document resume ed 340 606 se 052 548 author title … · document resume. se 052 548. shymansky,...

ED 340 606

AUTHORTITLE

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTEPUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 052 548

Shymansky, James A.; Kyle, William C., Jr.Establishing a Research Agenda: The Critical Issuesof Science Curriculum Reform. Report of a ConferenceHeld at the Annual Meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching(Atlanta, Georgia, April 8, 1990).National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching.; National Science Foundation, Washington,D.C.

Mar 9158p.Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021) --Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120)

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.*Curriculum Development; *Educational Improvement;Elementary Secondary Education; *Research Needs;*Science Curriculum; Science Education

In April 1990 a group of 30 educational researchers,sociologists, scientists, analysts, and fund agency staff convenedfor a meeting to discuss issues critical to science curriculumreform. The meeting, stimulated by national calls for sciencecurriculum reform to prepare a scientifically literate citizenry, hadas its objective to generate a research specifications document thatcould be used by curriculum developers, educational policyresearchers, publishers of curriculum materials, funding agency staffand school personnel both to inform the process and gauge the impactof current science curriculum reform efforts. It was clear fromdiscussions and precis that the process of curriculum reform, likethe educational process itself, is embedded within myriadcultures--those of the classroom, school community, government, andthe larger society--and that a research agenda must necessarilyinclude not only questions about the influence of policy, values,beliefs, and commitments at each level, but also questions about theinteractions among these levels. This paper focusses on the report ofthat meeting, i.e., the nature of curriculum, the forces and factorsthat influence curriculum and reform, and recommendations forconducting research related to curriculum reform. Sections include:(1) "Executive Summary"; (2) "Participants"; (3) "The Need for a

Research Agenda"; (4) "Understanding Curriculum Reform"; (5)"Exploring Research Issues"; and (6) "Recommendations."Recommendations are as follows: (1) long-term, comprehensive researchprojects must be initiated; (2) communication and collaboration musthe valued; (3) teacher education must be transformed; and (4) newways to report curriculum reform research must be explored. (55notes) (KR)

*****A*******************A******************** ***** ********************

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

*****************************************A*****************************

1

ESTABLISHING A RESEARCH AGENDA:

THE CRITICAL ISSUES OF SCIENCECURRICULUM REFORM

U S DEPARTMENT OPEDMCATiONt ttloi ot I dri 0,-0441 Firvedtt h st+11 omprotroProot

t)1,7CATI(NAL RF S01..FFCF S INFORMATIONCA NT* R 1E171( r

Tr,,s dtx unnen, hol% Dorn rgyinnut 4K1epcp,.pd frprn {.4.,5fro of (agent:01.0norvIrkatoN1tMaNke TFlvi beew "AMP h, ,mrhve,rp,r,cho nridhlr

or Slate(1 ,n h dot

'new r nr>I etviso, ,,,prpspnf ftt,pt postfotr to polo

James A. Shymansky

William C. Kyle, Jr.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

1414-4-14-41443,--Ky-14-1.)--Jr-,

TO THE EDULATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER IERIC)

Report of a conference held April 8, 1990

Sponsored byThe National Association for Research in Science Teaching

Funded byThe National Science Foundation

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The conference was sponsored by the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching and supported by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching or the National Science Foundation.

Design and Production: John P. Campbell and Lois M. CampbellSecretarial Assistance: Vickie SandersArtwork: Emilie Copeland

ESTABLISHING A RESEARCH AGENDA:

THE CRITICAL ISSUES OF SCIENCECURRICULUM REFORM

James A. Shymansky

William C. Kyle, Jr.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Offriculum Reform

Table of Contents

Page iiiMarch 1991

Page

Executive Summary

Participants ix

The Need for a Research Agenda 1

Science, Technology, and Cultural Needs 1

Schooling Needs 5

Science Education Needs 7Research in Science Education Needs 10

A Formidable Challenge 12

Understanding Curriculum Reform 13

Reform...Refonn...Reformi 13

The Process of Reform 17

Rethinking Curriculum Research and Practice .......18Standard Setting vs. Standardized 22A Re-formed Curriculum 25

Exploring Research Issues 27

Exploring Cultural and Contextual Factors 28

Exploring Implementation 33Exploring the Impact 35The Foreseeable Future 37

Recommendations 39

Notes 41

Research on science curriculumreformmust become enculturatedimothe overall process of schoolrestructuring and curricular reform.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Reform

Executive Summary

Page vMarch 1991

On April 8, 1990, a group of science educators, researchers,sociologists, teachers, administrators, curriculum specialists, andpolicy makers convened to discuss the need to establish a researchagenda focusing upon the critical issues of science curriculum reform.The meeting, held at the Atlanta Hilton and Towers, was sponsored bythe National Association for Research in Science Teaching andfunded by the National Science Foundation.

The meeting was stimulated by the plethora of reports callingfor the reform of science education. It is widely recognized that theschooling process is not empowering students with the reasoning,thinldng, and problem solving skills requisite for full and criticalparticipation in a global society. The emerging consensus is thatscience curriculum refotm must be oriented clearly and effectivelytoward students' present and future human needs.

The meeting was premised on two assumptions: a) curriculumreform ought to be based on research, and b) curriculum reform oughtto be evaluated by research. The meeting's objectives were:

to discuss the key research issues related to sciencecurriculum reform, and

* to generate a research specifications document to bothinform the process and gauge the impact of reforminitiatives in science education.

The meeting participants were chosen from a wide range ofeducational and research communities to ensure a broad base ofdiscussion. Many of the participants had not met each other previouslyand few had collaborated professionally. Initially, several participantsexpressed reservations about how they might be able to contribute tothe shared discourse regarding research and reform in the context ofscience education. Indeed, owing to their varied backgrounds. aunique dialogue transpired.

Each conference participant was asked to prepare a précisidentifying critical issues or questions associated with sciencecurriculum reform. The collection of précis were mailed to allparticipants prior to the meeting. It was apparent from the précis andthe ensuing conference dialogue that the process of curriculum


Page viMarch 1991

reform, like the process of education, is embedded within myriadcultures each with its unique needs and concerns (e.g., theclassroom, school, community, local and state government, andsociety-at-large). Thus, a research agenda must embrace questionsabout the influence of policy, values, beliefs, and commitments ateach level. It must also address questions about the interactionsamong these levels. Moreover, research on science curriculumreform must become enculturated into the overall process of schoolrestructuring and curricular reform.

The Atlanta Meeting was comprised of a series of large groupand concurrent small group meetings. Ronald D. Anderson, Betsy J.Becker, Carolyn M. Evertson, and John R. Stayer graciously agreedto serve as small group leaders. Following the Atlanta Meeting, eachof the leaders prepared a report summarizing the group's activities,as well as the conference deliberations around four emergentthemesthat were introduced and revisited during the day's deliberations(e.g., policy perspectives and curriculum implementation, curriculumand instruction/teaching and learning, cultural factors influencingreform, evaluation and assessment, respectively).

The conference report:

* synthesizes discussions on the nature of the curriculum,

* identifies the forces and factors that influenceeducational and curricular reform, and

* recommends issues and questions to investigate relatedto curriculum reform in science education.

Each question raised by the participants, either in their precis orduring the conference deliberations, is incorporated into this report.Questions raised by the conference participants appear in italics. Weenvision that this report will aid school personnel, curriculumdevelopers, educational researchers, policy makers, publishers ofcurricular materials, funding agencies, and others in their quest toaddress the key issues of science curriculum reform.

In summary, we must engage in radical reform in scienceeducation. The participants agreed that, over the next decade, suchreform must involve fundamental changes in course content, modesof instruction, teacher education, and student assessment. The

We must engage in radical reform inscience education. Reform must involvefimdamental changes in co urse content,modes of instruction, teachereducation, and student assessment.

Educational reform can not belegislated.


Page vii

March 1991

restructuring of the process of schooling is necessary and timely.Contrary to popular opinion, however, educational reform can not belegislated. Moreover, science; curriculum reform and researchassociated with the process of reform require synergistic interactionamong curriculum developers, scientists, researchers, teachers,learners, community members, and school administrators. Each ofthese groups must be concerned participants in order for such cultwalreform to occur.

We are most grateful to the meeting participants. Eachmember came ready to share ideas and to deliberate the issues ofprimary concern to the fullest. We hope that this report is the first steptoward achieving the broader goals of the science curriculum reformproject.

James A. ShymanskyWilliam C. Kyle, Jr.


Page ix

March 1991

rarlicipantsBill G. Aldridge

National Science Teachers Association

Hans 0. AndersenIndiana University

Charles W . AndersonMichigan State University

Ronald D. AndersonUniversity of Colorado, Boulder

Betsy J. BeckerMichigan State University

Bonnie J. BrunkhorstCalOrnia State University, San Bernardino

Linda W. CrowBaylor College of Medicine . Houston

Margaret EisenhartUniversity of Colorado, Boulder

Carolyn M. EvensonPeabody College, Vanderbilt U niversity

Fred M. FinleyUniversity of Minnesota

Fred GoldbergCalifornia State University, San Diego

Raymond HannapelNational Science Foillitation

Larry V. HedgesThe U niversity of Chicago

Jack HolbrookUniversity of Hong Kong

William G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland at College Park

Fred D. JohnsonMemphis Public Schools

Jane Butler KahleMiami University

9


Page xMamh 1991

Thomas R. Koballa, Jr.University of Georgia

William C. Kyle, Jr.Purdue University

Glenn MarkleUniversity of Cincinnati

LaMoine MatzOakland Schools, Pontiac, Michigan

Joseph D. NovakCornell University

William F . PinarLouisiana State University

Charles RenoEuclid Senior Nigh School, Ohio

F. James RutherfordAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science

Thomas P. SachseCalOrnia State Department of Education

James A. ShymanskyThe University of Iowa

John R. StayerKansas Stare University

Myrtice TaylorAtlanta Public Schools

Kenneth G. TobinFlorida State University

Iris R. WeissHorizon Research, Inc.

Wayne W. WelchUniversity of Minnesota

Herbert E. WylenNational Science Foundation

1 (1

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

"Establishing a Research Agenda"marks the beginning of an intensiveresearch project oriented towardsustainable reform in scienceeducation. The ultimate goal of thislong-term prwject is to ensure thatcitizens develop the scientOc andtechnological literacy for self- andsocial-empowerment.


Page 1

March 1991

The Need for a Research Agenda

The purpose of this report is to synthesize the critical issuesand questions associated with science curriculum reform for thepurpose of establishing a research agenda. It is premised upon thebelief that science cuniculum reform ought to be based on researchand evaluated by research. We aspire to inform the process andfacilitate the assessment of reform initiatives. Ideally, a vision forimproving science teaching and learning will emerge.

Radical reform in science education is needed. A soundtheoretical framework must underpin the systemic inquiry of sciencecurriculum reform. We offer this report in the spirit of initiating sucha dialogue. We neither claim to have raised all of the issues orquestions imaginable, nor do we wish to restrict debate or inquiry.This report, then, is not a prescription for research. Rather, we hopeto stimulate thought, reflection, and action on the nature, process,issues, and questions of science curriculum reform.

"Establishing a Research Agenda" marks the beginning of anintensive research project oriented toward sustainable reform inscience education. The ultimate goal of this long-term project is toensure that citizens develop the scientific and technological literacyfor self- and social-empowerment. We encourage internationalcommunication, collaboration, and investigation on the critical issuesand questions of science curriculum reform.

Science, Technology, and Cultural Needs

Science is a means for constructing and improvingrepresentations of the world. It should not be taken for granted thatincreased knowledge of the world woul-: inevitably be useable.Nevertheless, it is apparent that new scientific insights have thepotential to be readily and extensively applicable)

Technology is the body of knowlzdge used in fashioninghuman invention, innovation, and the application of science.Technology is a source of cultural transformation. It is a social processachieving social ends, not an end in itself.'

Contemporary philosophers recognize that science is not justa self-subsistent intellectual activity, but a powerful force shaping usand the world. There is nothing politically neutral about these effects.

ii

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Cuniculum Reform

. Page 2March 1991

We can not isolate the scientific enterprise from the myriad otherpractices by which we define ourselves. Thus, any inquiry intomodern science without centrally accounting for its technicalcapabilities would appear to be, if not bizarre, at least a little odd.3

Science and technology, then, have significantly influencedthe course of history. Science and technology both shape and reflectour cultural values, as well as our environment Our dailypatterns oflife and communication,our aspirations and our fears, how we see andjudge perceptual thresholds, and the goals we aim for have beenprofoundly affected. Since science and technology are impingingmore and more upon our day-to-day living, assuring literacy in theseareas for today's youth must be a priority of educational reform.

Our world has been substantially reconstnicted in a very shortperiod of time. Much of this transformation has been stimulated bya tremendous increase in knowledge discovery and dissemination, inconcert with an appreciable decrease in the span between knowledgeconstruction and application. In addition, technical innovations andcommonplace uses of technology have connibuted to a greater senseof global interdependence.

The broader cultural significance of science, however, hasbeen given little attention. This should surprise science educators,especially in light of the universalism generally ascribed to scientificknowledge and practice.

Why has the broader cultural significance ofscience virtually been ignored?

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns resulting fromadvancements in science the culture of science is difficult todefine in a world composed of political, demographic, socio-cultural,and economic diversity. Scientific knowledge and practices have notequally benefined developing and developed nations. In fact, indeveloped nations with a multiplicity of cultures, the dominantculture has benefitted disproportionately. It should be apparent, then,that sc:ientific knowledge and practices are not extended beyond thelaboratory by generalization to universal laws. Rather, scientificknowledge and practices are extended by adaptation of locally situatedpractices to new local contexts. Thus, scientific knowledge andpractices must be interpreted within specific social contexts.

Since science and technology areimpinging more and more upon ourday-io-day living, assuring literacy inthese areasfor today's youth must be apriority of edurationcd reform.

Scienpfic knowledge and practicesmust be interpreted within specificsocial contexts.

A reformed science curriculum ougiuto afford learners the opportunity toinvestigate the practical, social,contextual. and political dimensionsof science.

Establishing a Research Agenda:.The Critical Issues of Science Cuniculum Reform

Page 3

March 1991

A reformed science curriculum ought to afford learners the

opportunity to investigate the practical, social, contextual, and political

dimensions of science. The following questions might guide such

inquiry:

How have the natural sciences changed us?

How can we understand and assess these changes?

What is the social and political impactof the extensive

application of scientific insights?

How and why have the growth and development of thesciences contributed to the vast expansion of thetechnological power at the disposal primarily of theWestern nations and their institutions?

How can science assist developing countries in waysaccessible to their resources, in harmony withindigenous technologies, and/or appropriate to their

traditions?'

One of the most compelling truths of living is the process ofchange. We have entered an exciting era a time when change willbe as unpredictable as it is inevitable. We are on the brink of a new

world order. The East-West ideological conflict that dominatedinternational affairs for more than a generation is over. A new agenda

must emerge to guide world affairs for the decades to come. It hasbeen suggested that the battle to save the planet ought to replace thebattle over ideology as the organizing theme. If efforts to reverseenvironmental degradation dominate world affairs, thenenvironmentalsustainability will become the new order. This agenda would be moreecological than ideological, more global than national, morecooperativethan competitive, and more farsighted than shortsighted.3 Regardlessof the ultimate theme and agenda, an understanding of the practical,social, and political dimensions of science will enable the scientificallyliterate citizen to participate in the framing of a new social order.

The reform of science education must address the needs ofscience, technology, and culture. The reform of schools and teachereducation must be in harmony. A conception of our image of reformmust be grounded in answers to the follo wing questions:


Page 4March 1991

What will students need to know to be scientificallyliterate?

What will teachers need to know to be able to redesigntheir schools?

What are the values, images, customs, beliefs, andpractices associated with the teaching and learning ofa reformed science curriculwn?

In addition, a science education oriented toward self- and social-empowerment ought to be concerned with the following issues:

How can the nature of science be used to Worminstruction? By highlighting the contextual nature ofscience, Will students be better able to mediate theirculture and everyday views with formal scienceinstruction? And, if so Will students becomeinformed enough to make and affect "real world"scientific decisions as a result of their scienceinstruction?

What are the community values and beliefs regardingscience? How do the cultural milieu, linguisticconventions, social contexts and activities differfrom formal science? How migh ttranslation.s amongthem be achieved?

School jence ought to ensure that all students construct thesame outcomes for interpreting the world in a self-adjudicatinglysocial way. Presently, students are offered different types of knowledgeby means of ability grouping and tracking. This leads to unttquallearning opportunities and the creation of a scientific elite.Disenfranchised students are effectively prohibited from participatingin the practical, social, and political dimensions of science. Theiraccess to higher levels of formal science and/or entry into science- andtechnology-oriented careers is s%..verely restricted.

Scientific literacy for all should start to mean just thatliteracy for all not just literacy for the subset of youth who happento be born into the dominant-group ideology.' In our efforts to reformscience education and to engage in research related to reform, we mustbe mindful that, "all experience and knowledge are relative to various

4

School science ought to ensure that ahstudents construct the same outcomesfor interpreting the world in a seq'-adjudicatingly social way. Presently,students are offered different types ofknowledge by means ofatrility groupingand tracking. This leads to unequallearning opportunities and the creationof a scientific elite.

There is no other se gme ni ofour culturethat lags behind "everyiday society"as much as the process ofschooling. A

nineteenth century youth would feelmuchrnore comfortable in ourschoolsthan in our homes, ;ndustries,businesses, or cities.


Page 5

March 1991

contexts, whether physical, historical, cultural, or linguistic, and that

as the contexts change, sO do the perspectives onehas.'" We must use

our contextualized experience and knowledge to guide ethical

improvements in science education.

Sch,Loli31=_4eeds

Ironically, moderOcience and technology have transformed

the world in which we livmore so than how we think about the world.

There is no other segaient of our culture that lags behind "everydaysociety" as much as the process of schooling. A nineteenth centuryyouth would feel much, more comfortable in our schools than in OUT

homes, industries, businesses, or cities.9 Moreover, while schools lagbehind everyday society, they often perpetuate the production ofknowledge in the context of social, economic, and political ideologies

of the dominant culture.9

Changes in society, science, and technology necessitate that

we question the purposes and traditions of schooling. We need toreexamine the moral choice put before us as educators and citizens, achoice that John Dewey suggested is the distinction between "education

as a function ofsociety" and "society as a function of education." Inthe process of reexamining that choice, we need to ask:

Should schools serve and mproduce the existing societyor challenge the social order so as to develop andadvance its democratic responsibility?

Do we desire schools to create a passive, risk-freecitizenry, or a politicized citizenry capable of assumingsocial responsibility, informed by a concern for equality,social justice, and civic rigorr

If the ultimate goal of this reform project is to ensure that studentsdevelop the scientific and technological literacy for self- and social-empowerment, then the answer to each of the above questions shouldbe indisputable. Curriculum reform must address this issue. Researchmust purposefully assess whether students have acquired the knowledgeand skills associated with citizenship and social responsibility.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Referm

Page 6March 1991

The purpose of school is not merely to help students achieveacademically, but to prepare students to lead fulfilling lives. The truemanifestation of successful schooling is not how well studentsperformon in-school assessments. How citizens think, what they value, howanalytical and critical they can be, how they question and reflectthese are among the true measures of successful schooling. The mostvalid measures of the effectiveness of today's school scienceexperiences might not be available for twenty years. For example,"How creative, imaenative, and resourceful will citizens be inresolving science - and technology-oriented community-based issuesthat are unimaginable today?" Admittedly, information regardingtheeffectiveness of reform initiatives will be desired in the interim. Weencourage evaluators, however, to utilize a broader vision ofassessment than has traditionally accompanied curriculum reformefforts. Rather than focusing upon the narrow and shortsightedpriorities of education, assessment should begin to focus upon issuesthat really count.

While it is inevitable that the social milieu,the science, and thetechnology of the 21st century will be vastly different from what theyare today, the challenge confronting science educators worldwide is,

How do we prepare all of today' s youthfor tomorrow' ssociety?

We must begin to create a vision of hope, a vision that erables youthto fulfill their dreams, rather than settle for the tarnish of reality.

Schooling can no longer function in isolation from the realitiesof present-day living. Schooling must begin to transpire in thecontext of the public spheres and lived experiences of learners. Thetraditions of school practice, dating back several centuries, must bequestioned. Evidence is mounting that the archaic ritual of"transmission and acquisition of knowledge" is not able to providestudents with the science and technology education requisite forfuture human needs. A consensus has been reached that sciencelearning is more than information absorption; students must beactively engaged in the process of learning so that they can apply theirobservations, knowledge, and interpretations to the world aroundthem. The process of learning and teaching, then, must reflect thedynamic, open-ended, aesthetic, and investigative dimensions ofscience.

We encourage evaluawrs to utilize abroader vision of assessment than hastraditionallyaccompanied curriculumreform efforts. Rather than focusingupon the narrow and shonsightedpriorities of education, assessmentshould begin to focus upon issues thatreally cour

A

'The onlything new in the world is thehistory you don't know."

Harry S. Truman


Page 7March 1991

The key issue among scienceeducators is not, "Should science

education be reformed?" Rather, the issue is,

What ought a reformed science education ofter

learners and society?

Similarly, the debate is not whether fundamental concepts should be

taught or whether process skills are essential. The focus is upon,

Which fundamental concepts ought to be integratedinto the curriculum?

What does it mean for a student to understandsomething scientifically?

How should science be taught and assessed?

What skills should students acquire to facilitate theirability to function in society?

How can science education help students interprettheir everyday science experiences?

Science Education Needs

Addressing the critical issues of science cuniculum reform for

the purpose of establishing a research agenda necessitates anunderstanding of the history of science education. Our history reveals

the social, cultural, political, and economic conditions under whichscience education goals have been formulated and subsequentlychanged." Our history offers insight and perspective to such questions

as:

Why does science education change?

How does science education change?

What changes in science education?

When does science education change? 12

17


Page 8

March 1991

Presently, there exists widespread international recognition ofthe need to reform science education. The euphoric notion of "gettingon with reform" is inspired by the desire to prepare citizens for the 21stcentury, yet tempered by the recognition that the reform efforts of the1960s failed to result in any lasting change. The educationalachievements of the 1960s clearly indicate that localized, short-termimprovements are possible.14 At the very least, this informs us thatchange can occur and that reform is worth pursuing. More importantly,it informs us that: a) true reform is much more difficult to achieve thanwas thought previously; b) the process of schooling is affected bysocial and political realities; and c) quick fixes to curriculum reformare doomed to failure.

In the context of the emerging curriculum reform era, thescience education community must recognize, debate, and investigatesuch critical issues as:

How does science education respond to the societaldemands of schooling?

Over a century ago, Herbert Spencer reminded educators that one ofthe fundamental questions of schooling is, "What knowledge is ofmost worth?"" Historically, conflicts have persisted over whatshould be taught. This issue is as much an ideological and political oneas it is an educational one. Educational and curricular issues havealways been enmeshed in the history of class, race, gender, andreligious relations.16

A contemporary way of phrasing Spencer's question tohighlight the profoundly political nature of the educational debateis, "Whose knowledge is of most worth?"17 Science educators havelargely ignored or failed to recognize the importance of this issue. Forexample, how we respond to two distinct societal demands thatpredominate the reform literature will, to some extent, determinewhose knowledge ought to be taught. That is,

Should science education ensure a scientifically-and technologically-oriented work force versusensure sciennfic and technological literacy for all?

The offering ofdifftrent knowledgetracldng to accommodate the perceivedneeds of science-hound studentshas created unequal strucuires withunequal outcomes.

The present reform should notperpetuate the class, race, and genderinequities of the past.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Crittal Issues of Science Curriculum Reform

Page 9March 1991

Traditionally, the offering of different knowledge tracking to

accommodate the perceived needs of science-bound students has

created unequal structures with unequal outcomes. The differentiated

stnicture of schools throws upbarriers to achievement and participationin science and technology. The victims of such disenfranchisementhave generally been members of minority groups, women, amd poor

students.'s

Teachers and others concerned with curriculum decisionmaking -- must begin to engage in serious discourse regarding theideology, content, and values that will become the hallmark of theemerging cturiculum reform era. Debate regarding science curriculum

reform should focus upon:

What (whose knowledge) counts as a legitimate science

education?

What should students know and be able to do?

How should that knowledge be organizedfor purposesof instruction?

Answers to the above questions will influence many other decisions.It is virtually impossible to consider how instruction should occurandwhat should be assessed prior to deliberating the nature of thecurriculum. In essence, "No matter how well something is taught, ifit is not worth teaching, it's not worth teaching well."

Since the present reform agenda challenges many of thetraditional values of schooling and teacher education, we urge you,the prospective contributor to reform research, to imbed the perspectiveof history within your inquiry. Your discussion of present issues andthe concomitant extrapolation of such issues to the future will beenriched by history. We also urge you to seriously address the issueof whose knowledge is of most worth. We ask that you rationalizeyour response to this critical issue with each and every curriculardecision that you make or investigate. The present reform should notperpetuate the class, race, and gender inequities of the past. Thesuccessful reform of science education ought to contribute to anemerging culture of science.

9

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical ISMS of Science Curriculum Reform

Page 10March 1991

Research in Science Education Needs

Science education has a long and important history. As a fieldof scholarly endeavor, however, science education is relativelyyoung.Early resmch studies of importance were often conducted byeducational psychologists. Throughout the first half of the 20thcentury, most psycho-educational inquiry focused on issues or topicsthat largely excluded subject matter. Educational psychologistsmerely expected significant findings to be applied in the context ofteaching and learning in each of the disciplines. During this period,most science educators focused their efforts on teacher education.Their writing was typically restricted to textbooks and instructionalmaterials.

When science educators did engage in research, their inquirywas often premised on a concern for more effective science teaching.Effectiveness was measured in terms of increased studentperfonnanceon predetermined variables of interest. The dominant researchmethodology was the agrarian statistical model; little distinction wasmade between investigating the effects of the amount of fertilizer peracre to maximize yields and profits vs. whether the kinds of questionsthat teachers ask influence students' understanding ofscience. Studiesoften lacked a theoretical rationale or framework. Seldom did scienceeducators contribute to the generation of theory. These early, small-scale investigations were conducted in isolation, with limited resources,and without the benefit of collaborative inquiry or collegial critique.

Beyond the wildest dreams of most science educators, theirrole and image changed almost overnight with the passage of theNational Science Foundation Act (NSF) of 1950. The NSF-fundedcurriculum development projects of the late 1950s through the early1970s ushered in numerous research opportunities. Despite massivegovernment funds for curriculum development and implementation,minimal research was conducted. Many critical research questionswere never asked. Almost all research on curriculum reform wasconducted by individual investigators often as dissertations.Adherence to the adopted agricultural research methodologiespersisted. The research initiatives could be characterized as: small-scale, one-shot investigations, without subsequent follow-up.

Today, the science education research community generatesnearly 500 manuscripts per year. Researchers embrace the full rangeof methodologies qualitative" and quantitative to address both

Attention must be paid t o the widersocio-cultural, economic, and politicalcontexts in which schools function.


Page 11

March 1991

basic and applied questions. While several research themes haveemerged over the past decade as a result of interdisciplinary work,23

most investigators focus their inquiry on topics within such diverseareas as: the nature of learning; the process of teaching; learner and/

or teacher characteristics; the assessment of students, teachers,curriculum, or instruction; and teacher education.

The landscape of primary research is punctuated each year by

a few research syntheses or summaries. Occasionally, studiescomplement or build on one another enabling the emergence of a new

perspective with the potential for far-reaching implications (e.g., thegrowing consensus about the nature of the learner). More often than

not, though, published studies fail to impact the community ofresearchers, practitioners, teacher educators, or policy analysts/decision-makers. Researchers often express frustration at the lack of

substantive impact of their efforts.

Why does so much effort result in such little apparentbenefit?

First, most research in science education bears little relevanceto the context of the lived experiences of teachers and students.Researchers have paid little attention to the historical, cultural, social,

economic, and political aspects of schooling. It should not besurprising, then, when isolated instances of significant differences inhighly connolled "laboratory environments" are not translated intopractice. More research, in and of itself, is not needed to improve thecondition of science education. Rather, attention must be paid to thewider socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts in whichschoolsfunction. Second, historically, it has been difficult for researchers toengage in substantive educational reform. Most science educationresearch produces knowledge in the context of a system clinging totradition.22 The production of knowledge in such a context perpetuatesthe social, economic, and political ideologies of the dominant cultureand fails to contribute to a vision of social transfonnation.23

Can research in science education contribute to the process ofreform and social transformation, thereby enhancing science teachingand learning? In our view, research in science education is a centralcomponent of achieving sustainable reform. The NSTA Theme Paperon The Role of Research in Science Teaching declares that "researchshould guide and inform policy formation and decision-makingregarding science teaching" and recommends that "a more reasonedand reasonable approach to cunicular, instructional, and evaluative

21


Page 12

March 1991

decisions must be undertaken."24 Thus, there is a critical need for thescience education community researchers, practitioners, policymakers to consmict a comprehensive image of the purposes to beserved by reform. This image must be intellectually honest andpedagogically valid.

A Formidable Challenge

Science education research has come a long way OYU the pasttwenty-five years. It has not yet gained the credibility to make adifference in practice, though. Researchers must attend to the criticalissues associated with the process of educational reform in general,and science curriculum reform in particular. The science educationcommunity must acknowledge that the reform ofresearch in scienceeducation is as imperative as science curriculum reform.

We stated earlier that a sound theoretical framework mustunderpin the systemic inquiry of science curriculum reform. Theissues and questions that have been raised in this section are anessential component of such a framework. Science educators mustrespond to a formidable challenge:

Can we find a collective voice that speaks to the issuesof sustainable reform?

92

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Today' s priority must be to stimulatecreative thought about tomorrow' sscience currkulwn.


Page 13

March 1991

Understanding Curriculum Reform

A majority of the world's countries have experienced reformsor revisions of their science curricula since the 1960s. The influenreof these efforts has varied. Frequently, success has been less thanwhat was desired. Presently, there is renewed interest and willingnessto improve science education.25

The international quest to reform science education isinspired by:

* a new view of curriculum,

* an emerging consensus regarding the nature of the learnerand the process of teaching, and

* a new image of the role of the teacher.

Reform.Reform.Reform!

Today's priority must be to stimulate creative thought abouttomorrow's science curriculum. Even if the reforms of the past hadaccomplished all of their goals, curricul um relcwal would be necessaryto address current issues and concerns. The critical issues andquestions of science curriculum reform must be debated in the contextof an adequate understanding of the cutting-edge developments inresearch on teaching and learning.

Reforming science education will be a difficult and lengthyprocess. It must involve all parties interested in improving schoolse.g., teachers, learners, administrators, researchers, curriculumdevelopers, test developers, state and local boards of education,parents and community members, policy makers, professionalorganizations, and the colleges and universities that prepare futureteachers.

How can reform occur when there appears to be suchinertia in the system at all levels?


Page 14

March 1991

We contend that the apparent inertia is, in part, a product of the"reform initiatives" that have been imposed upon schools by policymakers and legislatures. The ever-changing, quick-fix, technicalapproach to resolving the non-technical issues of schooling fostersconfusion and inaction. The prevailing focus on achievement,assessment, and accountability has neither identified the problems ofschooling, nor offered solutions that are pedagogically valid.

Different stakeholders will always possess varying notionsregarding the nature and severity of curre at problems and how to bestresolve them. Ideally, enhanced communication among thestakeholders will lead to negotiation and consensual agreement onthe issues to be rtsolved and the action to be undertaken. Allstakeholders should be concerned by the fact that reforms seldomsubstantially alter the regularities of schooling.

Why do so few reforms aimed at the classroom makeit past the door permanently?

What have we learnedfrom research associated withpast curriculum reform efforts?

We wish to respond to these questions by offering fourprinciples.26 First, the process of curriculum reform should beinvestigated. The literature does not reflect the richness of pastexperiences. In particular, knowledge of the experiences of teachersand others most closely associated with the process of reform isalmost non-existent. The following questions are asked frequently:

Are there important processes and factors related tothe implementation and institutionalization ofreforminitiatives?

What are the encouragements, constraints, ideas, andoutcomes that might apply to new reform initiatives?

Are there essential attributes of systemic reform?What is the nature of the support system that isnecessary for sustaining reform? What is necessaryto ensure that the kinds of commitments requisiteforsuccess are forthcoming?

The prevailing focus on achievement,assessment, and accountability hasneither identified the problems ofschooling, nor offered solutions thatare pedagogically valid.

Panicipants in reform projects mustbecome,and see thenuelves becoming,actively involved in the planning,acting,observing,andreflecting stagesof curricaliun reform.


Page 15

March 1991

Are there common frnpedirnents and constraints tochange? If so, what are possible solutions to suchimpediments and constraints?

What strategies promote collegiality among teachers,administrators, researchers, science educators,scientists,andothers interested in curriculum reform?What factors isolate and prevent teachers fromworking collegially and how can these be overcome?

What is the role of staff development in the process of

reform?

What is the correlation between the idealizedcurriculum and the taught curriculum?

These ax all questions that impact upon the process of reform.Unfortunately, information regarding the process of change is seldom

reported. The literature reveals a critical need for enhancedcommunication and collaboration among reform participants andresearchers. Participants in reform projects must become, and seethemselves becoming, actively involved in the planning, acting,observing, and reflecting stages of curriculum reform. Inquiry

regarding the process of curriculum reform should be aimed towardimproving local educational situations, yet reported in the literature

to facilitate reform in other locales.

Second, research should be for educational reform, notabout educational reform; it should unify not separate thework of educational theorizing and practice. In this sense, theprocess of reform should be collaborative and participatory. Thecollaborative action research model brings together teachers,researchers, staff developers, and others interested in the reformprocess for the purpose of improving practice. Its goal is to empowerteachers to become self-reflective researchers, that is, practitionerswho can examine their own practice critically. Through the processof investigating and reflecting, teachers become more flexible in theirthinking, more receptive to new ideas, and more adept at convertinga problematic situation into a problem to be resolved. Collaborativeaction research also enables teachers to clarify, modify, and elaboratethe theories that inform their instruction. Thus, it offers a method fortesting and improving educational practices.


Page 16March 1991

Third, research should contribute to improving curriculum,instruction, and assessment. In order for improvement to occur,teachers must be actively involved in the planning, acting, observing,and reflecting stages of reform research. After all, improved practiceis not the end, improved understanding of each phase of the reformproject and how it contributes to transforming schools and classroomsis desired. Previously, researchers focused almost exclusively uponquantifying the outcome of instructional innovations, such as: discoverylearning, mastery learning, cooperative learning, the use of extendedthought questions, or wait-time. "Amid the eagerness to improveinstruction, too little attention has been paid to deciding which subjectmatter the impmved instruction should help students achieve. This isfolly. The best teaching methods cannot possibly overcome a weakcurriculum. Brilliant instruction about irrelevant content should notimpress anyone."v Research should focus on the entire process ofcurriculum reform. Our understanding of science teaching andlearning will be enhanced by practitioners and researchers theorizing,planning, conducting, and interpreting research that is pedagogicallyrelevant.

Fourth, science curriculum reform and curriculum reformresearch should traneorm schools andclassrooms. There is evidenceto suggest that reforms recur because they are never intended to do justthat transform schools and classroom& Reforms rarely get adoptedas policy. Most get implemented in word, rather than deed. Oftenonly the symbols of reform appear in classrooms: new tests, differentrules, revised curriculum guides, and new equipment or computers."Seldom ate the deepest structures of schooling that are embedded inthe school's use of time and space, teaching practices, and classroomroutines fundamentally altered even at those historical moments whenreforms seek those alterations as the goal."'"

In our zeal to reform, we must be mindful that the purpose ofreform is to take action upon concerns or problems. Thus, we muststart with the problem, not the innovation. There should be aconnection between the problem and the context in which we willattend to the situation. We must adopt the long-term rather than quick-fix approach to curriculum reform. We must be more interested inproblem setting and resolution, reflection and action, andcommunication and collaboration vs. innovation for the sake ofinnovation, technical cures for non-technical dilemmas, and individualone-shot investigations.

Our understanding ofscience teachingand learning will be enhanced bypractitioners and researcherstheorizing, planning, conducting, andinterpreting research that ispedagogkally relevant.

Teachers will need to constructcollegial ties within and beyond theschool, as well as assume leadershiproles associated with the process ofreform and professional renewal.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Refoim

Page 17

March 1991

Science curriculum reform and research associated with theprocess of reform require synergistic interaction among each of thestakeholders. These goups must be concerned participants in orderfor such cultural reform to occur. Further, such reform will not occurunless those involved in the process "own it." If reform meanstransforming schools and classrooms, then it must be guided by anunderstanding of the process of change and a vision of the future.

The Process of Reform

Ironically, perhaps the most enigmatic expression of the1980s was "curriculum reform." The rhetoric associated with the callfor reform disregarded many fundamental questions, for example:

What is curriculum reform? When, where, and howdoes reform begin? What factors influence awillingness to engage in reform? What are the rolesand responsibilities of each of the stakeholdersassociated with the reform process?

How are reform initiatives encultura:ed into theprocess of schooling? What are the impediments toreform, as well as the constraints upon theimplementation of a reformed curriculum? Whatconstitutes reasonable measures of successfulcurriculum reform? Is there a shared consensusregarding the attributes of "success" among thevarious stakeholders?

The above questions should be deliberated throughout the reformprocess, that is, in the context of the development, implementation,and assessment of science curriculum reform initiatives.

Change in schools requires leadership, staff development,changes in the organizational structure, and the involvement ofpeople from all aspects of the educational system. These componentsmust work in concert and be adapted and revised throughout thevarious phases of implementation.29 Throughout the process ofreform, teachers will need to construct collegial ties within andbeyond the school, as well as assume leadership roles associated withthe process of reform and professional renewal.


Page 18

March 1991

Since the purpose of reform is to change the present curriculum,prior questions must also be addressed, such as:

What is happening in the present science curriculumand why is it happening?

What change is desired and why?

W hat is the research base upon which major reforminitiatives are premised?

These questions are often ignored in the literature. There is littleevidence to indicate that they are not similarly ignored in the processof reform! How can research on curriculum reform proceed Or thereis no stated rationale for the reform? Is the reform process and theresearch on reform really transpiring against a backdrop of non-existent knowledge? Are schools and teachers really being asked tochange without any knowledge ofwhatpresently occurs in classrooms?Could conclusions and interpretations from such studiesbe warranted?Adequate reference to the present status and desired state will comprisea grounded theory, the viability of which can be investigated andelaborated upon in a wide range of contexts.

The process of curriculum reform is dynamic and often occursin stages, over long periods of time. The questions above should besystematically addressed in the initial stages of reform. These issuesshould be monitored throughout the reform process. The informationgathered and lessons learned early in the project should guidedecision making in later stages. If initial plans ire modified to addressencouragements or constraints, then the modes of resolution shouldbe described thoroughly. Lessons learned in the reform process oughtto be used both to modify the present reform process and facilitatefuture reform efforts in other locations.

Rethinking Curriculum Research and Practice

What is science curriculum? We have viewed a curriculum interms of the culture in which it is embedded. Thus, a curriculumconsists of the practices, customs, beliefs, metaphors, and values ofteachers, students, administrators, and others who are directly orindirectly involved in science education. This culturally orientated

We have viewed a curricultun in termsof the culture in which it is embedded.A curriculumconsists ofthe practices,cu.uoms,beliefi,metaphors.andvaluesof teachers, students, administratorsand others who are directly orindirectly involved in scienceeducation.


Page 19

March 1991

perspective on science curriculum invites new questions and alludesto many of the problems that have faced educators in the past.

What are the values, images, customs, and practicesassociated with traditional approaches to the teachingand learning of science?

What are the prevailing personal epistemologies ofteachers and students and how do these compare withthe epistemologies embedded in routine practices?

Whatfactors influence the selection of content and theactivities used to promote learning of science?

If the quality of science education piograms is to be improved,then it is essential that the tried and tested approaches to research andpractice be queried. With respect to practice, it is necessary tounderstand the processes involved in teacher change and schoolchange. And with respect to research methodology, it is essential thatsimplistic program comparisons be replaced by interpretive inquiry oraction research. It is not just a case of complementing quantitativewith qualitative data, of using a mix of qualitative and quantitativemethodologies, or of doing qualitative inquiry as a prelude to "more

Research ought to have the potential representative" quantitative studies. We need to be asking andto influence practice, answering questions that are not amenable to traditional research

methods. An interpretive or critical approach incorporating aconstructivist epistemology will enable different questions to beaddressed and different solutions to be obtained. It is anticipated thatthe answers to such questions will be more readily assessable toteachers and others involved in science curriculum reform. Thus, theresearch ought to have the potential to influence practice.

Two theoretical frameworks appeal as being suitable forresearch on science curriculum. The first is "radical constructivism.'°The second is the theory of "knowledge constitutive interests.''

Radical Constructivism. Analyses of teachers' thoughts andpractices can be based on images, metaphors, beliefs and valuesconsidered from a constructivist perspective. There is evidence tosuggest that metaphors and imagery influence how teachers think andtalk about teaching and what they do in the classroom." Whenteachers act in the classroom they do what makes sense to them giventhe circumstances. What has worked in the past and seems likely to

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Refonn

Page 20March 1991

be effective in a given context are criteria that guide a teacher'sselection of appopriate practices. Decision-making usually is notconscious and certainly is not focused on each of the myriad behaviorsthat comprise the various roles to be adopted in any lesson.

Epistemological theories which have had a strong influenceon how teachers guide learning in their classrooms have beenhistorically based on an empiricist philosophy, an idea that knowledgeis "out there" in the world and has only to be accessed by the sensesin order to be transferred to the learner. According to this philosophy,one needs to be objective in order to match observations with anexternal and accessible reality. Traditional teaching and learningstrategies in science have developed from objectivist assumptionsabout knowledge and incorporate a conduit metaphor wherebyknowledge is piped from the teacher to students. Concern is directedtowards the pursuit of learning truths about the universe in which wefive.

Learning strategies based on a constructivist epistemologyacknowledge the subjectivity of observation. What we see is aninterpretation of our experiences based on what we know. Knowledgeis not regarded as being out there. On the contrary, knowledge isfound in the minds and bodies of cognizant beings." Within aconstructivist framework, learning is defined as the construction ofknowledge by individuals as sensory data are given meaning in termsof prior knowledge. Learning is an interpretive process whichinvolves constructions of individuals and social collaboration.

Interpraing the data on classroom practices in the light of aconstructivist view of learning leads us to assert that teachers makesense of their roles in the teaching-learning process by constructingpedagogical knowledge that "fits" the context of the classroomenvironment. However, teachers believe they are constrained toimplement the curriculum hi a traditional manner. Through interactionswith peers and students they construct beliefs about the nature ofknowledge, how students learn, and what strategies may best beapplied in a given teaching-learning environment. Since teachersbelieve constraints to be "true" it is not surprising they allow theirbeliefs to influence their classroom practices. Consequently, evenwhen changes in classroom practices are desired, certain beliefs heldby teachers (i.e., constraints) act to prevent the changes being put intoeffect. Additional questions of interest, then, are:

Interpreting the data on classroompractices in the light ofaconstructivistview of learning leads us to assert thatteachers make sense of their roles inthe teaching-learning process byconstructing pedagogical knowledgethat "fits" the context ofthe classroomenvironment.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critkal Issues of Science Curriculum Reform

Page 21

March 1991

What changes in the science curriculum as a teacher' spersonal epistemology changes from realism toconsmictivism?

What changes occur (i.e., in the images, metaphors,beliefs, customs , practices, andperceivedconstraints)when teachers endeavor to implement a constructivistcurriculum?

Knowledge Constitutive Interests. Habermas identified

three basic cognitive interests: technical,practical, and emancipatory.Persons guided by technical interests have a basic orientation towardscontrolling and managing the environment Control is achievedthrough rule-following actions based upon empirically groundedlaws. A primary concern is with the product or outcome of thecurriculum. In the school context, technicists identify these laws aslegislated mandates, curriculum guides, and/or standardized tests.Realism is the epistemology that most often underlies technicalintexests and the metaphor associated with schools that emphasizetechnical interests is "school as work place." In contrast, practicalinterests have a basic orientation in the form of interpretiveunderstanding, which can inform and guide judgetnent Negotiationand consensus making are important componentsof practical interests.A curriculum with an emphasis on practical interests is often based

on constructivism and emphasizes learning with understanding. Themetaphor that pervades schools in which practical interestspredominate is the "school as learning place." Emancipatory interestslie in empowerment, which allows individuals or groups to engagein autonomous action that emphasize reflection and deliberativeactions. Teachers and students are empowered to take control of theirpractices and thoughts in autonomous and responsible ways. Theknowledge and science represented by each of these interests can berepresented in the following way:

Interest

Technical

Practical

Emancipatory

Knowledge

Instrumental (causalexplanation)

Practical(understanding)

Emancipatory(reflection)

Science

Empirical-analytic ornatural sciences

Hermeneutic orinterpretive' sciences

Critical sciences

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of &knee Curriculum Refcem

Page 22March 1991

tandard Settingys. Standardized

In the context of establishing a research agenda, we previouslyemphasized that science curriculum reform is necessary to ensure thatall students develop the scientific and technological literacy for self-and social-empowerment. Further, we urged science educators tofind a collective voice oriented toward the issues of sustainablereform.

The standards presently espoused by textbook publishers, testdevelopers, and policy makers contrast sharply with: a) currentinsights regarding the process of teaching and learning; b) therecognized failure of norm-referenced tests to measure studentunderstandings, interpretations, higher-order thinking skills, and useof science process sldlls; and c) the realization that teachers must beactively involved in shaping the purposes and conditions of schooling.This disparity is attributable to the failure of science educators andteachers to claim a voice in the reform process. Science educators, incollaboration with teachers, must been to exert a controlling influenceover the pedagogy that should be transpiring in schools. Studentsshould not have to wonder when school will offer something interesting,relevant, and challenging. The process of reform must ensure thatimportant knowledge is sequenced appropriately and that eachstudent is engaged in meaningful learning every day. Sciencecurriculum reform should be standard setting, not standardized.

The rationale advocated herein for refonning science educationand investigating the critical issues of science curriculum reformcontrasts with popular notions in the United States. These notionsemerged with the publication ofANationatRisk and have influenceddozens of education reports since 1983.34 The reform discourse hasbeen shrouded in an ideology preoccupied with internationalcompetitiveness, national security, the preservation of anethnocentrized cultural polemic, the deprofessionalization anddeskilling of teachers via the adoption of "teacher-proof' curricula,and the imposition of standardized testing." Rather than offering avision of empowerment, this ideology serves to disenfranchise andalienate both learners and teachers.

Policy makers and legislatures have become obsessed withhaving students in the United States achieve first on internationalassessments of science and mathematics.36 This goal was initiallyestablished by the National Science Board with a target date of 1995.31

:3 IC

Science educators, in collaborationwith teachers, must begin to exert acontrolling influence over thepedagogy that should be transpiring inschools. Students should not have towonder when school will offersomething interesting, relevant, andchallenging.


Page 23March 1991

Science educators, in collaboration with teachers,must begin to exert a controllMg influence over the

pedagogy that should be transpiring in schools.

33REST COPY AVAILABLE

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Ref=

Page 24March 1991

Following the 1989 Education Summit, it was reaffirmed among thesix National Education Goals proclaimed for achievement by the year2000:

"By the year 2000, US. students will befirst in the world in science andmathematics achievement."

National Education Goal #4

From a technical point of view, Colorado's Governor Roy Romer,chair of a National Governors' Association goals panel, acknowledgesthat: "Some of these goals certainly are grandiose....The math andscience goal in particular is probably unreachable.'" We wish toquestion any nation's preoccupation with such a goal from apedagogical point of view:

Why should students be " number one" on standardizedassessments that measure recall of narrowly-definedfacts and insignificant value-free content?

What is the rationale for such a shallow perspective tothe enormous task of curriculum reform?

Pressure to standardize curriculum, instruction, and assessmentblatantly disregards the contextual reality that was stressed previously(while rationalizing a research agenda from four perspectives: science,technology, and cultural needs; schooling needs; science educationneeds; and research in science education needs). Standardization:

* limits the ability of teachers to engage in discussionsurrounding the notion of "what" and "whose"knowledge is of most worth;

* controls what is taught and perpetuates the production of"teacher-proof' curricula, which bypass and insultteachers' intellectual and decision-making capabilities;

Schools must enhance the ability ofallstudents to become active learners,capable of learning how to learn.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Scknce Curriculum Reform

Page 25March 1991

* ensures an overemphasis on reading comprehension,vocabulary acquisition, and the memorization of isolatedfacts; concomitantly, there is a de-emphasis on doingscience;

* precludes the teachers need to focus on students' priorknowledge of science, since the focus of instruction issuperficial coverage versus meaningful understanding;

* ensures that students do not come away from instructionwith a rich and useful understanding of science concepts;

* ensures that students are not afforded the opportunity toinvestigate the practical, social, contextual, and politicaldimensions of science; and

* perpetuates the disenfranchisenwnt of minorities,women, and poor students, as well as theirundenepresentation in science- and technology-oriented careers.

Poor instruction can be rationalized by policies that advocatethe decontextualized pursuit, capture, and regurgitation of trivia. Infact, there is little need to alter the curriculum or instruction when thebenchmark of "reform" is how well students score on standardizedtests! This perspective to education views knowledge as an act oftransference and views good learners as those willing to spew back theinformation intact without any critical thought, action, or reflection.Paulo Freire refers to this nanow image of literacy as "bankingeducation." That is, learners are viewed as empty vessels into whichtechnicians deposit the right knowledge."

A Re-formed Curriculum

If we desire citizens who are creative, reflective, criticalthinkers, and problem solvers, then schools must enhance the abilityof all students to become active learners, capable of learning how tolearn. In a re-formed curriculum, teachers, parents, and othersconcerned with the education of our youth would be empowered totransform the lived experiences of the classroom, thereby affording


Page 26March 1991

students the opportunity to develop the modes of thinking to fully andcritically participate in a democratic community. In a re-formedcuniculum, teachers would be afforded the time to share ideas withcolleagues, participate in professional development, and engage ininquiry about teaching and learning. Teachers would be active,reflective practitioners engaged in constructing a curriculum. In a re-formed curriculum, researchers would collaborate with practitionersto inform the process and influence practice.

Substantive and continuing educational improvementwill be difficult to achieve unless teachers begin toplay a greater role in identifying the key impedimentsto progress in education and in figuring out how to dosomething about them. The progress of meaningfulschool reform will be killed until teachers emergefrom their marginal positions in the researchcommunity and become full partners in the conceptionand the conduct of educational inquiry.°

Science for All Americans accurately portrays the curricula inscience, noting it is overstuffed and undernourished.4' The "informationage" has made it increasingly difficult for teachers and students toidentify the science, mathematics, and technology that is truly essential.Ironically, this is good news! We must finally confront the knowledgeexplosion and recognize that the curriculum can not grow withoutrestraint. Schools can no longer be asked to teach more and more, butmust be asked to teach less so that it can be taught better. Equally asimportant, the rigid boundaries between the disciplines must begin tocrumble so that students can experience the connections amongdisciplines. "We now seem ready for a new round of curriculumreform. This time the stimulus need not be the apparent want tocompete with a state that has launched a new era of space exploration,but a recognition that all countries must cooperate to ensure that weeducate a scientifically and technologically literate citizenry."42

Curriculum, instruction, assessment, and research in scienceeducation must be re-formed. The reform must be standard setting, itmust involve teachers in the process of advancing new researchpolicies and practices, and it must ensure that all students are thebenefactors of a re-fonned curriculum.

3 i;

Reform must be standard setting, itmust involve teachers in the process ofadvancing new research policies andpractices, and it must ensure that allstudents are the benefactors of are-formed curriculum.

Inquiry must ascertain whether therhetoric of reform can become thehallmark of scientific literacy.


Exploring Research Issues

Page 27

March 1991

Two ambitious projects have the potential to serve as theframework for exploring the critical issues and questions of sciencecurriculum reform. Both projects propose radical changes in thenature, structure, and content of the science curriculum. Both projectsrecognize that reform: a) must be comprehensive, and b) ought totranspire amid an ambiance of collegiality and collaborarion. Further,they agree on several important issues: a) scientific endeavor ought tobe presented as a social enterprise, thus emphasis should be placed onhuman thought, action, depth of understanding, and the application ofscience to personal and societal issues; b) learning strategies ought tobe based upon a constructivist epistemology; and c) reform mustensure the scientific literacy of virtually all students.

Project 2061, sponsored by the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, is a three-phase plan of purposive andsustained action focused upon the reform of education in science,mathematics, and technology. Science for All Americans highlightsthe understandings and habits of mind that all students should acquirefor scientific literacy.° The Project on Scope, Sequence, andCoordination (SS&C), initiated by the National Science TeachersAssociation, calls for the restructuring of science at the secondarylevel. SS&C recommends that all students study science every yearfor six years, and advocates carefully sequenced, well-coordinatedscience instruction of all the sciences. As opposed to the traditional"layer cake" curriculum, in which science is taught in year-longdiscrete and compressed disciplines, SS&C advocates spacing thestudy of each of the sciences spread out over several years."

In addition, current and forthcoming NSF materialdevelopment projects at the elementary and middle school levelreflect the spirit and substance of the call for reform. Several featuresdifferentiate these projects from current programs and practices, forexample: a) conceptual schemes serve as content organizers;b) technology, both as content and tool, is an innovation characterizingthe reform; c) fewer concepts are studied in greater depth; andd) content and teaching methods are based upon assumptions aboutchildren's learning.'"

Inquiry must ascertain whether the rhetoric of reform canbecome the hallmark of scientific literacy. The following sections are

:17


Page 28March 1991

intended to complement the broader issues and questions discussedpreviously.

Exploring Cultural and Contextual Factors

Implementing a trfortred curriculum requires an understandingof schools as organizations. The cultural milieus in which scienceteaching and learning occur must be considered. Particular attentionmust be paid to the interactions among teachers, students, and thecurriculum within the broader, contextualized environment.

The educational process is embedded within levels ofclassroom, school, and community cultures. A research agenda forthe implementation of a reformed science curriculum should includequestions about the influence of policy, values, beliefs, andcommitments at each level, as well as questions about the interactionsamong these levels.

The Professional and Institutional Contexts. School andclassroom practice is influenced by federal, state, district, and schoolpolicy. Textbook adoption and standardized testing policies may alsoinfluence what transpires in classrooms. The following questionsrepresent the issues that might be investigated:

What are the key attributes of effective systemiccurriculwn reform? What is the role of the federalandlor state government, school district andIor localschool in the process of curriculum reform? What isthe role of teachers, administrators, parents,community organizations, and others interested in theprocess of reform?

What is the function of the district' s science curriculumcommittee? Howand to whomdoes the committeemake recommendations? How are recommendationsenacted?

What are the policies that will get any level ofgovernment involved no more than it needs to be, butas much as it ought to be, in order that teachers,administrators, and others involved in the reformprocess can accomplish their goals?

A research agenda for theimplementation ofa reformed sciencecurriculum should include questionsabout the influence of policy, values,beliefs, and commitments at each level,

as well as questions about theinteractions anwng these levels.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Science Cunicu lum Reform

Page 29March 1991

What is the effect of reform initiatives in environmentsthat have "stringent" curricular mandates vs. "lessstringent" curricular mandates?

What are the criteria for assessing studentpetformance? What are the desired student outcomes?What is the effect of curricular reform upon studentpaformance (e.g., achievement attitude, self- concept,

conceptualization of scientific concepts)?

If administered, what effect does the reformimplementation have upon standardized test scores?What value is placed upon standardized test scores?

Does the reform of the science curriculum have anyimpaa upon the other curricular areas?

The process of cutriculum reform varies widely. Reforms ona large-scale basis may differ from sites that espouse school-basedmanagement and local school curriculum decision-making.

How does the conceptualization and implementationof curriculum reform differ in large-scale efforts vs. inthe context of school-based management?

Do teachers and administrators at different schoolsvary in their participation, acceptance, or resistanceto reform initiatives? What are the specificencouragements and constraints articulated bystakeholders in each school? What characteristicsare common or unique to each participating school?

What are the issues andconcerns that must be addressedduring the planning phase? Do the issues and concernsdiffer from school to school? What are the school-based issues vs. district-level issues vs. state-levelissues?

What practical and logistical issues must schoolsconfront when major restructuring occurs (e.g.,teacher course load and planning, scheduling,availability of resources, staff developmentopportunities)?

3 9


Page 30March 1991

Community and School Contexts. Community values ofteninfluence instructional practice. The essence of a reformed sciencecurriculum may contrast with the public's conception of "science."Open lines of communication should exist among parents, thecommunity-at-large, and the school community. Inquiry could focusupon the nature of the school/community collaboration. Severalschool/community questions are worthy of consideration:

How does the reform process assist parents and thecommunity-at-large in understanding the rationaleand intended outcomes of the reform? How aremembers of the community able to contribute to theprocess? How are students able to contribute to theprocess?

What linguistic conventions, social contexts oractivities, and cultural models are there for everydayscience in families and communities of varioiu socialgroups? How do these everyday conventions,contexts, and culnires differ from those of formalscience? How might translations among them beachieved?

How do we make visible the resources students bringfrom home and the community to the scienceclassroom setting?

W hat is the parental degree of involvement in sciencecurriculum reform?

What are the parental perceptions of science andtechnology? Is science and technology valued withinthe culture?

What is the parental exposure to and use of existingand emerging technologies? Does the variability ofparental exposure to, and use of , technology withinthe home environment inhibit the notion of equalaccess to knowledge for some learners?

What practical and logistical problems do schoolsencounter in the imulementation process (e.g.,scheduling conflicts, lack of materials)?


Page 31

March 1991

What school factors influence project outcomes (e.g.,school size, location, demographics, availableresources, administrative support, background ofteaching staff)?

Does participation in out-of-school activities increasein-school science participation and achievement?

Do ceP. Ain populations of students benefitmore fromcurriculum reform than others (e.g., issues of gender,racelethnicity, class, ability level)?

How can reform enhance the participation in scienceof all students, especially students from traditionallydisenfranchised and underrepresented populations?

School and Classroom Contexts. The quality of scienceinsuuction can be influenced by numerous school-level environmentalfactors (e.g., content selected, facilities, availability of resources andmatetials, management of materials, access to existing and emergingtechnologies, instructional practices, scheduling of teacher time,assessment protocols). Issues to consider are;

What is the nature and quality of communication andcollaboration among science teachers? Do scienceteachers collaborate with ;eachers of otherdisciplines? Is the science curriculum coordinatedwith other disciplines? How do these issuescontributeto or detract from student learning?

Do teachers possess a shared meaning of the goals ofthe curriculum? Do they feel adequately prepared toasswne the instructional responsibilities associatedwith the reformed curriculum?

What are the personal, social, andior environmentalfactors that either facilitate or inhibit students fromaccomplishing the intended outcomes of the reform?

Are some sites more effective than others inimplementing the reform? What factors account forsuch differences?

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Cridcal Issues of Science Curriculum Reform

Page 32March 1991

Teaching-Learning Processes in the Classroom. The natureand roles of teachers and students in the teaching-learning processoffer a fruitful area for investigation. Several questions were elicitedin the section entitled, "Rethinking Cuniculutn Researchand Practice."

Inquiry could also focus on:

What are the shifts in meanings that are constructedand the evolution of students' understanding of theirrights and obligations for participation in both theacademic and social task structures involvedin "doingscience?"46

What factors affect student outcomes?

Is the content appropriate for the learner? Does thesequencing ofactivities reflect current learning theory?

Have students' understandings of science concepts,the "connectedness" of such concepts, and theapplications of such concepts been enhanced as aresult of the project?

Do students' interests in and understandings ofscience change as a result of the project?

Do students recognize the distinction between roteand meaningful learning? How do changes in thecurriculum affect students' views of learning?

How does the breaking of content into taller chunksand spreading them across time (spacing) affectstudent outcomes?

How does the long-term instructional sequence thatproceeds from the phenomenological to the empiricalto the theoretical affect students' understandings ofscience?

How does instruction that focuses on fewer ideas ingreater depth (the "less is more" notion) affectstudents' understandings of science?

Understanding constraints andimpediments to reform could be ofgreat' value both in the impkmentationprocess and in the establishment ofimplementation policies.

Establishing a Research Agenda:-

The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum ReformPage 33

March 1991

Does the instructional environment facilitate theopportunity for every learner to construct meaningfullearning?

How do teachers adapt instructional innovations?What teacher attitudinal and behavioral changesoccur over time during an implementation process?What effect does teacher change have upon: their ownperception of science teaching; their colleagues'perception of teaching; administrators' views of thescience curriculum and instruction; and theexpectations of parents and learners?

In what ways can the tools of technology enhanceinstruction?rl What is the pedagogical rationale forutilizing these tools?

The framework offered for generating questions about theimpact of cultural and contextual factors on the implementation of ascience curriculum reform project should be interpreted as a beginningpoint. We encourage thought, deliberation, refinement, and inquiry.

Exploring Implementation

What are the policies and practices that affect theimplementation phase of a curriculum reform project? This section iscomposed of a series of research questions followed by a briefdiscussion.

What are the constraints on the implementation of the variousscience curriculum reforms? What are some possible means ofreducing the impact of these constraints? Constraints may varyconsiderably from one reform to another. There may be somecommon constraints and impediments endemic to the nature andprocess of reform. Understanding such constraints and impedimentsto reform could be of great value both in the implementation processand in the establishment of implementation policies.

To what extent are the intended curriculum reformsimplemented? One of the common deficiencies of past studies ofcurricular change has been to measure the effects of intended changeswithout ascertaining whether the intended changes actually were in


Page 34March 1991

place. As a result, outcomes or lack of outcomes often havebeen attributed to changes that never took place, or to changes thatdiffered from those claimed. The documentation of curriculumreform projects must give high priority to answering this question,otherwise the answers given to other questions may be seriously offtarget.

To what extent are there variations in the implementation ofa reform across sites? What are the variables that are the mostclosely related to these variations? Variations in the implementationof a reform across sites are among the most promising areas of study.In particular, they arc of interest when information can be acquiredabout the variables most closely related to these variations. Studiesof this nature offer the opportunity to increase our understanding ofthe advantages and limitations of reform.

What approaches to school restructuring and teacherempowerment are most effective in implementing the desired sciencecurriculum reforms? There are many indications that substantialcurriculum change is unlikely to occur independently of changes inthe social context of schooling. Given this potential association ofcurricular change and contextual change, it is important to give majorconsideration to the change processes occurring within the schoolsand their connection to curricular change. Issues associated withteacher empowerment in the context of curriculum reform and actionresearch have been discussed previously.

How should science curriculum development, especially atthe elementary level, respond to current educational movements inother areas of the curriculum (e.g., the whole language approach)?Reform in other curricular areas has the potential of enhancingscience. For example, the increasingly popular whole languageapproach, with its decreased emphasis on facts and drill, has thepotential of leading to less emphasis on narrowly-defined paper-and-pencil tests. Ideally, this could serve as a stimulus for integratedprograms of instruction in which good activity-based scienceinstruction might ensue. On the other hand, the result may well bemore reading about science and less time devoted to science activities.Sttidies should aim at understanding how comprehensive restructuringand reform can facilitate the needs of each of the disciplines. Researchcould similarly focus on efforts to address interdisciplinarycurriculum design and implementation."

1 1

Substantial curriculum changeunlikely to occur independentlychanges in the social contextschooling.

isofof

People' s views of the goals of scienceeducation, their ideas about howstudents learn, and their views ofscience and its role in our society areamong those perspectives profvundlyinfluencing what reforms they favorand the manner in which they arewilling to see them implemented.


Page 35March 1991

To what extent do educational leaders' and practitioners'conceptions ofthe nature of science, schools, teaching, and curriculumconstrain possible reforms? People's views of the goals of scienceeducation, their ideas about how students learn, and their views ofscience and its role in our society are among those perspectivesprofoundly influencing what reforms they favor and the manner inwhich they are willing to see them implemented. Understanding theconvictions as well as concerns of the various personnel involvedespecially teachers is important for determining what reforms arefeasible and how best to go about initiating and sustaining suchchanges.

To what extent are classroom aspects, such as the following,changed as a result of reforms: classroom social environments, themeans of monitoring and responding to suident understanding,academic tasks, and teaching strategies? Understanding the impactof reforms on a wide variety of variables not just student learning

is essential to assessing their potential for change and thecircumstances under which they can be initiated successfully. Theimpacts potentially are large; a curricular change has the potential ofinfluencing many variables in a given situation.

Successfully implementing curricular change is not easy.Understanding the process better should increase the potential ofsuccessfully maldng the intended changes. Answers to the abovequestions would go a long way in providing understanding.

Exploring the Impact

Fundamental questions about curriculum reform concernimpact and effectiveness. Proponents and potential implementers ofreforms will want to know whether the reforms achieved their statedgoals. Unintended or unexpected out.comes may also be of interest.Three broad, organizing questions serve as the focus for inquiryregarding the impact and effectiveness of curriculum reform:

What are the effects of reform initiatives on students?

What are the effects of reform initiatives on teachers?

What factors moderate the effects of reform?

Establishing a Research Agenda;The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Reforni

Page 36March 1991

What are the Effects of Reform Initiatives onStudents? Alarge number of very detailed questions can be imagined that would

tap different aspects of the effects or outcomes of curriculum reform.Two critical outcomes to be considered are students' understandings

of science in the bmadest sense and attitudes towards science.

Two bodies of research can help us develop much moresophisticated images of what it means for a student to understand

something scientifically. First, ideas about cognitive science orconceptual change in science learning. Second, research focusing onhow people learn, as well as how they use language as they participate

in the activities of communities.°

Innovative assessment must also be an integral part ofcurriculum reform. This statement does not conflict with our previousdiscussion on standardized assessment. New forms of assessmenttechnology ought to derive from recent theory and research incognitive and motivational psychology. They should be applied toeffective learning environments. Dynamic assessment should bedesigned to evaluate students' potential for change by assessingprocess rather than product." "Research might take the lead in thereform of indicators of science achievement. Researchers, inpartnership with practitioners, need to build a new knowledge baseand a new technology for achievement in science.'1'

What are the Effects of Reform Initiatives on Teachers?As teachers implement a reformed curriculum, they will be affectedby the curriculum as well. Questions of interest are:

What is the impact on teachers' activities andbehaviors in the classroom and beyond?

How do teachers collaborate to achieve the bridgingand coordination between subject-matter areas thatare desired? What strategies do teachers introduceto help strengthen these connections?

How do teachers use materials to facilitate studentlearning and student involvement in learning?

What changes can be expected in strategies andmaterial usage when teachers implement thecurriculum?

Science education must become moreresponsive to personal, societal, andcultural needs.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The aitical Issues of Science Cuniculum Reform

Page 37March 1991

Another area of impact will be upon the beliefs and attitudesof teachers about their practice, their students, and the subject matter.

How will teachers feel about developing, planning,and implementing a curriculum which involvesextensive cooperation among teachers (andadministrators)?

How will the introduction of reform affect teachers'motivation and satisfaction with their practice? Doteachers envision reform as providing mostlyopportunities, or as presenting problems?

Teachers' attitudes towards their students may change asstudents become more active in their own learning and begin to makeconnections across science subject-matter areas. Teachers' responsesto the changes in their students may vary according to characteristicsof the teachers themselves. For instance, teachers who feel competentto deal with topics at the boundaries of their subject-matter areas maybe pleased with student initiative, while less confident teachers mayfeel threatened. Finally, it will be important to note the extentto whichteachers encourage active participation in science for all students.

What Factors Moderate the Effects of Reform?Understanding what individual and group differences act to enhance(or reduce) the effectiveness of science instruction should be a maingoal of research on this question.

Gender, ethnicity, and class ,Latusare three variables that bearinvestigation in any research on moderators of curriculum effects. Inscience education these are particularly important variables to studybecause of the current patterns of participation in science- andtechnology-oriented careers. An overt goal of every major sciencereform initiative is to promote more interest and persistence in scienceby all students. Thus, gender, ethnicity, and class are importantmoderator variables to investigate.

The Foreseeable Future

Science education must become more responsive to personal,societal, and cultural needs. Reform and restructuring will be the wayof life for the foreseeable future. Presently, a great deal of progress is

4 7

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Critical Issues of Sc ience Curriculum Reform

Page 38March 1991

being made in combining technological advances with insights intoscience learning and science instruction. Reform will ultimatelyinvolve a redefinition of the roles of teachers, researchers,technology, textbooks, and other influences associated with theprocess of schooling.' New infrastructures organizational and

technological will be necessary to support the process of chant', in

science education.

The science education community must ensue that studentsrecei,.e the best science education that can be offered. Ensuringcongruence between what is needed and what is offered can beaccomplished through adherence to policies that are research supported.In addition to ensuring that all students develop scientific literacy, toenable full and active participation as citizens in a democratic society,we must begin to attract students to careers in science and technology,as well. Enhancing students' interest and participation in science andtechnology will require broad-based community initiatives in concertwith appropriate educational interventions. Enhancing scientific andtechnological literacy and career awareness is as much a socio-cultural and political issue as it is an educational issue.

45

In add:Won to ensuring :halal: studentsdevelop a scientec literacy,to enablefull and active partic4pation as citizensin ademocratic society, we must beginto attract students to careers in scienceand technology.

Establishing a Research Agenda:The Cm Ica! Issues of Science Curriculum Reform====

Page 39

March 1991

Recommendations

Science educators have been searching for the wonder drug forover twenty-five years. At one time or another, the search has focusedupon: the curriculum ... the instructional strategy ... the teacher ... thelearner the technology ... the research study that would solve thepressing issues of the day. The search has typically involved a singleinvestigator who: isolates one variable at a time in a controlled"laboratory" envimnment oversimplifies the variable for the purposeof inquiry; and celebrates victory at the discovery of a new significantdifference. The isolation of variables has isolated researchers fromthe rest of the world. The quick, one-shot approach to researchcontrasts with emerging curricular notions of depth vs. breadth andlong-term coordination vs. isolated knowledge. The personalcelebrations of victory are at odds with the recognized hallmarks ofreform collaboration and communication.

We must construct a comprehensive. Why have efforts to improve science teaching through researchintellectually honest, and typically failed? Inquiry and debate have not addressed the issues ofpedagogically valid image of reform, sustainable reform: the process of change the culture of schools

the context of classrooms the content of the anriculum." Curriculum,instruction, assessment, and research in science education must be re-formed. We must construct a comprehensive, intellectually honest,and pedagogically valid image of reform. This trierging image must:

* ensure that citizens develop scientific and technologicalliteracy for self- and social-empowerment;

* address the wider socio-cultural, economic, and politicalcontexts in which schooling transpires; and

* ensure that scientific literacy for all means just thatliteracy for all.

We set out to identify the critical issues and questions ofscience curriculum reform. We offer the following recommendations:

Long-term, comprehensive research projects must beinitiated. These projects ought to focus on both the processand impact of reform. These projects should encourage thecreation of research networks. Projects of this nature have thepotential to: ensure that a sound theoretical frameworkunderpins the systemic inquiry of science curriculum reform;


Page 40March 1991

improve the quality of research; and contribute to sustainable

reform.

2. Communication and collaboration must be valued. Ourunderstanding of science teaching and learning will beenhanced by practitioners and researchers theorizing,planning, conducting, and interpreting research that is

pedagogically valid. Enhanced communication andcor aboration should inform the process and influence practice.

3. The reform of schools and teacher education must be inharmony. The reform of schooling requires nothing less thanthe transformation of the way prospective teachers areeducated.'

4. Novel and practical ways to share experiences ofcurriculum reform research must be identified. Fewresearch reports are read by the people for whom the reportscould have the greatest implications teachers administrators,policy makers, and curriculum material developers. Aneffective program of research related to curriculum reformwill require an equally effective system for sharing what islearned. Non-traditional avenues and forms of reportingresearch must be explored.

Can we learn to become conscious of the issues that face uscollectively? In order to do so, we must become new-minded." Ourcomprehension of issues, problems, and problem resolution must beviewed from the long-term vs. short-term perspective. People's ideasare not as fixed as commonly thought. Thus, our chancesof becomingnew-minded and successfully confronting the formidable challengesbefore us are greatly enhanced.

Establishing a Research Agenda;The Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Reform

Page 41March 1991

Notes

I. Joseph Rouse, Knowledge and Power: Toward a Political Philosophy ofScience (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987), pp. viii & 3.

2. Edward Weak, Jr., Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a High-Tech World(Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), pp. 6 & 9.

3. Rouse, Knowledge and Power, pp. 3, 6, & 248-265.

4. These questions are raised by Rouse (1987) in the context of philosophicalinquiry into the practical, social, and political dimensions of science, see pp. viii, x,& 6. We believe these questions are equally viable in the context of critical issuesrelated to scierwe curriculum reform. These questions complement two issuesraised by participants: "How car the nature ofscience be used to inform instruction?"and "What are the social and societal barriers to students' learning of science?"

5. Lester R. Brown et al., State of the World 1991 (New York: W. W. Norton.1991), pp. 3, 20. 188, & Ch. 10.

6. William C. Kyle, Jr.,"The Reform Agenda and Science Education: HegemonicControl vs. Counterhegemony," Science Education, in press.

7. Richard H. Schlagel, Contextual Realism: A Meta-physical FrameworkforModern Science (New York: Paragon House, 1986),p. xxxi.

8. William C. Kyle, Jr., Improving Science Teaching: Beyond EpistemologicalArgwnenu of the Positivist and the Interpretive Views of Research toward aConception of Diajogical Communities (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University,School Mathematics and Science Center, 1991).

9. For further explication of the issue of schooling and cultural production. seeMichael W. Apple, Teachers andTexts: A Political Economy of Class and GenderRelations in Education (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); Paulo Freire,The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation, trans. by D. Macedo(Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985); Henry A. Giroux, Schooling and theStruggle for Public Life: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age (Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press, 1988); Henry A. Giroux & Peter McLaren, eds.,Critical Pedagogy, the Stare, and Cultural Struggle (Albany, NY: State Universityof New York Press, 1989); Jeannie Oakes, MultiplyingInequalities: The Effects ofRace, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn in Mathematics andScience (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1990); Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunities,Achievement, and Choice: Women and Minority Students in Science andMathematics," in Courtney B. Cazden, cd., Review ofResearch in Education, vol.16, pp. 153-222 (Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association,1990); Lois Weis, ed., Class, Race, and Gender in American Education (Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 1988).

10, Peter McLaren. Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in theFoundations of Education (New York: Longman, 1989), p. 158.


Page 42March 1991

11. William C. Kyle, Jr., A Meta-analysis of the Effects on Student Performanceof the New Curricular Programs Developed in Science Education Since 1955(Dissertation Abstracts Internationa1,43, 1104A, 1982), p. 16. Laurel N. Tannerdiscussed the need to integrate curriculum hiswry in both curriculum reform andresearch in "Curriculum History and Educational Leadership," EducationalLeadership, November 1983, pp. 38-42.

12. These questions were raised in the context of investigating historical changesin the goals of science education for the purpose of suggesting policies for futuredecades in Rodger W. Bybee, "Historical Research in Science Education."Journalof Research in Science Teaching, vol. 19, 1982, pp. 1-13. The questions areitalicized because they were also raised by conference participants.

13. Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (NewYork: G.P. Putnam's Scuts, 1973).

14. Fcw an overview of the educational achievements of the reform efforts of the1960s, see James A. Shymansky et al., "The Effects of New Science Currkula onStudent Performance,"Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, vol. 20 1983, pp.387-404 and James A. Shymansky et al.,"A Reassessment of the Eifects uf Inquiry-Based Science Curricula of the '60s on Student Performance,"fourna/ ofResearchin Science Teaching, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 127-144.

15. Between 1854 and 1859, Herbert Spencer wrote and published separately fouressays on education. In 1861 the four essays appeared in a single volume entitled,Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. The tone of the publications wasaggressive. While the prop:111s were revolutionary, Spencer noted that many of theideas were synthesized from 2LtliPv writers on education. However, the newdoctrine that ran throughout all of the essays was most fully articulated in the 1859essay emitted, "What Knowledge is of Most Worth?" See Herbert Spencer,Essayson Education (London: J.M. Dent & Sons. 1911).

16. See Oakes, Multiplying Inequalitier, William Reese, Power and the Promiseof School Reform (New York: Routledge & ICegan Paul, 1986); Weis. ed., Class,Race, and Gender in American Education.

17 . For further elucidation of this point, sce Michael W. Apple, Ideology andCurriculum, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1990).

18. Jeanne Oakes. "Tracking in Mathematics and Science Education: A StnicturalContribution to Unequal Schools," in Lois Weis, ed., Class, Race, and Gender inAmerican Education, pp. 106-125.

19. Elliot W. Eisner, "Who Decides What Schools Teach?" Phi Delta Kappan,March 1990, 523-526.

20. Throughout this report we use the umbrella "qualitative" for the methodologiesthat include case study, ethnographic , and naturalistic inquiry. The reader may wishto refer to: Robert C. Bogdan & Sari Knopp Biklen, Qualitative Research forEducation: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon,


Page 43March 1991

1982); Freckrick Erickson, "Qualitative Methods of Research on Teaching," inMerlin C. Wittrock, ed., The Handbook of Educaonal Research, 3rd ed., pp. 119-161 (New York: Macmillan, 1986); Judith Preissle Goetz & Margaret DianeLeCompte, Ethnography and Qualirative Design in Educational Research (SanDiego, CA: Academic Press, 1984); and Yvonna S. Lincoln & Egon G. Guba,Naturalistic Inquiry (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 1985).

21. Marcia C. Linn, "Establishing a Research Base for Science Education: Chal-lenges, Trends, and Recommendations,"Journal of Research in Science Teaching,vol. 24, 1987, pp. 191-216.

22. Kyle, "The Reform Agenda and Science Education."

23. For a convirming critique of the productive and reproductive aspects ofschooling, see Michael W. Apple, Education and Power (Boston: Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1982). For an ovaview of various perspectives of social transformation,see McLaren, Life in Schools. Refer to the works of John Dewey for furtherexplication of his notion of education, inquiry, and social transformation, seeespecially Liberalism and Social Action (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1935),Experience and Education (New York; Macmillan, 1938), Democracy andEducation: An Introduction to the Philosophy ofEducation (New York:Macmillan.1916), Ind Freedom and Culture, (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1963, c1939).

24. William C. Kyle, Jr. et al.,"The Role of Research in Science Teaching,"ScienceEducation, in press.

25. Peter J. Fensharn,"Familiar but Different; Some Dilemmas and New Directionsin Science Education," in Peter J. Fensham, ed., Development and Dilemmas inScience Education, pp. 1-26 (New York: The Fahner Press, 1988).

26. We offer these four principks in light of the emerging educational reform andcurricilum research ethos, which views both processes as participatory andcollaborative. Thus, research is directed at critical analysis of situations andproblems with a view toward transforming schools and classrooms in ways that willimprove the situation for students, teachers, and society. This conuasts with thecurriculum development era of the 1960s and early 1970s, which legitimated andsustained the separation of theory from practice and research from action. Theemerging ethos questions the model of technical rationality as applied to cuniculumand curriculum research. The model of technical rationality has forgeda wide gulfbetween researchers and practitioners. The emerging ethos is guided by criticalreflection and its epistemology is constructivist. See, for example, Wilfred Carr &Stephtm Kem mis, Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research(Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1986); Donald A. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner :How Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books, 1983); Donald A.Sc hon, ed., The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice (NewYork.. reach= College Press, 1991); Ernst von Glasersfeld, "An Introduction toRadical Constmctivism," in Paul Watzlawick, ed., The Invented Reality, pp. 17-40(New York: W.W. Norton, 1984). See also, Sharon Nodie Oja & Lisa Smulyan,Collaborative Action Research: A Developmental Approach (New York: TheFalmer Press, 1989).


Page 4.4

March 1991

27. Personal communication. Walter C. Parker to William C. Kyle, Jr., July 1990.Walter C. Parker is author of the forthcoming book entitled, Renewing the SocialStudies Curriculum (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment).

28. Larry Cuban,"Reforming Again, Again, and Again,"EducationalResearcher,January 1990, pp. 3-13.

29. Research on educational change and staff development offers recommendationsfor how to implement educational innovation& See, for example, Michael Fullan,The Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College Press, 1982);Gene E. Han & Shirley M. Hord, Change in Schools: Facilitating tlw Process(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987); Shirley M. Hord,William L. Rutherford, Leslie Huling-Austin & Gene E. Hall, Taking Charge ofChange (Alexandria, VA: Association for S upervision and Curriclum Development,1987).

30. For further explication of the constructivist epistemology, refer to Ernst vonGlasersfeld, The Consouctionof/Cnowledge (Seaside,CA: Intersystem Publications,1987). The National Science Foundation has funded eight major (and several other)elementary material development programs that lean toward constructivist teachingand learning. The reforms advocated by the American Association for theAdvancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association recognizethe imponance of a constructivist epistemology. See F. James Rutherford &Andrew Ahlgren, Science for AR Americans (New York: Oxford University Press,1990) and Bill G. Aldridge, "Essential Changes in Secondary School Science:Scope, Sequence, and Coordination," NSTA Reports!, January/February 1989,respectively. The following publications offer suggestions for teaching practices:Christine Chaille & Lory Britain. The Young Child as Scientist: A ConstructivistApproach to Early Childhood Science Education (New York: Harper CollinsPublishers, 1991); Audrey Champagne & Leslie E. Hornig, eds., This Year inSchool Science 1986: The Science Curriculum (Washington, DC; AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, 1986); Susan Loucks-Horsley et aLElementary School Sciencefor the 90s (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development, 1990); Robin Millar, ed., Doing Science: Images ofScience in Science Education (New York: The Falmer Press, 1989); Roger Osborne& Peter Freyberg, Learning in Science: The Implications of Children' s Science(Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1985).

31. The theory of "knowledge constitutive interests" is described in JurgenHabermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. by J. J. Shapiro (London:Heinemann, 1972). See also, Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism andRealism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1988) and Carr & Kemmis, Becoming Critical, p. 136.

32. See Kenneth Tobin, Jane Butler Kahle & Barry J. Fraser, Windows into ScienceClassrooms: Problems Associated with Higher-Level Cognitive Learning (NewYork: The Falmer Press, 1990).

33. Mark Johnson, TheBody in the Mind:TheBodilyBasisofMeanine,Imagination,and Reason (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987).


Page 45March 1991

34. The litany of education reports in the United States since 1980 istoo numerousto cite. Suffice it to say, however, that the tone for many of these reports wasestablished by The National Commission on Excellence in Education's reportentitled, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983). The most recent report focusing uponinternational competitiveness rather than international cooperation is the Report ofthe FCCSET Committee on Education and Human Resouces, By the Year 2000:First in the World (Washington, DO Office of Science and Technology Policy,1991).

35. Kyle, "The Reform Agenda and Science Education."

36. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement(IEA) conducted a study of the achievement in science in 19 countries in 1970. TheSecond International Science Stialy (SISS) was repeated in the mid-1980s with 24countries participating. See lEA, Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A

Preliminary Report (New York: Pergamon Press, 1988). The international resultsare reported for three populations: Population 1 (10 year olds), based upon a 24-itemcore test and two shorter 8-item tests; Population 2 (14 year olds, purportedly ofgreat importance because this is tile point near the end of compulsory education andthe science achievement levels are one indicator of how scientifically literate thegeneral public and work force will be, p. 42), based upon a 30-item core test and twoshorter 10-item testg and Population 3 (students in the final year of secondaryschool, purportedly representing the scientific elite in a technological era thosespecializing in science. p. 43), based upon a 30-itemcore test, as well as separatediscipline tests for students studying biology, chemistry, or physics, or a specialnon-science test for those students not studying science. Due to the diverseeducational systems and curricular emphases, the TEA constructed three indices oftest validity (a curriculum relevance index, a test relevance index, and a curriculumcoverage index). While these tests may offer interesting international insights, wequestion why any country would aspire to being "number one" on a test with sucha narrow perspective of achievement. It is difficult to imagine how interpretationsof these results could offer any meaningful guidance or assessment of curnculumreform.

37. National Science Board Com mizsion on Precollege Education in Mathematics,Science, and Technology, Educating Americans for the 21st Cemury: A Plan ofAction for Improving Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education for AllAmerican Elementary andSecondaryStudenuso thatTheir Achievemem is the Bestin the World by 1995 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1983).

3. Governor Roy Romer of Colorado as quoted in, "Nation Just Out of the StartingGate on Education Goals," Report on Education Research, January 9, 1991, p. 4.

39. Refer to Paulo Freim, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press,1970); Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (New York: SeaburyPress, 1973); and Freire, The Politics of Education.

40. J. Myron Atkin. "Can Educational Research Keep Pace with EducationalReform?" Phi Delta Kappan, November 1989, pp. 200-205.


Page 46March 1991

41. Rutherford & Ahlgren, Science forAll Americans.

42. Personal communication, Albert V. Baez to William C. Kyle. Jr., July 1989.

43. Rutherford & Ahlgren, Science forAll Americans.

44. Aldridge, "Essential Changes in Secondary School Science."

45. See Rodger W. Bybee, "Contemporary Elementary School Scimice: TheEvolution of Teachers and Teaching," in Audrey B. Champagne, ed., This Year in

School Science 1988: Science Teaching, pp. 153-171 (Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancemem of Science). See also, The National Center for

Improving Science Education's series of reports entitled, The Elementary Yearsand The Middle Years. Each series is comprised of four reports available through:

The Network, 300 Brickstone Square, Suite 900, Andover, MA.

46. Seel L. Lemke, Using Language in theClassroom (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1989) and J. L. L.emke, Talking Science (Norwood Hills, NJ: Ablex, 1990).

47. See James D. Ellis, ed., 1988 AE-1S Yearbook: Information Technology andScience Education (Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse, 1989).

48. Heidi Hayes Jacobs, ed., Interdisciplinary Curriculum; Design andImplementation (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development, 1989).

49. The literature on cognitive science or conceptual change in science learningwould be too numerous to cite. Instead, we refer the reader to #30 above, inparticular Millar, Doing Science and Osborne & Freyberg, Learning in Science.Refer to the following sources regarding tlz second body of research: BarbaraRogoff& Jean Lave, eds., Everyday Cognition: ItsDevelopment in Social Context(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) and Les Vygotsky, Thou& andLanguage (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1962).

50. See Audrey B. Champagne, Barbara E. Lovitts & Betty J. Calinger, eds.. ThisYear in School Science 1990: Assessment in the Service oflnstruction(Washington,DC! Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990).

51. Richard J. Shavelson, Neil B. Carey & Noreen M. Webb, "Indicators ofScience Achievement Options for a Powerful Policy Instrument," Phi DeltaKappan, May 1990, pp. 692-697.

52. Marcia C. Linn, "Science Education and the Challenges of Technology," inJames D. Ellis, ed., 1988 AETS Yearbook: Information Technology and ScienceEducation, pp. 119-144 (Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse, 1989).

53. Ann Lieberman, "Navigating the Four C's: Building a Bridge over TroubledWaters," Phi Delta Kappan, March 1990, pp. 531-533.

5i;


Page 47Maxch 1991

54. See The Holmes Group, Tomorrow's Schools: Principles of the Design ofProftssionalDevelopmentSchools (East Lansing, MI: Author, 1990). See alsoJohnI. Good lad, Teachersfor Our Nation' s Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).

55. Robert Ornstein & Paul Ehrlich, NewWorld New Mind (New York: Simon &Schuster, 1989).

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Mark J. Volkmann for his comments and suggestions forimprovement. Mark is completing a Ph.D. in science education at Purdue University,He is investigating issues associated with the prricess of reform. His recommendationswere most valued from the perspective of a classroom teacher for nineteen years

who has been interesmd in the issues of reform, empowerment, and classroom-based research. We also wish to thank Bonnie Nowakowski for editing and proofingthe document. Any remaining errors or omissions are the responsibility of theauthors.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

5S

document resume ed 340 606 se 052 548 author title … · document resume. se 052 548. shymansky,...

Documents