The Major Crisis in Science Education

189

The Major Crisisin Science Education

Robert E. Yager

Many have proclaimed the currenttime as one of crisis in science edu-cation.*’4 To many, the crisis meansa shortage of science teachers orcontinuing declines on standardmeasures of student achievement.5’6To others, it is concern for studentachievement in science and technol-ogy in other nations; to some it isless rigorous science programs inAmerican schools when comparedwith most other nations.7’8 To afew^, it is a crisis of adequate fund-ing for curriculum development, in-service training, and common labo-ratory equipment.4’9To be sure, we do have a shortage

of qualified teachers; there has beenan erosion of both moral and finan-cial support for school science.There are, as well, differencesamong the nations as to purpose forschooling and the place of educationin a culture. But are these not prod-ucts of crisis rather than causes?

School Science and MathematicsVolume 84 (3) March 1984

190 Crisis in Science Education

Perhaps a review of the past will provide a better definition of our cur-rent crisis.The launching of the Soviet Sputnik in 1957 was responsible for great

public support for improving school science. It seemed a way of soothinga wounded national pride resulting from the seeming Soviet supremacyin space. Critics of school science were at work prior to 1957 designingnew courses and planning for improvement in science offerings. How-ever, it took a Sputnik to provide the trigger needed for the appropria-tion of significant finances to mount the first national experiment in theUnited States dealing with curriculum development for schools and di-rect support for in-service teacher education.

During the 1960s, the support continued. However, as the ’70semerged, the mood of the nation had changed. The public began to ques-tion all social institutions, partly because of the disillusion caused by thetragedy of Vietnam. To many, science/technology seemed to be thecause of our problems. All national curriculum developments were calledinto question; there were charges that such efforts had become un-Amer-

^It seems to take a crisis to produce support and informa-tion needed to advance science education."

ican, pornographic, misguided. Teacher education activities were alsoquestioned, primarily because the dwindling support had been targetedfor programs designed to help teachers and schools use one of the newcurriculum products. Since most of these programs were available com-mercially, such support was considered an unfair business practice. Thatis, public funds were being used to sell a new curriculum package beingsold or distributed by a private publisher or supplier. The criticism be-came so intense that all K-12 curriculum developments that were active inthe early ’70s were scaled down if not phased out. None of the later proj-ects�USMES, BICP, HSP, OBIS�ever attracted a mainline publisher.And all teacher education funds that had been available from the Nation-al Science Foundation were terminated in 1976.

Indeed, 1976 was a year of crisis. There was a complete turn-aroundfrom the mid ’60s when both financial and attitudinal support was at anall-time high. Such times cause people to ask questions, to seek an under-standing of what has happened, of what value has accrued during thepreceding period; NSF funded three large status studies as a response tothe crisis. One of these, by Helgeson, Blosser, and Howe, was a huge re-view of all the research literature which appeared between 1955-1975.10


Crisis in Science Education 191

The second was a national survey of teaching and curriculum practicesconducted by Iris Weiss at Research Triangle Institute.11 The third, con-ducted by Stake and Easley at the University of Illinois, was a series ofin-depth case studies of eleven school districts.12 In 1978, the results ofthe Third Assessment of Science as performed by the National Assess-ment of Educational Progress was also released.13 This means that wehad more information available than had ever before been amassed na-tionally, namely a review of all research over a twenty-five year period,information from a huge sampling of professionals concerning their self-reports of what was occurring, descriptions of what trained ethnograph-ers could see occurring, what students revealed through achievementmeasures and responses to an extensive affective battery of tests.

This was the situation when NSF awarded a contract to Norris Harmsof the University of Colorado, himself the architect of the affective itemsfor NAEP to synthesize all of the findings. This effort was called ProjectSynthesis, and paralleled similar studies in mathematics and social stud-ies. The report of this synthesis was released as Volume 3 of the NSTA’sWhat Research Says to the Science Teacher series.14The 1976 crisis in science education also resulted in the creation of a

new NSF program, namely the RISE program (Research in Science Edu-cation). It is interesting to note that no NSF funds had ever been avail-able to support science education research prior to this time of crisis.NSF was in business to resolve the inadequate curriculum and teachereducation deficiencies which became a national priority in 1957. It seemsto take a crisis to produce support and information needed to advancescience education.Now, with 1983 behind us and 1984 underway, we find that most agree

that we again have a crisis in science education. To some it seems moresevere than was the crisis perceived in 1957. And, astonishingly, everyoneis anxious to resolve it.At one point, early in 1983, there were over twenty bills before Con-

gress designed to offer solutions to our "national crisis" in science edu-cation. One of our leading senators proposed spending one and one halfbillion dollars to resolve the 1983-’84 crisis�a staggering proposal whenone considers that a total of two billion was available to support scienceand mathematics education during the entire twenty-five years followingthe launching of Sputnik in 1957. Needless to say, there have been signif-icant changes between 1957 and 1983.

Unfortunately, however, many seem anxious to solve "surface" prob-lems. The shortage of science and mathematics teachers is a situationthat most can understand and most want to solve. The apparent greater



exposure of students in other nations to the study of science is a phenom-enon that is a matter of concern. The greater production of scientists andengineers in other nations is often cited and deplored. Again, it is easyfor the general U.S. public to understand a difference in per capita pro-duction of trained scientists and engineers and it is relatively easy to pro-pose correctives.There have been many schemes proposed for getting more teachers.

These range from giving them bonuses, to waiving tuition for collegestudy, to retraining teachers from other levels and disciplines by meansof crash programs, to providing enrichment experiences and trainingduring summers. The fact that U.S. students are inadequately exposed toschool science has brought calls for increased requirements and, in somestates, the passage of laws. Some are proposing fast remedial work to getthe best U.S. students better prepared for achievement tests. Some have

It has been proposed that one and one-half billion dollars bespent to resolve the current crisis ... a total of two billionwas available to support science and mathematics educationduring the entire twenty-five years following Sputnik^slaunching in 1957. ___________________

proposed major scholarships to attract high school graduates into colle-giate programs in science and engineering. The activities underway in al-most every state, in government and among industrial leaders, isamazing.Unfortunately, few have taken the time to define the goals for school

science; few have defined what a qualified science teacher is like. Mosthave been content to call for "improvements" and for more "qualified"teachers. Few note that the use of teachers from other disciplines, the re-tired ranks or from industry does little more than provide adults to"manage" classes of students enrolled in a "science" course. And whatabout new teachers from superior teacher education programs who findno vacancies?There is no evidence that offering scholarships for free education to

persons willing to teach for five years will be a solution. Do we reallywant our future teachers to come from the ranks of those only interestedin a free education? What other qualities than "willing to teach" for aspecified period of time after completing a college science major are be-ing proposed? When such scholarships have been tried in nations such as



Australia, the results have not been proclaimed a huge success.What about the need for greater numbers of scientists and engineers?

It is true that many more engineers are produced in the Soviet Union on aper capita basis. However, there is ample evidence to support the factthat only half are employed as engineers, and some of those who are tendto be over-educated for the specific job they secure. Is this a conditionfor which we should aim in the United States? How many more engineersdo we currently need? Isn’t this a better question than how many do weproduce compared to the Soviet Union? Of course, one could also askwhat the appropriate role for K-12 science programs is in producing engi-neers.Comparisons of programs with other nations is of interest. Frequent-

ly, the Japanese system is held up as a model, and yet, with all the rigorand attention to science, many Japanese students who aspire to univer-sity training can not gain admission. Would U.S. programs look so badif private schools�with high tuition�were established to prepare stu-dents for university entrance examinations?15 One-third of all Japanesestudents accepted for universities spend a year or more in just such a pre-paratory school. Does this make the rigorous programs in Japan lookthat successful; is it something worth copying?And what about the research on learning? Are we fooling ourselves

that real learning occurs as a result of vocabulary mastery and/or thememorization of information presented via the textbook or teacher lec-ture? It is a relatively easy task to demand a certain performance and totest for its attainment. In 1983, Good reported on some extremely inter-esting research dealing with teacher expectation and student achieve-ment.5 To prepare students for specified examinations or for collegewhere specific skills and competencies are specified in advance is a simpletask. It can easily and readily be done if we choose to serve those who as-pire to be college students following high school graduation. However,this may not be the primary task of the K-12 school. It may not be thetask most worthy of our attention.

TOMORROW’S JOBS

Tomorrow’s jobs will require new skills as technological devices are applied totraditional production methods.



Many fail to get alarmed about the greatest failure of all�that ofbringing about mass scientific/technological literacy among our cit-izenry. It has been a major concern of every commission, committee, orstudy group that has considered the crisis.16’17 And yet, it seems to be theone aspect of crisis least understood and the one where there are fewercries for immediate action. Morris Shamos, in an address at the NSTAconvention in Dallas, argued against scientific literacy for all, but hasstressed the greater importance of technological literacy for all.18 Evenwith such debate, the agreement is upon a science education designed toaffect learners and living.

Basic to our democracy, as Jefferson proclaimed at the beginning ofour nation, is an informed citizenry�one able to make decisions aboutcurrent problems, directions for government, and about its own future.We seem to have failed in efforts to produce an informed citizenry ableto make decisions about a future filled with problems so grave the prob-lems’ resolution may determine if there will be a future. Studies at theUniversity of Northern Illinois suggest that we have failed in this with allbut ten percent of our high school graduates; this assumes that one of

What is the task most worthy of our attention: preparingthose students who choose to go on to college study? Or is itsomething else?

_______

our major goals is to affect scientific/technological literacy among ourgraduates.19NSTA has taken a powerful stand regarding the major focus for sci-

ence education�a focus designed to remedy the most basic facet of thecurrent crisis. NSTA has unanimously adopted a position statementwhich not only defines our major goal for the 1980s, but which also de-scribes a scientifically and technologically literate person. According tothe NSTA position, a scientific/technologically literate person is onewho:

�uses science concepts, process skills, and values in making responsible everyday deci-sions;

�understands how society influences science and technology as well as how science andtechnology influence society;

�understands that society controls science and technology through the allocation of re-sources;

�recognizes the limitations as well as the usefulness of science and technology in ad-vancing human welfare;



�knows the major concepts, hypotheses, and theories of science and is able to usethem;

�appreciates science and technology for the intellectual stimulus they provide;

�understands that the generation of scientific knowledge depends upon the inquiryprocess and upon conceptual theories;

�distinguishes between scientific evidence and personal opinion;

�recognizes the origin of science and understands that scientific knowledge is tentative,and subject to change as evidence accumulates;

�understands the applications of technology and the decisions entailed in the use oftechnology;

�has sufficient knowledge and experience to appreciate the worthiness of research andtechnological development;

�has a richer and more exciting view of the world as the result of science education;and

�knows reliable sources of scientific and technological information and uses thesesources in the process of decision making.20

Voelker, who was the coinvestigator for one of the RISE projects, re-cently summarized one view of scientific literacy.19 He has indicated thatattentiveness to science (one view of scientific/technological literacy) in-cludes: (1) an interest in science/technology that can be demonstratedaction, (2) a knowledge of basic concepts of knowledge/technology, and(3) evidence of ability to pursue additional expressions of interest as wellas knowledge.When used, ninety percent of the high school graduates�and hence

the entire citizenry of the United States�fail to meet these criteria. Whenthe three criteria are applied for both science and technology, nearly allgraduates of school science programs fall short. Unfortunately, most ofthese persons have completed a study of basic science in schools, eventhough that study ended with tenth year biology for nearly eighty-fivepercent of the graduates.11

In extensions of Voelker’s research efforts, it was reported that schoolseems of little importance over the entire period of the secondary schoolyears for affecting any one of the dimensions of scientific/technologicalliteracy. The Voelker-Miller studies indicate that interest in scienceand/or technology does not increase because of school; nor does knowl-edge of scientific/technological concepts.21 The Voelker-Miller researchindicates that there is no growth across the high school years in terms ofunderstanding of the four basic concepts used as indicators for the re-search. The record is slightly better for the school in influencing pursuitof knowledge and interest already existing. However, when viewed total-ly, parents and peers�and possibly television�rank more importantlythan schools in promoting knowledge and interest in science.



The results of the Voelker-Miller research are sobering. Schools seemineffective with existing curricula and teaching modes in producing ascientific/technologically literate citizenry.How can the production of more teachers with the same preparatory

programs as in the past be expected to resolve this crisis? Why should weassume that requiring more of the same courses will provide remedies?Why do we assume that teachers at other levels or those trained in otherdisciplines can be more successful after completing brief workshops thanthose teachers they are intended to replace, or for whom they would sub-stitute? Is there any evidence that increased pay for existing teachers whoare committed to existing programs will resolve the crisis with respect toa public understanding of science/technology, and a corresponding abil-ity to make wise decisions concerning our future?To date there has been little concern for and few correctives proposed

to resolve the major crisis in science education. Some are willing to state,usually second on a list, that improving science literacy for all is a goal.However, it follows the goal of preparing future scientists and engi-

^To date there has been little concern for and few correctivesproposed to resolve the major crisis in science education.^

neers�a goal that is appropriate for only three percent of high schoolgraduates, and a goal where we have traditionally spent ninety-five per-cent of our time, efforts, resources, and attention.One committee, chaired by Earl Loman of MIT, was funded by the

National Science Board Commission on Education in Mathematics, Sci-ence, and Technology to consider the federal role in science curriculummatters. Members of this prestigious committee were unanimous inrecommending two years of science be required at grades nine and ten.22These required courses would focus on science, technology, and society.There would be similar developments in the Science in Society andSISCON efforts in the United Kingdom.23’24 The committee furtherrecommended that a third level course also be available in every school asan elective for eleventh and twelfth grade students. Although suchcourses would not be cure-alls, they would be designed to correct themajor crisis in science education and would be aimed toward resolvingthe problems of using science and technology in daily living and usingknowledge as evidence in decision making. The use of societal problemsas proposed by Hofstein and Yager in School Science and Mathematicswould be another way of addressing the problem of such massive failureswith the current focus for school science.25



The major crisis in science education seems on the verge of being lostto such issues as teacher shortages, number of scientists and engineersproduced in the Soviet Union, college entrance scores, and degree of ri-gor in school programs. Norris Harms, in his final report of Project Syn-thesis addressed the real crisis when he said:

Not only is there an increased need to understand large national issues, there is also anincreasing need to understand the way science and technology affect us as individuals.Thus, a new challenge for science education emerges. The question is this: Can we shiftour goals, programs and practices from the current overwhelming emphasis on aca-demic preparation for science careers for a few students to an emphasis on preparing allstudents to grapple successfully with science and technology in their own everyday lives,as well as to participate knowledgeably in the important science-related decisions ourcountry will have to make in the future?

References

1. Press. F. The Fate of School Science. Science, 1982, 276, 1055.2. Opel, J. R. Education, Science, and National Economic Competiveness. Science,

1982,277, 1116-1117.3. Yager, R. E., R. Bybee, J. J. Gallagher, and J. W. Renner. An Analysis of the Cur-

rent Crisis in the Discipline of Science Education. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 1982, 79(5), 377-395.

4. Yager, R. E. Crisis in Science Education. Technical Report ^21. Science EducationCenter, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, 1980.

5. Good, T. L., and G. M. Hinkle. Teacher Shortage in Science and Mathematics:Myths, Realities, and Research. National Institute of Education, 1200 19th St., N.W.Washington, D.C., May 1983.

6. Shymansky, J. A., and B. G. Aldridge. The Teacher Crisis in Secondary School Sci-ence and Mathematics. Educational Leadership, 19^2, 40(2),61-62

1. Wirszup, I. The Soviet Challenge. Educational Leadership, 1981, 38, 358-363.8. McGuire, W. H. What Our Children Don’t Know Can Destroy Us. News-week, Sept.

27,1982.9. Gardner, M. H., and R. E. Yager. Some Sobering Information Comparing Science

Education in the U.S. with Other Nations. The Science Teacher, in press 1983.10. Helgeson, S. L., P. E. Blosser, and R. W. Howe. The Status ofPre-Callege Science,

Mathematics, and Social Science Education: 1955-1975. The Center for Science andMathematics Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, Stock No. 038-000-00362-3, Washington, D.C. 20402, 1977.

11. Weiss, I. R. Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and SocialStudies Education. Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Research Tri-angle Park, North Carolina: U.S. Government Printing Office, Stock. No. 038-000-00364, Washington, D.C. 20402, 1978.

12. Stake, R. E., and J. Easley. Case Studies in Science Education, Volumes I and II. Cen-ter for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois at Ur-bana-Champaign: U.S. Government Printing Office, Stock No. 038-000-00376-3,Washington, D.C. 20402, 1978.

13. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Science: Second Assessment (1972-73): Changes in science performance 1969-73, with exercise volume and appendix(April, 1977): 04-S-21. Science technical report: Summary Volume (May, 1977). Sc;’-ence: Third assessment (1976-77): 08-S-04. three national assessments ofscience: Changes in Achievement, 1969-77, (June, 1978); 08-S-08. The third assess-ment of science, 1976-77. Released exercise set (May, 1978). Also some unpublished



data from the 1976-77 science assessment. Denver, Co: 1860 Lincoln St.14. Harms, N. C., and R. E. Yager. What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 3.

National Science Teachers Association, ^471-14776, Washington, D.C. 1981.15. Rosenberg, N. S. Education in Japan: A Study in Contrasts. Independent School,

Feb. 1983,47-53.16. Hufstedler, S. M., and D. N. Langenberg. Science and Engineering Education for the

1980’s and Beyond. Supt. of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-ton, D.C. 20402. Prepared by NSF and the Dept. of Education, Oct. 1980.

17. Watson, F., M. Gardner and H. Smith. Perspectives on Science Education. Section Qreport to Board, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1515 Massa-chusetts Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20005, 1979.

18. Shamos, M. The Science Teacher: an Endangered Species? General Session Address,Dallas Convention, National Science Teachers Association, April, 1983.

19. Voelker, A. M. The Development of an Attentive Public for Science: Implications forScience Teaching. What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 4. National Sci-ence Teachers Association, Washington, D.C. N71-14784, 1982.

20. National Science Teachers Association Position Statement, NSTA, Washington, D.C.1982.

21. Miller, J., R. Suchner, and A. Voelker. Citizenship in an Age of Science. PergamonPress: Elmsford.NY, 1980.

22. Loman, E. L. Proceedings of Conference on Goals for Science and Technology Educa-tion, K-12. Washington, D.C., March 11-13, 1983.

23. SISCON-in-Schools (Science in a Social Context). Published jointly by Basil Blackwelland The Association for Science Education, Great Britain, 1983.

24. Science in Society. Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd., 22 Bedford Square, LondonWCiB3 HH, and The Association for Science Education, 1981.

25. Hofstein, A., and R. E. Yager. Societal Issues as Organizers for Science Education inthe ’80s. School Science and Mathematics, 1982, 82 (7), 539-547.

Robert E. YagerUniversity of IowaScience Education CenterIowa City, Iowa 52242

INDUCED ENVIRONMENT CONTAMINATION MONITOR

Carried twice before into space by Columbia, the Induced Environment Con-tamination Monitor experiment (IECM) continued the study of the environmen-tal characteristics of the Shuttle cargo bay and near space. On this mission, theIECM took the form of a 363 kilogram, deck-sized package. During testing, itwas lifted out of the cargo bay by the remote manipulator arm "waved" aboutvarious locations of the Orbiter. During this maneuver, the IECM measuredpressure waves produced by firing reaction control rockets in the Orbiter’s nose.Tests performed by the IECM include gas and particulate sampling, humiditymeasurement, and investigating the optical effects of contamination. Informa-tion gained by the eleven instruments on the IECM will help determine what en-vironmental hazards exist for future delicate scientific instruments and developbaseline environmental parameters of the Shuttle for future research.
