JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 29, NO. 8, PP. 905-910 (1992)

Viewpoint: What We Did Not Learn from the 60s About Science Curriculum Reform

Robert E. Yager

Science Education Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Abstract

An analysis of our efforts with curriculum reform in science during the 60s is offered. Failure to state the problems and to engage all those interested, involved, and affected is noted. Instead of proceeding with the same tactics and using the same rationale for new reforms, a rationale for focusing upon instructional goals and enlarging the research and development team is presented. Basically, a call for treating science curriculum reform as a science rather than an art is advocated.

During the 60s there was no real effort to reform the science curriculum. Of course, there were more than two dozen national “curriculum” projects. However, almost all were seen as efforts to improve existing programs by developing new material for use in the existing curriculum. Most major efforts were seen as “Course Content Improvement Projects” (the NSF division responsible). No one questioned physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science as course offerings. In fact, courses with such discipline structure became common offerings in the junior high schools, replacing general science. Elementary programs were organized around basic concepts and processes as identified by scientists who were encouraged to enter the arena of curriculum development for schools. COPES (Conceptually-Oriented Program for Elementary Science), directed by the physicist Moms Shamos, illustrated the thinking about basic science concepts as course organizers. S-APA (Science-A Process Approach) was sponsored by AAAS and included a number of scientists as developers. It exemplified courses and the program being organized around basic science process skills. The secondary school projects and most of the middle and high school projects emphasized basic science processes and called for a new focus on inquiry skills.

The efforts of the 60s resulted in materials which were developed to be teacher proof. Even some of the best teachers who were part of the development teams saw it as important to structure the program in ways that other teachers could not mess them up. They were very much aware of their colleagues who were neither creative nor energetic. They realized that most teachers depend almost exclusively on textbooks to define their courses and to provide the activities for use in classrooms and teaching strategies to use in dealing with them. A good textbook is seen by teachers as one

0 1992 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/92/080905-06

906 YAGER

that makes life easy for the teacher user and keeps students engaged. Teachers love worksheets, directions for preparing laboratories, suggestions for quizzes, and chapter examinations.

During the 60s much help was provided to encourage teachers to use the new materials. Almost identical funds were used by NSF to enroll science teachers in institutes and workshops as had been provided for curriculudcourse development. During summer and academic-year institutes, teachers were introduced to the new materials and assisted in preparing themselves for changes needed to implement one of the new programs. Of course, all of the new programs were also textbook dominated-something that all developers of the 60s took for granted. Unfortunately, as soon as funding to support teacher education activities was withdrawn, publishers withdrew theiir interest in publishing the newer and different materials and teachers were content to return to their dependence on standard texts which were much like those that existed prior to 1957. These looked very much like the textbooks the teachers had used in college as they studied science preparing to teach.

In the late 70s and early 80s support for science education-both materials de- velopment and teacher enhancement-all but disappeared at the national level. During the first five years of the decade much time was spent on assessing needs, problems, and the status of science education in the U.S. This kind of study and analysis almost always accompanies a time of crisis. Unfortunately, however, few of the findings of these studies are being used today. Instead another crisis-bigger even than the Soviet Sputnik of 1957, which triggered the reforms of the 60s-appeared. It was the realization that we were not competing well in the international economic arena. By the mid-80s both the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation were involved in massive efforts to improve science education. As everyone hastened to do something, many remembered the efforts of the 60s and sought to repeat them. And so it is as we look at current reforms of the curriculum for the 90s. Perhaps an elaboration of some of the most pervasive information amassed early in the 80s may be important to consider as we seek new directions for the 90s. Some of these major points include:

I. Over 95% of the K-12 science teachers in the U.S. view their major goal as one of preparing their students (whatever grade level they teach) for the next academic level. It means covering the material in the school curriculum because it is what the next teacher expects. Each school plans its courses and course sequence as something that each teacher in the district will go over. Many administrators expect every section of every course in every building to be the same. There is a basic assumption that what is done in the elementary schools prepares students for middle school; what is done in middle school prepares for high school; what is done in high school prepares for college. Although other goals may be espoused, they are less important; the only one in evidence is the academic preparation one (Harms & Yager, 1981; Stake & Easley, 1978; Weiss, 1978, 1987). And yet there is virtually no research evidence to verify that any course in the whole K- 12 sequence is important for preparation at all. All that a student needs to do is pay attention for each course and to remember what the teacher and the textbook elaborate.

11. The same studies of the 80s revealed another shocking fact. Ninety percent of all science teachers use a textbook (page by page) in excess of 90% of the time. For most students science becomes what is printed in textbooks and what is included on associated worksheets and in verification-type laboratories (Helgeson, Blosser, & Howe, 1977; Stake & Easley, 1978; Weiss, 1978). Perhaps the most alarming fact is that by

VIEWPOINT 907

far the majority (75%) of existing teachers are quite satisfied with existing materials (Weiss, 1987). Competing textbook publishers are not likely to be enticed by but 25% of the market, especially because these teachers are probably not of the same mind as to the materials they want. Publishers are knowledgeable of the great numbers of teachers who prefer the old edition when but slight changes are made in developing a completely new version.

III. Other studies reveal our failures with existing programs, materials, and teaching strategies. Jon Miller’s studies of the degree of scientific/technological literacy on the part of high school graduates report alarming facts. The illiteracy rate is at 90%- and it seems to be growing (Miller, 1989; Miller, Suchner, & Voelker, 1980). It looks as if what we are doing is not producing the kind of student we want. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has recently approved a listing of such features of the scientically literate person. Unfortunately there is no evidence that current programs and teaching practices are successful in producing such scientific literacy.

IV. Cognitive science studies have emerged during the 80s as the dominant type of research in science education. Some of the most exciting reports are those that indicate results with studying our most successful K- 12 students. Unfortunately, instead of providing information as to how we could produce similar successes with all students instead of the few who pursue college studies in science, medicine, and engineering, the studies reveal serious failures with these most talented (and seemingly successful) science students. Champagne and Klopfer (1984), in a review article, indicate that 85% of the physics majors at prestigious institutions do not believe what they seem to know and what they are able to do in their college courses. They have the same misconceptions of natural phenomena as do their less talented (nonscience) peers. And in a recent report by the College Board (Mestre & Lochhead, 1990), studies are reported which indicate similar failure with 90% of the engineering students enrolled in professional schools.

V. The research is also clear that exemplary teachers are in a minority-but they are ones who constantly seek to improve (Yager, 1988). In addition to seeking out in- service opportunities, including institutes and conferences, such teachers are active members of science professional organizations like NSTA. And yet 85% of the middle and high school teachers are not members. (The percentage of nonmembers would be much higher if K-6 teachers were included!) Certainly improved teaching is needed. However, Relatively few (10%) seek it out on their own. Encouraging teachers with stipends, waiving tuition, and providing expenses seems to get teachers for the wrong reasons. Relatively few changes in their teaching result, as evidenced by the NSF- supported teacher education projects of the 60s and early 70s.

In summary, teachers are central to any solutions and successes for current reform efforts. Solutions will require that teachers must:

1 . Internalize goals for science teaching other than a preparatory one, that is, preparing for further study of traditional science concepts. There is a common belief that action as a result of instruction must first come after mastery of basic concepts.

2. Be willing to abandon standard textbooks where less than 10% variation from one text to the next at a given grade level. Currently only 10% of the teachers are willing to abandon their basic textbooks.

3. Assist students in utilizing science concepts and processes in attacking problems that exist in their own lives and communities. Currently less than 10% of high

908 YAGER

school graduates are able to use and to act upon the information and skills they are taught.

4. Assess their successes with teaching and learning beyond testing students for the degree they can repeat information or perform certain basic skills outside any real-world context.

5. Be involved professionally (currently only 15% are) and demand new approaches and materials (a critical mass of 25% is needed to affect the preparation and use of improved materials).

Of course, curriculum reform is of vital importance as we respond to the current challenge for reform in science education for the 90s. However, real reform may not be possible when we start with the curriculum per se. Perhaps an analogy is appropriate.

The curriculum is a vehicle for getting the job done; it is like choosing a vehicle for a trip. Can we choose one or create one without knowing where we want to go? Is every vehicle equally good for every trip we want to take? Can curriculum reform really occur without first deciding what we want it to do?

During the 1977-82 period much was accomplished regarding the purposes of a science education. Stake and Easley (1978), Weiss (1978), Harms and Yager (1981) all noted that teachers and administrators agreed with almost all goal statements for their science programs. Yet in practice the only one that could be found was getting over the material, usually that found in their textbooks and/or curriculum guides. It was justified because it would be needed at the next grade level and for standardized examinations. It appears that there is a general feeling of helplessness on the part of teachers. Materials exist. They must be gone over-because students, parents, ad- ministrators, school boards, everyone, expects it. What else can a teacher do?

Probably the most serious attempt to analyze and to categorize goals for school science was undertaken by Noms Harms and his research team responsible for Project Synthesis. That effort was organized around four basic goal areas that included:

1. Science for meeting personal neeh. Science education should p ~ p a r e individuals to use science for improving their own lives and for coping with an increasingly technological world.

2. Science for resolving current societal issues. Science education should produce informed citizens prepared to deal responsibly with science-related societal issues.

3 . Science for assisting with career choices. Science education should give all students an awareness of the nature and scope of a wide variety of science and technology-related careers open to students of varying aptitudes and interests.

4. Science for preparing forfurther study. Science education should allow students who are likely to pursue science academically as well as professionally to acquire the academic knowledge appropriate for their needs.

These may not be the only goal areas but they do represent four distinct justifications for science in the curriculum and provide four bases for evaluating a curriculum. Standard textbooks include minimal materials related to the first three goal areas. Almost all material is included because it is expected, will be needed, or matches state frameworks/standards.

Curriculum reformers of the 90s seem united on the necessity of reducing basic coverage in textbooks and curriculum guides (Culotta, 1990). However, there seems to be disagreement on just what should be omitted and for what levels. Regardless of

VIEWPOINT 909

the decisions, it is likely that 75% of the science teachers in middle schools and high schools will be unhappy. They are pleased with the topics and the level of coverage in existing materials (Weiss, 1987).

Jack Renner, past president of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, entitled his presidential address “The Power of Purpose.” His analysis was meaningful and appropriate as he discussed the association and an appropriate research agenda. It may be more important as we consider spending millions of dollars (the budget increases astonishingly as our economic plight worsens) for science cumculum reform. What are the problems? What reforms are likely to impact the problems?

The current cumculum reform projects, namely Project 2061, SS&C, and STS as described elsewhere in this special issue may all have answers. However, we need to be sure of the questions. Then we must be sure that we collect evidence that can be used as we address the power of our would-be reforms. We need science education as a discipline-one capable of raising basic questions, one which offers possible explanations, and finally one which is willing to test the explanations offered and to share the results of such testing with others. Too much curriculum reform seems destined to be the response to the dreams of a given group. There is a temptation to declare that you must be right or you would not get a grant to complete a project (i.e., a cumculum development). There is also a temptation for teachers and schools to become believers-just because a project is funded. We all need to concentrate on the problems-our stated goals-and to encourage one and all to try their ideas and to share the information that becomes available from the trials.

We did not approach cumculum reforms in the 60s in this manner. Are we destined to repeat our mistakes again-just because there is funding and the public wants reform??

References

Champagne, A.B., & Klopfer, L.E. (1984). Research in science education: The cognitive psychology perspective. In D. Holdzkom & P.B. Lutz (Eds.), Research within reach: Science education (pp. 171 - 189). Charleston, WV: Research and De- velopment Interpretation Service, Appalachia Educational Library.

Culotta, E. (1990). Can science education be saved? Science, 250, 1327-1330. Harms, N.C., & Yager, R.E. (Eds.). (1981). What research says to the science

teacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Helgeson, S.L., Blosser, P.E., & Howe, R.W. (1977). The status of pre-college

science, mathematics, and social science education: 1955- 75. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Center for Science and Mathematics Education.

Mestre, J.P., & Lochhead, J. (1990). Academic preparation in science: Teaching for tramitionfrom high school to college. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Miller, J. (1989, April). Scientific literacy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, California.

Miller, J.D., Suchner, R.W., & Voelker, A.M. (1980). Citizenship in an age of science: Changing attitudes among young adults. New York, NY: Permagon Press.

Stake, R.E., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education (Vols. I and II). Urbana, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

910 YAGER

Weiss, I .R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics, and social srudies education: Center for educational research and evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985-86 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Research Triangle Institute.

Yager, R.E. (1988). Differences between most and least effective science teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 88(4), 301 -307.

Manuscript accepted February 1 1 , 1992.