful implementation. From this book, though, comes a kind of calculus of the events of science curriculum change that is adequate to the task of understanding why change takes so long and requires so much effort. Teacher educators, school system consultants, department heads, and educational policy makers would benefit from a close reading of this work. Probably this would best be done in a collaborative setting that permits the richness of the material to be discussed and savoured, the developing argument to be assessed, and plans of action to be considered.
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
2015
Many North American school districts and post-secondary academic institutions are acknowledging the importance of becoming a critical thinker. Future citizens will need to be to informed consumers of technology, science, sociology, and ethics, to name a few. After all, the world has become vastly more complicated, necessitating such skills as reasonableness and logical thinking. By engaging students at a crucial time in their developmental process, we can lay the foundation for good critical thinkers. The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance of critical thinking in science education, both at the secondary and post-secondary levels. Evidence regarding its suitability will be drawn from critical thinking and science education literature, as well as previous studies using bioethical decision-making and generic question stem strategies with middle school and university students.