![]() |
Asia-Pacific
Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 5, Issue 1, Foreword
(Apr.,
2004) Robert E. YAGER Using Social Issues as Contexts for K-16 Science Education
|
The National Science Education Standards (NSES)
The National Science Education Standards (NSES) in the U.S. were published in 1996 after four years of debate and argument (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). The NSES cost a total of $7 million dollars—over $26,700 per page. No other set of standards required more than $250,000 of federal funding for the total effort. The Standards were meant to provide a vision for science education for a decade after their publication—or 2006. As that date approaches, there is every indication that the visions will not be realized—perhaps because STS reforms seem stalled. The focus on social issue was envisioned by the thousands involved with producing the NSES. Examples included illustrate STS—but the focus is missed when users seem to revert to developing a new order for considering the concepts and skills identified as important. Perhaps far too little attention has been directed to the Professional Development Standards and those directed at changing school programs and the system of schooling in the U.S.
There was debate concerning who would develop the NSES. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) volunteered to head the efforts with their Project 2061 efforts underway—surely “Science for All Americans” provides a wonderful philosophical basis for reforms (AAAS, 1989). The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) was also involved in developing its Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project (SS&C) prior to 1992 (NSTA, 1992). SS&C actually enjoyed more NSF funding over a seven year period than Project 2061 and operated initially in six states and later in nearly 30 independent districts. On the other hand, Project 2061 operated in only six school districts in the U.S. where the goals of Project 2061 were implemented. NSTA offered its expertise and work with SS&C as important as NSF sought to fund the development of National Standards—after realizing the value of the NCTM Standards in mathematics. In the case of NCTM no federal funding was provided to prepare the Standards. With the debate between AAAS and NSTA the compromise was to have the science standards developed by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science with input from the leadership of both AAAS and NSTA. The climate for funding and developing national standards had changed and the value seen for the new directions as each discipline in the basic school curriculum moved to the preparation of their own standards—most with significant national funding.
The NSES goals were meant to frame the teaching, staff development, assessment, content, program, and system efforts as visions for change and reform were developed. These goals represent a step beyond those central to Harms’ earlier Project Synthesis. The four goals (justifications) for K-12 science include preparing students who:
experience the richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the natural world:
use appropriate scientific processes and principles in making personal decisions;
engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about matters of scientific and technological concern; and
increase their economic productivity through the use of the knowledge, understanding, and skills of the scientifically literate person in their careers.
(NRC, 1996, p.13)
The similarities of the NSES goals for science education resemble those used with the 1978-81 Project Synthesis. The big difference is the elimination of the academic preparation goal that was included in the Project Synthesis research. The NSES indicate that academic preparation is an unimportant goal—one not appropriate for most K-12 students. In its place is goal number one as indicated above. For many this goal is the most important one for school science. If students were to experience the whole sequence that characterizes real science, all the other goals could be achieved more easily. Basically, the goals do not suggest any content or any glamorized process skills that must be transmitted or experienced for their own sake. Paul Brandwein has called for teachers and schools to insure that each high school graduate have one full experience with science (Brandwein, 1983). He suggested that this would create a revolution in science education— something we still badly need. Some STS enthusiasts suggest that one such experience each year would be a better goal during the K-12 years—a 13 year continuum of science in school—and perhaps one each 9-week grading period would be an even better goal!
Although many are willing to state that goal one is most important—perhaps worthy of 50% of our efforts, the other three goals all exemplify the philosophy and goals of the STS approach to science in schools.
The NSES close each chapter with a summary that indicates the typical situation where less emphasis should be given and more emphasis conditions that correspond to each less emphasis one. In a very real sense the “more emphasis” descriptors represent the NSES visions for change and the reforms for which so many yearn. Again, these more emphasis conditions represent well what STS efforts are about.
The teaching standards are recognized as basic and of utmost importance. These standards appear right after the goals and introductory definitions. This indicates their importance. Interestingly, there was little debate or any problems with the visions for changing teaching as the NSES were developed. Teachers, science educators, scientists, and the many revisions of the early drafts of the NSES were supportive of the contrasts the “teaching” team for NSES proposed. These changes in emphasis for teaching include:
Less Emphasis
More Emphasis
Treating all students alike and responding to the group as a whole
Understanding and responding to individual student’s interests, strengths, experiences, and needs
Rigidly following curriculum
Selecting and adapting curriculum
Focusing on student acquisition of information
Focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes
Presenting scientific knowledge through lecture, text, and demonstration
Guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiry
Asking for recitation of acquired knowledge
Providing opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students
Testing students for factual information at the end of the unit or chapter
Continuously assessing student understanding
Maintaining responsibility and authority
Sharing responsibility for learning with students
Supporting competition
Supporting a classroom community with cooperation, shared responsibility, and respect
Working alone
Working with other teachers to enhance the science program
(NRC, 1996, p. 52)
The visions for effective Staff Development programs follow the teaching standards. It is of interest to point out that these standards were added in the final stages of preparation of the published version of the Standards. There were no special working committees for them. But, preparing teachers for the kind of teaching and assessment envisioned and for dealing with a new definition for science content made the need for Professional Development Standards obvious for all. The fourteen changes in emphasis envisioned for Professional Staff Development programs include:
Less Emphasis
More Emphasis
Transmission of teaching knowledge and skills by lectures
Inquiry into teaching and learning
Learning science by lecture and reading
Learning science through investigation and inquiry
Separation of science and teaching knowledge
Integration of science and teaching knowledge
Separation of theory and practice
Integration of theory and practice in school settings
Individual learning
Collegial and collaborative learning
Fragmented, one-shot sessions
Long-term coherent plans
Courses and workshops
A variety of professional development activities
Reliance on external expertise
Mix of internal and external expertise
Staff developers as educators
Staff developers as facilitators, consultants and planners
Teacher as technician
Teacher as intellectual, reflective practitioner
Teacher as consumer of knowledge about teaching
Teacher as producer of knowledge about teaching
Teacher as follower
Teacher as leader
Teacher as an individual based in a classroom
Teacher as a member of a collegial professional community
Teacher as target of change
Teacher as source and facilitator of change
(NRC, 1996, p. 72)
Assessment is a basic ingredient of science. The NSES elaborate a central role since assessment (evidence gathering) is such a critical facet of the science enterprise. Changes in Assessment are included before any consideration of content or a curriculum structure. The visions for desired assessment practices in the Standards include:
Less Emphasis
More Emphasis
Assessing what is easily measured
Assessing what is most highly valued
Assessing discrete knowledge
Assessing rich, well-structured knowledge
Assessing scientific knowledge
Assessing scientific understanding and reasoning
Assessing to learn what students do not know
Assessing to learn what students do understand
Assessing only achievement
Assessing achievement and opportunity to learn
End of term assessments by teachers
Students engaged in ongoing assessment of their work and that of others
Development of external assessments by measurement experts alone
Teachers involved in the development of external assessments
(NRC, 1996 p. 100)
A major direction with respect to content was the identification of eight facets of content. These eight change the focus from a traditional discipline focus and a listing of major concepts under each discipline heading to a much broader listing that is more indicative of the goals (justifications) for science in K-12 schools. These eight facets of content elaborated in NSES are: 1) Unifying Concepts and Processes; 2) Science as Inquiry; 3) Physical Science; 4) Life Science; 5) Earth and Space Science; 6) Science and Technology; 7) Science in Personal and Social Perspectives; and 8) History and Nature of Science.
Just as goal one is considered the most important one, content focus is similarly considered the most important. It was envisioned as being so basic that it was first thought to be included as the preamble for each content section of NSES. However, many felt that too many would simply move to a new listing of basic discipline-bound concepts and ignore the preamble. Although life, physical, and earth/space science still appear, some lists combine them into a listing of basic science concepts as a single content focus—thereby suggesting a more integrated approach to the major concepts comprising modern science. Major debates occurred in identifying these eight content constructs and the specific content included in each of the “discipline-bound” content areas. For many persons interested in the NSES, the first look is at these lists of concepts (and, sometimes many do not even look at the goals and/or the visions elaborated concerning changes in teaching, staff development, and/or assessment).
Important for STS and the reforms it advances are the four other content facets, namely: science for meeting personal and societal challenges (referring to goals 2 & 3), technology (which now enjoys a whole set of standards produced by International Technology Education Association [ITEA, 2000]), and the history and philosophy of science, and science as inquiry.
The more emphasis conditions for inquiry represent what STS is all about and indicate why the use of social issues is considered essential. The more emphasis conditions for inquiry are meant to reverse the failures in 1981 for finding examples of teaching science by inquiry in U.S. schools. After the Project Synthesis report, Paul DeHart Hurd (Hurd, 1978) reported:
“The development of enquiry skills as a major goal of instruction in science appears to have had only a minimal effect on secondary school teaching. The rhetoric about enquiry and process teaching greatly exceeds both the research on the subject and the classroom practice. The validity of the enquiry goal itself could profit from more scholarly interchange and confrontation even if it is simply to recognize that science is not totally confined to logical processes and data-gathering”
(Hurd, 1978, p. 62).
The NSES envision a focus on inquiry to change from similar contrasts between specific less to more emphasis conditions, including:
Less Emphasis
More Emphasis
Activities that demonstrate and verify science content
Activities that investigate and analyze science questions
Investigations confined to one class period
Investigations over extended periods of time
Process skills out of context
Process skills in context
Emphasis on individual process skills such as observation or inference
Using multiple process skills—manipulation, cognitive, procedural
Getting an answer
Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation
Science as exploration and experiment
Science as argument and explanation
Providing answers to questions about science content
Communicating science explanations
Individuals and groups of students analyzing and synthesizing data without defending a conclusion
Groups of students often analyzing and synthesizing data after defending conclusions
Doing few investigations in order to leave time to cover large amounts of content
Doing more investigations in order to develop understanding, ability, values of inquiry and knowledge of science content
Concluding inquiries with the result of the experiment
Applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations
Management of materials and equipment
Management of ideas and information
Private communication of student ideas and conclusions to teacher
Public communication of student ideas and work to classmates
(NRC, 1996, p. 113)
Copyright (C) 2004 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 5, Issue 1, Foreword (Apr., 2004). All Rights Reserved.