Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2002)
Peter AUBUSSON and Kevin WATSON
Packaging constructivist Science teaching in a curriculum resource
Previous Contents Next
Introduction

This paper reports the trial implementation in secondary schools of a science curriculum package in an Australian State, New South Wales (NSW). The trial was a collaborative project among the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), NSW Department of Education and Training (DET) and University of Western Sydney (UWS). The package trialed was a USA curriculum project (BSCS, 1994), Investigating Patterns of Change. The curriculum package claimed to employ a constructivist approach to learning and teaching using five phases, known as the 5Es (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate) (Bybee, 1997). The engage phase is designed to promote interest and motivation. During this phase the emphasis is on activities to arouse curiosity, puzzle students and raise questions for further investigation. The Explore phase provides students with, usually similar, practical experiences. During this phase students continue to raise questions, listen to the views of others and begin to investigate different phenomena. Students are encouraged to express and share views while value judgements about views are suspended. In the explain phase students explain their findings to others and their ideas are subjected to greater scrutiny. During this phase, the teacher introduces relevant scientific explanations. By the end of the explain phase students should have developed greater understanding of phenomena under investigation. The emphasis in the elaborate phase is on students applying their new understandings, developed during previous phases, to a range of familiar and unfamiliar situations. During this phase, students can see how fruitful their new ideas are. This phase is important as it allows students to see how well their ideas work in a range of contexts. The evaluate phase is the final phase. Here students' understanding is assessed formally and students are encouraged to reflect on and question the ideas which they have developed. (For a more detailed outline of the 5Es, see Bybee, 1997). Each lesson taught involves aspects of each phase, and each phase should be evident in the planning and implementation of the unit as a whole (Bybee, 1997).

It would be simplistic to suggest that the BSCS curriculum project was based solely on constructivist principles. A range of popular trends and broad movements in science education has influenced them including: Science, Technology and Society approaches; the teacher proof curriculum projects with their origins in the post-sputnik era; the 'big ideas in science' view of school curriculum and the nature and history of science and its implications for science education. In addition, views on assessment, language development, cooperative learning, learning styles, problem solving, the interests of students and what students should know (see introductions to BSCS) have all influenced the development of the package (BSCS, 1994). Consequently, the BSCS package is a product of varied, interrelated and complex influences using a constructivist teaching approach where 'students construct rather than absorb new ideas and where learners actively generate meaning from experience' (Bell, 1993, p. 23). One reason for the trial of the package was the success of the AAS sponsored Primary Investigations curriculum package (Swanage & Lane, 1999), which is also based on a similar constructivist (5Es) approach.

Constructivism as a theory of learning (Richardson, 1997) has been an influential movement in science education research over the past two decades (Matthews, 1998; Tsai, 1998). A fundamental principle of constructivism is that people construct meaning and therefore have 'knowledge' based on their life experiences (Fensham, Gunstone & White, 1994; Driver, Asomo, Leach, Mortimer & Scott, 1994). As a result, students bring prior knowledge to the classroom that is resistant to change because it is powerfully explanatory since it is based on personal, real life evidence and therefore influences the learning of related concepts. If students bring alternative (less scientific) views to the classroom, the task of the teacher is to promote student consideration of alternative ideas which make better sense of the world (Carr, Barker, Bell, Biddulph, Jones, Kirkwood, Pearson & Symington, 1994). The teacher is requiring students to change their concepts from those they have formulated through experience to others that more closely resemble the accepted scientific view (Skamp, 1998). Strike and Posner (1992) formulated a set of conditions under which this sort of conceptual change (learning) could occur. In brief, these conditions are that the student must perceive dissatisfaction with the conceptions they currently hold, that the new or replacement conceptions must be intelligible and appear plausible and that the new conceptions should suggest the possibility of a fruitful program of future investigation.

There have been a number of studies that have incorporated a constructivist perspective on teaching and learning. These include the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL) (see eg. Baird and Northfield, 1992), the Learning in Science Project in New Zealand (see eg Osborne & Freyberg, 1985) and the Leeds University science projects beginning with Children's Learning in Science (CLIS) in the UK (See eg, Scott, Dyson & Gater, 1987; Millar, Leach & Osborne, 2000). There have been varied efforts to design curriculum support materials, which incorporate a constructivist perspective on teaching and learning and assist teachers to implement this approach (Windschitl & Andre, 1998; Rhagavan, Sartoris & Glaser, 1998). However, these curriculum initiatives do not provide support materials intended to be a complete teaching/learning package. The BSCS project is informed by similar constructivist views of learning to those which underpin these other projects. The phases of the 5Es teaching approach are similar to steps or stages specified in recommended teaching approaches in other projects. For example, the learning and teaching practices in the 5Es approach are very similar to the four steps recommended in the LISP Interactive Teaching Approach (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985), where the phases are preliminary, focus, challenge and apply. They are also akin to the five stages of the CLIS project, orientation, elicitation of ideas, restructuring ideas, application of ideas, review and change in ideas (Scott, Dyson & Gater, 1987). What is unusual about the BSCS project is that it represents an attempt to incorporate its constructivist teaching approach (5Es) into a complete curriculum package with a text book and teacher resources to enable teachers to implement constructivist teaching in their science classes.

A Queensland study of the implementation of the 'Earth science' section of Investigating Patterns of Change, reported that teachers found some of the materials inappropriate for students. However, the introduction of new teaching methods, particularly cooperative learning, did result in, at least, short-term improvement in student attitudes to the learning of science (McRobbie, Watters & Diezmann, 1999). The 5Es instructional model was also used in a primary science curriculum package, Primary Investigations (AAS, 1994), which was first introduced in Western Australia. This package has been used extensively by teachers in a number of Australian states to promote learning in science (Swanage & Lane, 1999). A contributing factor in its success was the extensive use of professional development associated with the introduction of new materials (Venville, Wallace & Louden, 1998).

A point made in PEEL (Baird & Northfield, 1992) was that teachers needed both time and support if they were to implement constructivist teaching approaches. The need for extensive professional development, including interaction with peers, to assist teachers to develop constructivist approaches has been identified in reviews of teacher development particularly in the PEEL and LISP projects (Bell & Gilbert, 1996; Loughran & Northfield, 1996). Furthermore, it was recognised that teachers do not simply shift from their initial teaching styles to implement constructivist approaches but gradually built an approach where they work with students ideas; ascertaining student understanding, intellectually engaging with students ideas and encouraging students to question and challenging these ideas (Bell & Gilbert, 1996; Loughran & Northfield, 1996). Other studies have emphasised that change in the classroom cannot be brought about by the imposition of curriculum directives, and that teachers must control the pace and direction of development (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Fullan, 1991). A curriculum package alone cannot guarantee change in the classroom. It is also likely that, by itself, professional development in the use of teaching strategies may not be enough. An investigation of the use of conceptual change teaching strategies by life science teachers found that the teaching strategies were useful but could not be implemented without appropriate curriculum materials (Smith, Blakeslee & Anderson, 1993). Thus, both appropriate professional development and the selection of an appropriate curriculum package are likely to be necessary factors for the successful implementation of curriculum initiatives. Consequently, the research question investigated by this study is, does the BSCS curriculum package combined with a professional development program enhance teaching and learning in lower secondary science.

Copyright (C) 2002 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 3, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2002). All Rights Reserved.