ED '326 421

TITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 051 780

Concept/Process-Based Science. Science CurriculumConcept Paper #4.Oregon State Dept. of Education, Salem.Sep 9013p.; For a related document, see SE 051 781.Oregon Dept. of Education, 700 Pringle Parkway, SE,Salem, OR 97310-0290 (Free while supply lasts).Informa'zion Analyses (070)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Cognitive Development; *Concept F.)rmation;*Educational Trends; *Elementary School Science;Elementary Secondary Education; ExperientialLearning; Literature Reviews; Misconceptions;Personal Autonomy; *Problem Solving; Science andSociety; *Science Curriculum; Science Education;Scientific Concepts; *Secondary School Science;Values Education

IDENTIFIERS *Constructivism

ABSTRACTMajor efforts are underway to identify and define a

science of science education which will reverse the relationshipbetween research and program development. This trend is toward usingresearch on how learners grow and develop prior to programdevelopment and the organization of instructional techniques. Clearscientific explanations of how students learn will be of greatpractical value in assisting teachers to more directly work with andpromote students' learning activities. Therefore, in order to defineconcept/process-based science education, this paper begins bysummarizing the relevant research trends. The research, which leadsto a definition of concept/process-based science, has been summarizedin five main areas which Include: (1) the instructional methodsteachers use; (2) the curriculum that is identified as Important tostudent growth; (3) the learning activities in which students areasked to participate; (4) the evaluation of student growth; and (5)placing science in a broader, interdisciplinary context which relatesit to societal values. Each section discusses the problem, the trend,and the implication for science education. The paper concludes with adefinition of Oregon's concept/process-based science. (KR)

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are tie best that can be made* from the original document.

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION°awe ca Educational Flosaarrn nd Improvemonl

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Tnts document hs Doan repr(Xut Pd asrecett,est from the 1)PISorl 1 ottjanqatro^ortginatmg',Amor nanges have bee,' ,eade tt, ,rttotreproductIon dual/4

Potnts of or opmons stated .1111,5 dot umant do not net essaroy feoreseot otficaiOE RI 1.,,s.!or,

"PERA.fSSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Oregon Department of EducationSCIENCE EDUCATION

Concept/Process-Based Science

L Introduction

Science Curriculum Concept Paper #4

Major efforts are underway to identify and definea science of science education which will reversethe relationship between research and programdevelopment (Resnick, 1986; Shulman, 1987).This trend is toward using research on how learnersgrow and develop prior to program developmentand the organization of instructional techniques.Th3 trend is a movement away from basing pro-grams on a pre-established philosophy or usingresearch techniques merely to test for programeffects after a program has been formulated. Clearscientific explanations of how students learn willbe of great practical value in assisting teachers tomore directly work with and promote students'learning activities. It is the advancement of scien-tific understanding which informs, makes pos-sible, and, in general, promotes humans' practicalactivAy. Therefore, in order to define concept/process-based science education, this paper be-gins by summarizing the relevant research trends.

The research which leads to a definition of con-cept/process-based science can be summarized infour, main areas which suggest and substantiatequalitative changes for Oregon science education.These include:

the instructional methods teachers use,

the curriculum that is identified as impor-tant to student growth,

the learning activities in which stuckare asked to participate,

and the evaluation of student growth.

An additional, fifth component also provides guid-mg principles for concept/process-based scienceand particularly Science, Technology, and Society

education (STS):

placing science in a hoader, interdisciplinarycontext which relates it to societal values.

IL Trends from Research

While individual research findings do not directlytell educators what to do, trends in research haveimportant implications for educational practice.Increasingly, these trends are toward:

explaining how knowledge is not transmit-ted but develops as a human mental activ-ity,

showing 1,s7v concepts and scientificknowledge can be described and specified,

describing the students' constructive ac-tivities of conceptutlization,

explaining how students' systems of men-tal activity or 'naive conceptions' reorga-nize themselves as students' use them anddevelop an understanding of a conceptinother words, explaining the stages ofconceptualization, and

understanding science as playing a neces-sary and valuable role in illuminatingpractical problems of human adaptation tothe world and not just as a body of knowl-edge studied for its own sake.

The research trends, indicating that researchersare reorganizing their fundamental conceptionsof how students learn science, are producingqualita *-e changes in science education (NSTA,1987; Linn, 1987; NASBE, 1988; and seeShymansky and Kyle, 1988; and the Blosser andHelgeson series of summaries). The awareness ofthese qualitative changes clarify how concept/

- 1

Concept1Process-Based Science

process-based science programs differ from tradi-tional science programs in each of the five areasdiscussed above. From these differences comesemergingresponsibilities and directions forchangeby support personnel and science teachers.

Each of the following sections discusses the re-search trends by (1 ) posing a fundamental prob-lem of science education, (2) discussing a trendemerging from advances in research, and (3)drawing the implications from the scientific basisfor concept/process-based science. Each ends witha summary chart.

1. Instructional Methods

Problem: In attempting to educationally pro-mote the development of scientific knowledge instudents, can knowledge be directly presented andtransmitted to students such as through languageor in experience with objects? Or, is knowledge aninternal or mental, constrictive activity which issimply stimulated and triggered by externalsources such as teaching? Is it possible to have thelearner directly study completed knowledge? Or,can instruction only assist the learner in puttingtogether knowledge such as through problemsolving cycles?

The Trend: Instructional methods have prima-rily been based on perceptions, typologies, andprocedural guidelines such as Models of Teaching(Joyce & Weil, 1986) or ITIP (Hunter & Russell,1981). These methods usually have the intent ofcarefully ,,rganizing and directly presenting ordemonstrating completed concepts to students forthem to learn. Increasingly, however, instructionalmethods are being derived from research into theproblem solving cycles and natural processesstudents must go through in the construction ofconcepts and understanding (Cate & Grzybowski,198't; Pizzini, Shepardson, & Abell, 1989;Lockhead and Clement, 1979; Renner ant! Aarek,1988).

The trend is toward basing instruction onmethods which work directly with the dy-namic constructive and problem-solving

activities of the learner rather than onstafic models of presenting or showingcompleted concepts, and teacher organizedlearning activities and gabs'.

Implication for Science Educatiom Ratherthan using the activity of students to practice orapply knowledge, the trend is toward assistingthem to construct knowledg c. through the theactivity itself. This means that rather than sim-ply presenting and covering the material to belearned, instructional methods are being based onlearning cycles which follow and facilitate thedeveloping mental abilities of the student.

As the constructive nature of students' mentaland physical activities is better understood, in-struction will increasingly focus on first, helpingstudents to generate concrete or practical activi-ties and second, helping them abstract and con-ceptualize the concepts within the activities. Theseinstructional cycles eventually and naturally leadthe student to the abstract representations ofconcepts (such as mathematical and scientificformulas). Instruction, then, helps the learnerreconstruct or'conceptualize' previous mental andphysical activity first using verbal and then math-ematical forms. Commonly, tliese final, abstractformulas are the place where instruction begins.(See Chart I.)

2. Curriculum

Problem: In specifying what is to be developed inthe learner, should knowledge be considered as abody ofinformation to which increasingly complexinformation is added (that is, something whichcan be comprehended directly in completed formand which exists outside of the learner)? Or,should knowledge be considered fundamentallyas systems of mental activity necessarily orga-nized and initiated by the learner? In other words,should the curriculum specify knowledge as some-thing to be presented ready made to the learner instatic, completed form? Or, should curriculumessentially be viewed as an activity by the learner?

- 2 -t1

ConceptiPmervc-Rased SciPnce

Chart I: Instructional Methods

A TraditionalScieace Program

A Concept/Process-BasedScience Program

Features clear organization and presen-tation ofinformation either from teacheror text, or uses objects to show informa-

Features clear problem posing as ini-tial beginning of activity with objects.

tion (teacher centered). Makes organization and anceptualizationof knowledge the responsibility of learner.

Puts activity of learner after teachingand uses it to reinforce, apply, or practicewhat has been learned from teacher ortext.

Works with and through learners' ac-tivities.

L based on shifting learner activitiesFeatures emphasis on testing of learnerto insure control of learning throughcorrect reception and recall.

through problem posing and solvingcycles which follow natural construe-tion and stages of conceptualization.

Confuses method with how to present orexpose knowledge to learner.

Constantly attempts to 'decontrol'learner to push learner toward inde-pendence.

Assumes all learners 'ready' at sametime. Accommodates wide range of learners.

And, is that activity essentially a mental one or anobservable, behavioral one?

The Trend: In a "call for fundamental refofrn" ofthe curriculum, the National Association of StateBoards of Education (NASBE, 1988) called for K-12 curriculs which address central concepts andthinking skills. These objectives address the needto develop fundamental intellectual capabilitieswhich lead to understanding rather than superfi-cial knowledge that covers many topics and iseasily testable. Theodore Sizer's Coalition of Es-sential Schools features essential, intellectualcapabilities by stressing that "less is more"(Wiggins, 1987).

Curriculum reformers (but not most teachers andpublishers) are moving away from specification ofa number of courses, coverage of texts, or hours of

science instruction, to identification offundamen-tal concepts and understandings (e.g., AAAS,1989), deeper mental processes of reasoning, in-vestigation, and problem solving (Costa, 1985;CM, Geltovitch, & Glaser, 1980), identificatior ofthe relations among concepts, and specification ofthe development of concepts (Lawson,1988; Driverand Easley, 1978).

Rather than speculation and armchair taskanalysis of concepts, the mental complexity of theconstruction of understanding of various scien-tific concepts is increasingly being derived fromresearch (Gardner, 1985) such as that reported inthe Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar:Misconceptions and Educational Strategies(Novak, 1987) and Published Articles in ScienceEducation: Alternative Conceptions and Cogni-tive Development (Dykstra & Schroeder, 1987).

3

't

ironcept1Process-Baseci Science I

I

Chart II: Curriculum

A TraditionalScience Program

A Coacept/Process-BasedScience Program

Tends to be bas d on topics, informationto be covered, or written materials to beused.

Abstracts and identifies important ca-pabilities or systems of understandingmaking up an area of study.

Has fragmented notion of educationalobjectives, often a listing of skills andcontent.

Concepts and processes seen as two in-tegrated aspects of any understanding.

Focuses on mental rather than observ-Specifies knowledge specified as behav-iors, performances, or uses.

able activity.

Based on knowledge not static body butBased on static 'body' ofinformation whichcan be transmitted and learned; divisioninto content and process skills.

internal activities which depend on whatand how learner initiates and organ-izes.

These research fmdings are the beginnings of ascientific basis for speciilcation of the sciencecurriculum

The trend is to see and defi.ne the conceptsof the science curriculum as mental ac-tivities whose development forms differ-ent perspectives and misconceptions lead-ing up to the most current valid scientificconceptions. The trend is away from see-ing the science curriculum as a staticcontent or a body of knowledge to be cov-ered.

implication for Science Education: The trendto understand knowledge as mental activity meansto understand: (1) concepts as organized systemsof thought and not as simple accumulations oflearning, (2) knowledge as mental activity and notas behavioral activity or as specific performances,and (3) concept development as the formation ofperspectives, wholes, or systems, and not merely

as the accumulation of facts and isolated experi-ences. (See Chart II.)

Once these underlying systems of thought arebetter understood and their stability and shapinginfluence is studied (as Piaget and others havealready done with many scientific concepts), theywill become increasingly important as teachersuse them to develop scientific competence in theirstu,:lents.

3. Learning Activities

Problem: Is learning a reception of informationwhich the learner must then understand throughactivity such as practice or application? Or, islearning essentially mental activity initiated andorganized by the learner which shapes what thelearner sees and experiences? Can a learning

5

ConceptIProcess-Based Science I

experience be presented to the learner? Or, mustit be constructed by the learner? The problemrests in whether the learner's activity is thoughtto be formative of knowledge and the source ofunderstanding or whether the learner's activitiesare merely products or outputs used to receive,practice, store, and display something deliveredby instruction.

The Trend: Science education research is mov-ing toward identifying the essential importance ofthe learner's activity and involvement in puttingtogether scientific knowledge (Bredderman,1983;Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport, 198'). Intimatelybound up with the increasing emphasis on con-structive learning activities are active interper-sonal exchanges among students in cooperativelearning (Johnson &Johnson,1986; Slavin,1988).Essential to the notion of active learning is the

i

principle that this student activity is directed toobjects and not to abstract verbal concepts andprecesses. Student organized activity always pro-vides the necessary and essential beginning pointfor studenth' men;.11 constructions. Active learn-ing does not mean the use of manipulatives topresent information or to have learners practicepresented information.

The trend is toward seeing learning as anactivity organized by the student and di-rected to the world (that is, an active as-similation of objects and phenomena),rather than as a passive, verbal receptionfrom teacher or text, or as a passive record-ing of experience.

Implicationfor Science Education: The trendis to see learners as actively involved in construct-

Chart III: Learning Activities

A TraditionalScience Program

A Concept/Process-BasedScience Program

Consists of application or practice of pre-viously presented material.

Is preorganized by the teacher or text('canned' labs, filling in tables or graphs,worksheets, etc.)

Features premature 'closure', fragmen-tation, and topic hopping rather thanbuilding on previous learning.

Directs learners' atthntion to completedknowledge to be learned rather than onobjects, or activities are done for activi-ties sake.

Uses passive textbook-based survey typelearning with interactions featuring short'right answer' responses.

Uses and develops students concep-tual framework rather than "correct,"completed understanding.

Builds and reorganizes by examiningprevious learning and conceptualframework of students.

Shifts between learners' conceptualframework (logic) and testing it on realobjects (experience).

Focus students' activities on objects tobe understood rather than on alreadyformed knowledge.

Integrates experiential/lab activitywith learners' organization of activityand data organization (table, graph,etc.).

5 _

6

IConceptIProcess-Based Science

ing their experiences rather than as passive re-ceivers of information and experience who onlyact after the fact to make sense out of a receivedexperience. The activity initiated and organizedby the learner is therefore increasingly coming tobe understood as the fundamental constructivefactor in students' understanding of the world.Process and content are not two distinct thingsbut simply the two aspects (logic and experience)which make up every instance of thought andknowledge. (See Chart III.)

4. Assessment of Student Growth

Problem: In understanding learner growth,should learning be considered as providing thedevelopment in the learner? Or, does learningdepend on development which provides the capa-bilities to learn? In describing the growth of

knowledge in students, is quantitative measure-ment of learned performances most importantand objective? Or, is the growth of the learnermore objectively described by qualitative mea-surements of specific mental abilities whichthemselves provide the conceptualizations neces-sary for learning and performance?

The Trend: The scientific study of learning isslowly discarding the old model of learning as aneffect of a treatment (instruction) measured byachievement and performance tests. The trend istoward identifying the exact series of conceptualframeworks the learner goes through in con-structing various scientific concepts (Driver &Easley, 1978; Gentner and Gentner, 1983; forexamples see Mestre & Touger, 1989, andMcDermott, 1984, for physics; Mintzes, 1984, forbiology; Clement, 1983, for astronomy; Smith,1989, for genetics).

Chart IV: Evaluation of Student Cly.owth

A TraditionalScience Program

A Concept/Process-BasedScience Program

Quantitatively measures sample ofmanylearnings.

Qualitatively measures level of under-standing of major idea using develop-mental stages.

IA

Focuses on right/wrong answers.Focuses on explanations and reasoning.

Sees growth as accumulation informa-tion from learning experiences. Sees growth as r3organization and ex-

tension of thought.Tests to determine retention, transfer,and application to problems of materialpreviously taught.

Uses assessment which triggers a dis-play of current level of understanding.

Separates evaluation from learning andplaces it after learning,

Integrates evaluation with students'activities for constant self-regulation andredirection by learner.

6 _

ANIPONIMO

ConceptlProcess-Based Science 1

Reporting learners' growth increasingly dependson tracing the development of these cognitiveframeworks with the use of specific, qualitativestage scales which replace the quantitative mea-sures of simple right/wrong perfor -lance(Ridgeway, 1988; Finley, 1986; Byron and Clem-ent, 1980; Posner, 1982).

The trend is toward measuring and explain-ing more fundamental aspects of learnergrowth by describing the qualitative de-velopment of underlying conceptualframeworks. The trend is to move awayfrom quantitative measures and short termlearning effects.

Implication for Science Education: Ratherthan a focus on observable performances as mea-sures of learning, the trend is toward assessingthe de velopments of the fundamental internalconceptual frameworks which produce the spe-cific answers and performances of students. Thistrend of moving from assessing learning to assess-ing the development of understanding in learnersmeans teachers will increasingly be asked to dis-tinguish between short term learning effects andthe long term development of understanding, andto shift from quantitative, single answer typetests to qualitative assessments of learning prod-ucts such as portfolios and projects which providedisplays of students' understanding.

5. Value of Science Education

Problem: Is science a unique field having its ownintrinsic value? Or, does its role fundamentallygrow o ut of human activity and human adaptationto reality? Is science a special domain with its ownunique processes? Or, are there processes funda-mental to human development which the scientistas well as young children employ? Do studentsstudy about the science which scientists do pro-duce, or do students actually do science and de-rive its value implications?

The Trend: If science is a body of already com-pleted knowledge which is studied by the student,

then science exists in and of itself as a distinctsubject having its own value. But scientificknowledge is increasingly seen to be fundamen-tally a constructive activity involving both theinvestigator's active mental construction and factsand experiences from external sources made pos-sible by those constructions. Scientific knowledgeis thus essentially an increasingly objective hu-man activity.

STS (science, technology, and society) is the at-tempt to understand and make use of the funda-mental utility of scientific investigation in humanproblem solving and adaptation (Bybee, 1986;Roy, 1985; Singleton, 1988).

The trend is to see scientific understand-ing as the active and necessary solution offundamental problems of human adapta-tion encountered in even the most mun-dane of projects, and not to view science asan end in itself whose esoteric intricaciesare pursued only by advanced students.

Implication for Science Education: This trendis toward seeing problem solving and investiga-tion as fundamentally a human processes. Itsuggests that science teachers will be increasinglyasked to facilitate science understanding by bas-ing students' science experiences on activities ofpractical scientific understanding and then ex-tending them into human problems and implica-tions (STS) rather than simply teaching science asa distinct body of knowledge produced by scien-tists.

Concept/process-based science attempts to recog-nize the trend to place the world in the hands ofstudents and have them actively organize andstudy it rather than have it presented to them asa completed, static body of knowledge. The funda-mental need and value of science grows out ofdirectly confronting the real world in all its com-plexity, and the need to understand the world israised by problems of human activity in the physi-cal and living environment. (See Chart V.)

7L'J

ConceptIProcess-Based Science

Chart V: Values in Science

A TraditionalScience Program

A Concept/Process-BasedScienceProgram

Sees:

science as fun, isolated activities.

science important to taking next sciencecourse or getting high test scores.

science a body ofvalued information aboutthe world which can be applied.

science distinct from 'practical', everydayactivity.

science as isolated from the real, practi-cal world.

sees:

scientific investigation as interesting.

science as thoughtful investigation andunderstanding of the world.

science as awareness and thoughtfulreflection of human activity directed tochanging the world.

science as informing human activityand anticipating reasons for success orfailure.

DI. Definition of Oregon's Concept/Process-Based Science

The movement toward a science of science educa-tion means educators must look deeply into theirprograms to determine what model of the learnertheir program is based on and whether that modelis based on research or derived from personalopinion and preference. Concept/process-basedscience education is not a particular program buta general direction for continual program refine-ment and renewal. General trends from researchlead to the five features defining Oregon's ap-p2oach:

Concept/process-based science educationis the movement in science education to-ward identifying and basing scienceeducation on those fundamental ideasnecessary for students to objectivelyunderstand the world. It is a movementaway from topical or textbook-controlled

coverage of information which lacks un-derlying, integrating goals of conceptualdevelopment

Concept/process-based science educationis the movement toward instructionalmethods whichare based on and follow theconstructive process of students' de-veloping mental activity in puttingtogether the fundamental ideas of sci-ence. It is a movement away from teach-ing methods which are based on attemptsto directly present or transmit completedconcepts and understandings to students.

Concept/process-based science educationis the movement toward learning activi-ties in which students study real ob-jects and phenomena so as to e-mcep-tualize them by describing and classify-ing them, by seeing relationships in theirchanges, and finally, by providing expla-nations for causal changes. It is a move-

8

(, y

,

ConceptlProcess-Based Science

ment away from having students studycompleted science concepts and knowledgethrough careful, teacher-organized cannedlabs, learning experiences, or demonstrations.

Concept/process-based science educationis the movement toward objectively de-scribing and evaluating the degree ofdevelopment and quality of students'understanding as they construct scien-tific knowledge through the learning ac-tivities. It is a movement away from simplequantitative measures of right and wronganswers, increased testing to control thefocus of students' learning, or closed booktests disconnected from the learning prod-ucts students produce.

. Concept/process-based science educationis the movement toward placing scienceinstruction in an interdisciplinary con-text which promotes the intellectual

development of students and theirresponsible engagement in practical,societal values. It is a movement awayfrom compartmentalizing science as anend in itself or isolating it from importantethical responsibilities of citizenship andstewardship.

The general directions for program developmentdefined by concept/process-based science educa-tion provides help to teachers and their colleaguesso they may identify specific changes in localprograms. Concept/process-based science educa-tion works through local processes of curriculumand instructional review to identify and promotechanges in curriculum goals, and instructionalmethods. Thus, concept/process-based scienceeducation is not to be seen as a program but as iheresult of changed thinking regarding the role andresponsibilities of science educators in under-standing and promoting student growth.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Science for All Americans:Project 2061. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.

Blosser, Patricia E., and Helgeson, Stanley L., eds. Investigations in Science Education,(series). Columbus OH: (ERIC) Center For Science and Mathematics Education.

Bredderman, Ted. 1983. "Effects of Activity-Based Elementary Science on Student Out-comes: A Quantitative Synthesis." Review of Educational Research 53(4): 499-518.

Bybee, Rodger, ed. 1986. Science-Technology-Society. Washington, D.C.: National ScienceTeachers Association.

Byron, Frederick W., Jr., and aement, John. 1980. "Identifying Different Levels of Under-standing Attained by Physics Students: Final Report." Amherst: MassachusettsUniversity, Dept of Physics and Astronomy.

Cate, Jean M. & Grzybowski, Eileen B. 1987. 'Teaching a Biological Concept Using the

Learning Cycle Approach." The American Biology Teacher 49(2): 90-92.

- 9 -

ConceptIProcess-Based Science

111.11111.11111M

Chi, M.T.H.; Geltovitch, P.J.; & Glaser, R. 1980. "Categorization and Representation ofPhysics Problems by Experts and Novices." CognitiveScience 5: 121-152.

Clement, John. 1983. "A Conceptua, Model Discussed by Galileo and Used Intuitively byPhysics Students." In Mental Models, pp. 325-339. Edited by D. Gentner and D.R.Gentner. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Costa, Art, ed. 1985. Developing Minds. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development

Driver, Rosalyn, and Easley, Jack. 1978. "Pupils and Paradigms: A Review of the LiteratureRelated to Concept Development in Adolescent Science Students." Studies in ScienceEducation 5: 61-84.

Dykstra, R., and Schroeder, S. 1987. "Published Articles in Science Education: AlternativeConceptions and Cognitive Development." Boise, ID: Boise State University, PhysicsDept.

Finley, Fred N. 1986. "Evaluation InstTuction: The Complementary Use of Clinical Inter-views." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23(17): 635-650.

Gardner, Michael K. 1985. "Cognitive Psychological Approaches to Instructional TaskAnalysis." Review of Research in Education. 12: 157-195.

Gentner, D., and Gentner, D.R., eds. 1983. Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hunter, Madeline, & Russell, D. 1981. "Planning for Effective Instruction: Lesson Designs."In Increasing Your Teaching Effectiveness. PaloAlto, CA: Learning Institute.

Johnson, David, and Johnson, Roger. 1986. Circles of Learning. Medina, MI: InteractionBook Co.

Joyce, Bruce, & Weil, Marsha. 1986. Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Lawson, Anton E. 1988. "The Acquisition of Biological Knowledge During Childhood:Cognitive Conflict or Tabla Rasa?" Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25(3):185-199.

Linn, Marcia C.. 1987. "Establishing a Research Base for Science Education: Challenges,Trends, and Recommendations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24(3):191-216.

Lockhead, Jack, and Clement, John J., eds. 1979. Cognitive Process Instruction. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

- 1041MINIONNINI

ConceptIProcess-Based Science I

McDermott, L.C. 1984, "Research on Conceptual Understanding in Mechanics." PhysicsToday 37: 24.

Mestre, Jose, and Touger, Jerold. 1989. "Cognitive Research--What's in It for Physics Teach-ers?" Physics Teacher 27(6): 447-456.

Mintzes, Joel J. 1984. "Nalve Theories in Biology: Children's Concepts of the Human Body."School Science and Mathematics 84(7): 548-555.

NASBE. 1988. "Rethinlcing Curriculum: A Call for Fundamental Reform." Report of theNASBE Curriculum Study Group. Alexandria, VA: National Association of StateBoards of Education.

Novak, Joseph D. ed. 1987. Proceedings of the (2nd) International Seminar: Misconcep-tions and Educational Strategies, 3 vols. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

NSTA. 1987. Criteria for Excellence. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Associa-tion.

Piuini, Edward L.; Shepartison, Daniel P.; and Abell, Sandra K. 1989. "A Rationale for andthe Development of a Problem Solving Model of Instruction in Science Education."Science Education 73(5): 523-534.

Posner, George J., and Gertzog, William A. 1982. "The Clinical Interview and the Measure-ment of Conceptual Change." Science Education 66(2): 195-209.

Renner, John W., and Marek, Edmund A. 1988. The Learning Cycle and Elementary Sci-ence Teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman Educational Books.

Resnick, Lauren B. 1986. "Toward a Cognitive Theory of Instruction." In Learning andMotivation in the Classroom. Edited by S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ridgeway, Dori. 1988. "Misconceptions and the Qualitative Method." Science Teacher55(6): 68-71.

Roy, Rustum. 1985. "The Scienceffechnology/Society Connection."f rriculum Review

(Jan/Feb): 12-16.

Shulman, Lee. 1987. "Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform." HarvardEducational Review 57(1): 1-22.

Shymansky, James A., and Kyle, William C., Jr. 1988. "A Summary of Research in ScienceEducation." Science Education 72(3): 249-402.

Concept/Process-Based Sc ience

Shyniansky, James A.; Kyle, William C., Jr.; and Alport, J.A. 1983. "The Effects of the NewScience Curricula on Student Performance." Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing 20: 387-404.

Singleton, Laurel R. 1988. Science17'echnologylSociety: Training Manual. Boulder, CO:Social Science Education Consortium.

Slavin, Robert E. 1988. Student Team Learning: An Overview and Practical r uide. NEA.

Smith, Mike. 1989. "Problem Solving in Biology--Focus on Genetics," In What ResearchSays to the Science Teacher: Pro#km Solving, vol 5, pp. 67-82. Edited by D. Gabel.Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.

Wiggins, Grant. 1987. "Creating a Thought-Provoking Curriculum." American Educator.(Winter): 10-17.

Orcgon Departrnent of Education70C Priiigle Parkway, SESalem, OR 97310-0290

Oregon Schools A Tradition If Exceencet

September 1990

John W. EricksonState Superintendentof Public Instruction

Single copies of this document are available by conucting thedocuments clerk at 378-3589 or copiesmay be made without permission from the Oregon Department of Education.

The onginal draft of this free-lancepaper was prepared by a science education researcher. Educatorswho served as reactors or editors of this paper include: Candy Armstrong (Region 11 OCATS staffdevelopment specialist), Pat Blosser (Science Education, Ohio State University), Wallace Cassel(Rcgion 7 OCATS staff lopment specialist), Marvin Druger (Biology and Science Education,Syracuse University), Jerry Fenton (Region 4 OCATS staff development specialist), Dorothy Gabel(Science Education, Indiana University), Dale Rosene (Science teacher Marshall Middle School,Marshall, MI), Susan Smoyer (Project Manager, Science Curriculum and Assessment Project, North-west Evaluation Association), Ardith Stensland (Region 1 OCATS, co-director), David Stronck (Sci-ence Education, California State University-Hayward).

Particular thanks are extended to Richard Meinhard, director, Institute for Developmental Sciences, forextensive assistance in organizing and editng additional comments from Oregon educators and thereviewers

10672619905000

12