A Conceptual Framework for the Consideration of Science Education Reformin Thegreenwich

1

A Conceptual Framework for the Consideration of Science Education Reformin theGreenwich Public Schools

Prepared by

David M. Moss, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Science Education

University of Connecticut

Respectfully submitted to the Board of Education, Greenwich Public Schools

November 20, 2008
Table of Contents

Executive Summary3

Conceptual Framework for Excellence in Science Education8

A Brief History of Science Education8

International Perspectives13

Standards and Science Education18

Conceptual Learning24

Curriculum Reform28

Nature of Science37

Greenwich Public Schools and Science Education41

Science Curriculum41

Inquiry53

State Testing55

A Road Map for Reform57

Bibliography62

About the Author66

Executive Summary

This document presents a research-based conceptual framework to be used for considering the reform of the K-12 science education program in the Greenwich Public Schools (GPS). This report is written in two distinct sections. The first section is titled, Conceptual Framework for Excellence in Science Education and addresses a timely and comprehensive vision for the reform of the GPS K-12 science education program. This element of the report is divided into six sub-sections: A Brief History of Science Education; International Perspectives; Standards and Science Education; Conceptual Learning; Curriculum Reform; and the Nature of Science. The second major section of the report is titled, Greenwich Public Schools and Science Education and offers a succinct review of the current state of science education in the GPS.[1] It is presented in four sub-sections: Science Curriculum, Inquiry, State Testing, and A Roadmap for Reform.

The history of science education offers considerable insight into current barriers for curriculum reform. Perhaps most urgent is the need for crafting a shared vision for science literacy as a foundation upon which to pursue reform strategies which overcome the false dichotomies of content vs. inquiry and memorization vs. learning. Key questions to consider include: What value does science hold for individuals and society? What are the most effective ways to promote learning in the sciences? How should science education be structured in formal educational settings?

Traditional science programs that prevail in many countries, including the U.S., convey science as a massive body of authoritative and unquestionable knowledge. Reform-minded international perspectives on science education (beyond the U.S.) generally recognize the urgent need for individuals to acquire the skills of independent learning and inquiry, an understanding of science-related social issues, and the impact of technological change. Perhaps most noteworthy is that top-performing countries from cross-national studies emphasize science-technology-society issues (STS) in conjunction with science investigations underpinned by timely and relevant science content. That is, the application of science concepts is more important than learning science information as merely an end in itself.

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) and associated documents have recently emerged as the preeminent and most comprehensive sources for guidance in the reform of science education. Beyond the content standards themselves, which are the most cited element of the publication, the NSES includes standards for science education programs and systems, assessment standards, science teaching standards, and professional development standards. Together these offer a comprehensive blueprint for reform. Of the content standards, the one that is perhaps least understood is the History and Nature of Science. This standard goes far beyond what traditional content-centered curriculum typically offer, and is consistent with what researchers are calling for in the reform of science education.

Up until the 1970’s, a behaviorist learning paradigm dominated educational psychologists’ thinking regarding curriculum and instructional design, leading to extensive rote memorization as common classroom practice. In contrast, enduring learning is a process that leads to long-term change across three domains: Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Empirical research confirms that in science education, students’ prior knowledge might be the single most important factor to consider in the learning process. The “clever” student will “learn” what the teacher is espousing in class and typically score well on traditional classroom assessments, which typically demand little more than the recall of the definition of scientific terminology, but we run the significant risk of graduating students who are unprepared to take on the responsibilities of a scientifically literate adult. Curriculum should spiral across the K-12 continuum in a deep and comprehensive manner. Thus, the vast number of isolated topics attempted in many curricula may need to be reconsidered in favor of an approach that would yield conceptual learning. In this way less can indeed be more.

Inquiry continues to play a major role in the reform of science education. Distinguishing between inquiry as an instructional approach (essentially a method for learning science content) and inquiry as an outcome in itself (as a learning objective in its own right) is perhaps the most critical distinction to make. Confusion in science classrooms typically arises when the curriculum confounds these various definitions of inquiry, and the teacher is unsure about whether they are teaching about inquiry or with inquiry.

Teaching explicitly for science literacy using a Nature of Science approach usually requires a significant revision of science education programs. The Nature of Science is a multi-faceted and rich construct such that the cut and dry beliefs of right and wrong answers in science are replaced with complex nuances of perspectives backed by varying degrees of evidence. An understanding of the Nature of Science is viewed by many researchers as the single most important element of a curriculum designed to promote science literacy. When the Nature of Science is explicitly viewed as central to the curriculum, science content then becomes the landscape upon which the notions of discovery, logical thinking, creativity, and ethical issues are explored. Science content is not marginalized; to the contrary, we are able to make strategic decisions about the importance or value of various science topics to be included in the curriculum. With scientific literacy as our educational goal we can sidestep the unreasonable desire to cover “all” content in favor of exploring the Nature of Science within the context of relevant and timely ideas from the life, physical, and earth & space sciences.

Conspicuously absent from the Greenwich Public School curriculum is the notion of fostering conceptual understandings of the Nature of Science in the pursuit of science literacy. At present, the GPS Science Objectives for the various grade levels offer evidence of a traditional comprehensive, topic-based curriculum. The district has clearly gone to significant lengths in recent years to take into account the Connecticut science framework from 2004, thus the issue is not that the state “standards” aren’t present in the curriculum materials – the concern is how they are incorporated. Although teachers may be covering the recommended areas for study in science, it is apparent that students in the GPS may not be learning the key concepts in a way that is meaningful and enduring. The lack of spiraling of concepts in the GPS science curriculum to promote conceptual understanding is prevalent across the K-12 continuum. That, along with the sheer number of objectives to be attempted, makes for a challenging curriculum to implement. The implicit message being sent to teachers is one of placing value on the coverage of content over depth of learning.

In summary, there is a comprehensive and rich content core to the existing GPS science curriculum. In fact, the extensive coverage of topics and concepts may serve to undermine the potential for conceptual learning by students. Mere exposure to a vast number of topics across the life, physical, and earth & space sciences does not automatically translate to lifelong learning. Such presentation of material by the teacher and its subsequent re-telling by students is not consistent with an enduring vision for conceptual understanding necessary for the development of science literacy. Although there are excellent elements of the GPS K-12 science sequence, there is significant room for further development to bring it in-line with research-supported practices of science education.

Conceptual Framework for Excellence in Science Education

A Brief History of Science Education

Schooling in the American colonial period emphasized the development of reading skills for younger pupils and the study of classical languages for more advanced students. Benjamin Franklin’s creation of the Philadelphia Academy in 1750 encouraged the teaching of new subjects such as agriculture, natural history, surveying, and navigation (DeBoer, 1991). Thus science education entered the American curriculum quite early on and was immediately viewed in competition with subjects taught in traditional “grammar” schools. Over 250 years later, the struggle for time and resources among subjects across the curriculum persists.

Over the next 100 years, until the mid-nineteenth century, much of science as we think of it today was taught through literature. Typically a book would tell a story in which the focus of the activities was a conversation between adults and children around subjects such as the planets or the structure of a housefly (Underhill, 1941). Although rich in science content, it is far from clear that the conveyance of content was the main purpose of these early readers. In one story from the period, a child observes a flower during a walk, and the father identifies and describes the various parts (stamen, pistol, petals, etc.) while emphasizing that the flower surpasses the ingenuity of man. When the child trips and falls, the father notes that if she was more careful and obeyed her mother she might have avoided a bloody knee. Using science content as a vehicle (or context), the aim was to promote moral virtues, such as obedience, supported by religious undertones.

By the mid-nineteenth century, principles from educational philosophers like Rousseau and Froebel impacted the field by bringing the notion of realism to the forefront of a rapidly expanding formal educational system – and thus advancing the idea that true learning comes about through experience. By the 1870’s children studied objects brought to class, such as rocks, metal wire, seeds, and ivory. Students were asked to observe objects and memorize appropriate adjectives that described them. It was widely believed that children could not reason well or generalize beyond their immediate context and thus memorizationwas synonymous with learning. Interestingly, this belief declined rapidly in the late 1800’s because mere memorization and recitation was seen as “sterile and remote from the lives of children” (Atkin & Black, 2007, p. 785). A vigorous resurgence of this belief would emerge in the 20th century driven by behaviorist psychology.

Perhaps one of the single most important developments in science education came about in the final decade of the nineteenth century. The seminal report of the Committee of Ten gave consistent form to secondary science curriculum across the United States as well as standardized college admission requirements (National Educational Association, 1893). Chaired by the president of Harvard University, Charles Eliot, the committee was composed of university presidents and school principals. Recommendations were made regarding the age each subject should be introduced, the number of years it should be taught, and the number of hours per week for instruction. Interestingly, it also distinguished between whether or not subject matter should differ for those select college bound students. Along with a diminished role for classical languages, there was a detailed recommendation that the sciences constitute 25 percent of the high school curriculum. Students in the 21st century essentially live with many of these 19th century recommendations.

The early 20th century brought a focus on nature study and good citizenship as a primary focus for science education. With rapid urbanization, nature study glorified rural life. Not unlike the environmental movement of today, there was a direct appeal for students to generate a deep sympathy with nature. As young citizens, students were asked to act responsibly on behalf of the shrinking natural world. Curriculum was developed purposively to be of interest to students, thus the use of myths and elaborate story telling became routine in science instruction. Two important trends were established in this period – an emphasis of the life sciences over the physical sciences and curriculum that was considered relevant to the times (DeBoer, 1991).

In the years leading up to the second world war Americans became increasingly aware of the impact science was having in daily life. Led by Columbia University Teachers College, an emphasis on the applications of science and technology permeated the curriculum. Science texts from that period described how automobiles and refrigerators worked. Students’ attitudes toward science became a primary area of interest and study (NSSE, 1932).

On October 4, 1957 science education changed forever. With the launch of the world’s fist artificial satellite, Sputnik I, the space age was ushered in along with major reforms of science and mathematics education, although the foundations for this new approach actually pre-dated this significant political and technological event by a number of years. The conspicuous influence of our country’s most outstanding research scientists on the K-12 curriculum brought a level of prestige and weight to this reform effort that was lacking in many previous movements. After all, these mostly theoretical and seemingly abstract scientists developed such extraordinary things as the atomic bomb and radar, and had been credited in helping end a prolonged war. In 1959 a conference at Woods Hole, Massachusetts brought together the top scientists, psychologists and curriculum developers to unify their work – with unparalleled support from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Jerome Bruner was charged with preparing the report from this gathering. At the core of this report was the notion that “…there is a continuity between what a scholar does on the forefront of his discipline and what a child does in approaching it for the first time…” (Bruner, 1960, p. 28). Thus, the notions of inquiry science and children as scientists became the battle cry of many progressive reform-minded science educators.

The 1960’s brought an extensive period of curriculum development in science education. With NSF support, projects in biology, the physical sciences, and the earth sciences were undertaken, and never had such large sums of public money been devoted to curriculum development. An inherent tension between science content (supported by the world-class scientists) and student centered inquiry approaches to science learning (backed by educators and psychologists) emerged – and persists today.

In the final decades of the twentieth century, with the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), science education shifted from a cold war mentality in which the best and brightest students were identified and encouraged to pursue science careers in the interest of national defense to one in which those same individuals would now work to remedy a perceived decline in the country’s economic competitiveness. Regardless, the sciences were still viewed by many policy makers as subjects in which only a select few could excel. By the mid-1980’s with the publication Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989) the notion of science literacy underpinned by the belief that science could best serve society by fostering a generation of informed citizens who could utilize science as a tool to better navigate the challenges of their daily lives became central to the reform agenda.

This shift in the principal aim for science education cannot be overstated. As we consider science curriculum for the 21st century, we must acknowledge the lessons learned across the centuries. We must begin by asking ourselves:

What value does science hold for individuals and society?

What are the most effective ways to promote learning in the sciences?

How should science education be structured in formal educational settings?

Although ostensibly school districts administer science programs to serve all students, there exists today a prevalence for cramming an ever expanding body of science content into those who will likely pursue advanced studies in science, although it was over a century ago that education professionals recognized that memorization and recitation in science was seen as “sterile and remote from the lives of children.” Moving beyond the false dichotomies of content vs. inquiry, science vs. other subjects, and memorization vs. learning, we have much to learn from the history of science education as we craft a renewed vision for the possibility of promoting literacy in science for all.

International Perspectives

Science learning occurs in a wide range of educational, social, cultural and political contexts, and various research-informed efforts in science education have been undertaken in countries all around the world in recent decades. Results from these international studies highlight important positive trends in science curriculum reform, and include:

An emphasis on teaching key conceptual issues in depth instead of covering an ever increasing amount of information;

Promoting science literacy for all students;

Alignment of curriculum and assessment;

Providing more encouragement and support for teacher professional development (van den Akker, 1998).

Additionally, there has been an emphasis on lifelong learning combined with a greater importance placed on problem solving with a preference for active and investigatory learning. Keeves and Aikenhead (1995) note that international science education (beyond the U.S.) generally recognizes the urgent need for individuals to acquire the skills of independent learning and inquiry, an understanding of science-related social issues, and the impact of technological change.

Recent cross-national studies on student science learning, including Trends of International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Science and Scientists (SAS) provide valuable information on the state of science learning by participating countries, and have generated much interest among policy makers, educators and the general public alike. Perhaps the most prominent of these studies is TIMSS, in which assessment of pupil learning was conducted at five grade levels (U.S. equivalent grades 3,4,7,8, 12) in 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 (the 2007 data will be released on December 9, 2008). More than half a million students participate in each TIMSS assessment, which is now conducted in over 40 countries. Exhaustive statistics confirm the validity of the findings. TIMSS also investigates the state of science education through analysis of curriculum materials and interviews with teachers and administrators. Six content areas are covered in the test, including earth science, life science, physics, chemistry, environmental science, and scientific inquiry and the nature of science.