Using Social Issues as Contexts for K-16 Science Education

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:

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

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:

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:

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 NSES envision a focus on inquiry to change from similar contrasts between specific less to more emphasis conditions, including:

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

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