1
Illusions of Change in Science Education
Mrazek, R. and Howes, L. (2004). Illusions of Change in Science Education. Gumanizacija Obrazovania . (Russian-Humanization of Education). 1.2004, 113-134
Dr. Rick Mrazek is a Professor of Science Education and Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies and Research in the Faculty of Education, University of Lethbridge. Lissa Howes is a Graduate Student and Master Junior/Senior High School Science and Mathematics Teacher.
Abstract
In this article we focus on major changes to a Canadian provincial science curriculum using the lens of the Pan Canadian common framework of science learning outcomes it is supposed to represent. The authors question whether the changes proposed by the Science - Technology – Society - Environment (STSE) focus included in curriculum documents of the past 15 years has translated into classroom reality or is simply an illusion. Interpretation of U.S. and international science education efforts, combined with online, conference and focus group surveys of provincial science education teachers over a 3 year period, helps to generate a series of recommendations to address issues of excess content,inappropriate time, inadequate inquiry, a marginalized STSE focus, integration of new technologies, flexibility in learning, comprehensive authentic assessment, leadership in implementation, effective professional development, and inadvertent stereotypic messages.
Science, often appearing as a youngster to academia, has struggled to refine and define itself, even as its contributions accelerate us into unfamiliar territory at breath-taking speed. Once considered a relatively straightforward enterprise, we are now struck by its non-linearity. “Even the medical line is not as straight as we pretend. If it were straight, how could we have conquered malaria by the 1960s only to have it come rushing back at us, stronger than ever, two decades later?” (Saul, 2001, p. 16). How does one define appropriate curriculum when “much of what is true today—absolutely true—will seem ridiculous in a few months…. [While] certain ideas introduced two and a half millennia ago are as fresh as if born today” (p. 17)?
The immense breadth, urgent relevance, and swirling complexity of science present universal challenges to the problem of configuring a “best” curriculum. Science demands precision, but when that demand is carried into the inquiry of science itself, it unveils
a complexity to be muddled through, inquisitively: How are gender metaphors involved in our descriptions of biological reality?… Does a quantum physicist encounter a resisting, Second object in the same way that a hydrogeologist does? Does Thirdness in the form of cultural values get kludged onto the measure of intelligence in the same manner, with the same effects, as it does in the measure of, say, coefficients of expansion in metals? In how many different ways do the habits and trajectories of corporations and funding agencies make their presence felt in the worlds of the sciences? (Fortun & Bernstein, 1998, p. 280)
These factors and more are at work in different ways in different situations, and this makes generalizations about science difficult, if not impossible.
It is no wonder that science curriculum throughout the 20th century has been anything but consistent. Yet, over recent decades, convergences have emerged about the nature of science and the nature of learning. It is to these understandings that we turn for guidance in devising best practices in science education and in identifying and addressing those pressing issues that most hinder the actualization of a truly forward thinking curriculum.
In the early 1990s, science curriculum in Alberta underwent substantial change toward a sciencetechnologysociety-environment focus that placed inquiry and constructivism at its core. For the most part, teachers and students embraced the new program. Yet, after a decade of implementation, there are lessons to be shared from the successes as well as the significant weaknesses—these despite considerable support in terms of Canadian resources. Our issues are not unique to the Albertan, or the Canadian context. They represent universal concerns, varying only in degree and emphasis from place to place, depending upon available resources and levels of support. Accordingly, we share these insights toward the ongoing refinement of a collaborative exchange network aimed at improving science education globally.
In Alberta, unforeseen difficulties compromised the 1990 curriculum. Tangible work toward custom materials, published for junior high, quickly dwindled at senior high levels. By the time it came to the elementary curriculum, despite more clearly articulated direction, many schools and teachers needed help teasing out the core elements from amongst a wide selection of resources. Add to this, the emphasis on integration, and it became clear that teacher in-service and professional development in science education would be key to successful implementation. At the same time, the province reduced support for the implementation of curricula, which among other things saw the disintegration of regional offices and specific subject specialists. The task of implementation ultimately fell to districts and individual schools.
Even though the curricular focus in science education has become much more hands-on and inquiry-centered, the content or knowledge base has not been reduced to provide for these opportunities. Instead it was increased. Disproportionate emphasis on diploma examinations and the misapplication, in media publication not only reinforced but actually increased content emphasis. This minimized attention to those central elements that were deemed important in the science curriculum. Other crucial influences include a dramatic expansion of the science-based knowledge in our world, the integration of the information and communication technology area, and the exploding advances in technology and computer information. These factors dramatically compound an increasing paranoia from industry and post-secondary sectors that there are not enough high school graduates educated and trained in the sciences to meet the expanding needs for those skills. Complicate this, with the increased demands on teachers resulting from expanding classroom sizes, inclusive needs of students, and deteriorating relationships between teachers, boards, and government officials, and one quickly comes up with a recipe for failure in further curriculum implementation.
The above scenario charts the, all too often, weakening of a curriculum as it succumbs to the forces of multiple and conflicting demands. To succeed, any educational program requires clarity and a unified focus. Only then can we bring to life, rather than superficially broach, the vital preparation of “students for the future by enabling them to deal effectively with the present” (Eisner, 2003/2004, p. 8). We cannot afford to compromise the aims of judgment, critical thinking, meaningful literacy, collaboration, and service as most appropriate for an STSE curriculum. There are no effective shortcuts. Students must deliberate over rich problems that cannot be resolved by formula, algorithm, or rule because they are imbedded in social contexts. “Powerful ideas are those that have legs, that take students someplace” (p. 8). Examining, exploring and explicating inexhaustible ideas such as random mutation and natural selection constitute the only reliable routes to critical thinking. Students need opportunities to exercise their imagination in a context true to scientific inquiry—a context where uncertainty makes progress possible. Imagination protects “from the temptation of premature conclusions, the temptation of certainty, and the fantasy of fixed truth.…[It draws us] to alternately leap ahead and then enfold our other qualities—our other means of perception—into a new, inclusive vision” (Saul, 2001, p. 116). Meaningful literacy extends into multiple forms of representation and is essential to the full development of the mind. While education promotes individuation, it must equally attend to the fundamentally democratic project of collaboration. This asks that we foster the social skills out of which emerge new ideas, synchronous growth, and a sense of community that transcends individual performance and extends beyond the school into creative and effective student contributions to society (Eisner, 2003/2004). All of this we know, yet where is the ultimate emphasis?
We are so wrapped up in test scores that we often marginalize the importance of developing socially responsible citizens who are willing to contribute to the larger social welfare and who know how to do so…. We need an approach…wider than measurement…. [One that requires] a radically different view of where we look to find out how well students are learning. (Eisner, pp. 9-10)
We cannot afford to ignore the disconnect between the realities of what students need and what the science curriculum encompasses. We are compelled toward a serious, sincere, and bold reconsideration of those traditional elements we deem so necessary and the courage to re-prioritize our goals so that, rather than preparing students for more school, we dedicate ourselves to helping them succeed as wholly integrated individuals in a life that extends after and outside of school. In examining the issues we never stray far the question, “Who are we satisfying with this curriculum?”
In Canada, the major emphasis for changes to science curricula are contained in the Pan Canadian Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes. The document’s coherent, well-researched, constructive guidelines combine with feedback from participants in the Alberta Teachers’ Association [ATA] conferences of 2000 and 2001, extensive research, including analyses of the Pan Canadian implementations in Ontario and British Columbia, and recent efforts in the United States through the National Standards and Project 2061. Recommendations, such as these, provide a solid reference point for ongoing feedback on curriculum implementation and change. In the Alberta model, it is anticipated this will be conducted by the ATA Science Council Executive representatives through its web site, conferences, and sponsored professional development activities, as well as relationships with organizations oriented toward science education at the provincial, national, and international levels.
Two major considerations influenced the choice of issues and recommendations below. First, while there are many different assertions that can be made about upcoming changes to science curriculum, it is prudent to be selective. In this case, we establish less than a dozen major priorities where we cannot only support the need for changes, but provide ongoing lobby to see the recommendations implemented and subsequently included in the curriculum, curriculum resources, and implementation of new curricula.
Second, the effects of curricular demands at the secondary level filter down and directly influence junior high and primary science. For this reason, secondary curriculum serves as a best entry level for changes. Subsequent modifications to elementary and junior high curricula can then provide a continuation of recommendations thus ensuring a workable and coherent curriculum throughout all levels.
We strive for a true STSE curricular emphasis—not only in the development phase, but also in the curriculum as implemented and learned. To accomplish this reality we urge serious and concerted effort in addressing the inter-related issues of: excess content, inappropriate time, inadequate inquiry, a marginalized STSE focus, integration of new technologies, flexibility in learning, comprehensive authentic assessment, leadership in implementation, effective professional development, and inadvertent stereotypic messages. If left unattended, these issues, both individually and synchronistically, threaten the success of any science curriculum attempting to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Issue of excess content
Today’s unwieldy and unprecedented proliferation of knowledge tempts well-intentioned educators to demand more and more of curricula, especially in the sciences. In our fear of missing important elements, we add more, and ironically achieve “less”.
“Understanding can only occur when the primary focus is on the depth of a topic rather than on the breadth” (Chin, Munby, & Krugly-Smolska, 1997, p. 7). By prioritizing quality of investigation and resisting the urge to cram content, slow schools demonstrate just how much “more is less.” Under these conditions, students develop their ability to learn, to pose thoughtful questions, to understand, and to transfer that understanding to novel situations (Mitchell, 2003). The National Research Council [NRC], the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], the National Science Board [NSB], the National Science Foundation [NSF], and the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] agree that, “if teachers are to teach for understanding…then coverage of great amounts of trivial, unconnected information must be eliminated from the curriculum” (NRC, 1996, Program Standard B section, ¶ 7). Project 2061's (2001) Designs for Science Literacy recommends trimming "overstuffed and under-nourishing curricula" (Fratt, 2002, ¶ 3) by reducing the number of major topics, pruning unnecessary details, de-emphasizing technical vocabulary and eliminating repetition.
How People Learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), a summative resource on research into cognitive development and schooling, affirms the rationale for pared down content. Since “all new learning involves transfer based on previous learning” (p. 53), and since people must achieve a sufficient threshold of initial learning before transfer can occur (p. 235), then forcing the coverage of too many topics too quickly, is counterproductive.
The problem of burgeoning content can be solved by integrating relevant concepts across common themes, emphasizing depth over unnecessary repetition, and de-emphasizing unconnected content (NRC, 1996). “As distinct subject areas become overloaded, a surprising amount of duplication is occurring across classrooms” (Drake, 1993, Chap. 1, ¶4). Out of necessity, individual teachers pare down overloaded content. In a comparison of standards to actual practice, researchers found a marked lack of consistency, with some topics taught twice and others not at all (Fratt, 2002). At the same time, “there still is not much communication even within a school, much less across schools, about what is being taught at each grade level. Every level of teaching ignores what students learned before, because the teacher believes it wasn’t serious” (Gallagher, 2000, Schools & Testing section, ¶ 1). A concerted and coordinated process would better serve educational needs.
Integration, as an effective curricular strategy reduces duplication, gives new perspective on basic skills, and takes maximal advantage of the brain’s propensity for pattern making and interconnecting (Drake, 1993). The foundation statements of the Pan Canadian science framework “reflect the wholeness and interconnectedness of learning” (CMEC, 1997b, ¶ 1). The elimination of topics deemed unessential to science literacy and whose importance is out of proportion to the time needed for understanding, results in a much more workable and relevant final list of must-do topics. Further, a critical selection process recognizes the efficiency of building curriculum on topics that are accessible to students’ level of thinking (Fratt, 2002).
For effective implementation, material resources, teacher training, and professional development, must emphasize scientific precepts and processes over extensive, detailed content. When existing materials are adapted to current need, care should be taken not to undermine intended purpose and design. Teacher tools should stress that the point is not to 'do' or 'cover' the entire text or binder, but to use these resources to reinforce fundamental understandings (NSF, 1999).
Curricular specialists must also consider the challenge of teacher preparation and training at a time when potential content continues to grow exponentially. Keeping in mind the current shortage of math and science specialists, a dense curriculum not only clouds essentials but compounds the problem of teacher education (Davis, 1999).
Issue of inappropriate time
Challenges resulting from excess content interweave with issues of inappropriately configured time. In a survey of lower secondary school teachers, 99% named time constraints as significant barriers to open-ended laboratory work (Rillero, 1999, Time & Material Concerns section, ¶ 2). “Exploring fewer topics in greater depth and for longer daily class periods will be the earmark of future science classrooms” (Baird, 1995/1996, Time Schedules section, ¶ 3).
Effectively and efficiently moving students to new understandings requires their personal engagement and investment in the inquiry process—at the outset, a time intensive process (Baird, 1995/1996; NRC, 1996; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Rillero, 1999; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990). Students arrive with preconceived notions of the physical world and “may cling tenaciously to those views—however much they conflict with scientific concepts” (NRC, 2000, pp. 176-177). Accordingly, the oft time-consuming re-configuration of prior misconceptions must preclude new learning. But once such misconceptions are engaged and re-negotiated, the newly aligned understandings prove as robust as the stubborn erroneous beliefs they replace (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Rillero, 1999; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990b). Thus, time spent in deep engagement improves the retention and transfer of learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999), which in turn reduces or even eliminates the need for repetition. In effect, the result of front-end time dedicated and shaped for inquiry, is time saved. Again, “more” becomes “less."
That said, what difference does it make how the added time is allotted? Why not trade duration for frequency? Research advises otherwise. Delays of as little as 20-30 minutes in viewing experimental results can significantly inhibit the learning of underlying concepts (BRANSFORD, BROWN, & COCKING, 2000). Even the logistics of setting up, conducting, observing, and clearing away laboratory work become unmanageable in shortened periods (Baird, 1995/1996). “There are no quick solutions to time concerns” (Rillero, 1999, Time & Material section, ¶ 3). And while a focused inquiry-learning cycle, moving through the five phases of “Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Extension, and Evaluation” can minimize time demands (¶ 3), no amount of focusing and scaffolding can effectively condense the complete inquiry process into a 55-minute class period. This is because the inquiry process embodies much more than orchestrating preconceived linear experiments and, as we shall see below the necessary alternative takes time. Nothing short will do.
Inadequate focus on inquiry
Trimming content and re-configuring time are prerequisite to achieving the imperative of inquiry in science education. For the past 50 years, North American governments have prized inquiry as essential to science education (Haury, 1993). Its resurgent emphasis responds to increasing societal needs for science-literate citizens. “Without the ability to think critically and independently, citizens are easy prey to dogmatists, flimflam artists, and purveyors of simple solutions to complex problems” (AAAS as cited in Leshowitz, DiCerbo, & Symington, 1999, ¶ 1).