Transcript Slide 1
Chapter 2: History of US Science Education Objectives: 1.Examine brief history of US science education 2. Discuss intent of science education reform 3. Describe sample innovative curriculum materials I. History of Science Education in the US A. 1800-1910 1. 1800-1860 a. b. Mostly agricultural society Science education involved memorizing facts 2. 1860-1880 a. b. c. Pestalozzi’s “Object Teaching” emphasized concrete, studentcentered instruction using experiment rather than lecture Kalamazoo Decision funded high schools with taxes Cities and industries grew requiring technologically educated workers 3. 1890-1910 1. 2. 3. Bailey’s “Nature Movement” emphasized study of plants, animals as a way to give city students an appreciation for nature College science teaching begins to influence high school curriculum “Committee of Ten” separates elementary and secondary science curriculum, decreasing influence of discipline specific college ed. B. 1910-1955 1. 6-3-3 grade organization becomes widespread 2. Craig’s elementary curriculum results in science content “readers” 3. Traditional ordering of disciplines emerges a. 7-9 grades typically learn “general science” b. Biology, Chemistry, Physics taught in that sequence in high school 4. General Education for all students more widely advocated a. Appreciation for science applications in society grows b. Technology advancements of WWII filter into public schools c. Chemistry and Physics make great advances (Manhattan Project) C. 1955-1970 1. Economy and population growth 2. Launch of Sputnik by USSR triggers major reforms a. Goal of more scientists and mathematicians so US can compete b. Many new curriculum project funded; less spent training teachers c. Emphasis on inquiry learning and the nature of science d. Laboratory work increases D. 1970-1980 1. Dissatisfaction with “Sputnik” reforms a. US not producing the scientists expected b. Science education too discipline specific, too theoretical, too hard c. Teachers didn’t buy into inquiry learning as expected 2. Individualized curricula developed a. ISCS three level junior high program b. Activities and experiments emphasized c. Self-pace minicourses became the norm E. 1980-1990 1. US Education perceived as falling behind (again) (Table 2.2) 2. Yager, 1982 Synthesis of multiple studies in 1970’s a. Direct science beyond its discipline base b. Goals should focus on Personal Needs, Societal Needs, Academic Preparation, and Career Education 3. Technological, Communication, Information Revolutions a. Literate populace implies technological as well as science concepts b. Science education must combine all this with societal issues F. 1990-2000 1. Focus on education for all students 2. Assessment and Accountability major focus a. b. Learned societies publish standards i. Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) ii. National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) Government bodies hold schools accountable i. State standards developed ii. Public schools must go through accreditation II. National Education Standards A. The scientifically literate person 1. Analyze technical information and make informed decisions 2. Reason logically and think scientifically about everyday problems 3. Curious about the world; ask questions; know how to find answers 4. Describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena 5. Evaluate science/society issues from an informed perspective 6. Understand scientific inquiry and scientific knowledge B. Science Education Reforms Advocated 1. Less emphasis on facts; more on concepts and inquiry 2. Less discipline specific; more societal and historical development of science as an interdisciplinary enterprise 3. Integration of knowledge and process 4. Studying fewer concepts in more depth 5. Implement Inquiry as an instructional strategy, not just a concept a. b. c. d. e. III.TIMSS A. B. C. Investigations extended over a period of time Using evidence to revise explanations Public communication of student ideas and work Management of ideas and information rather than materials/equipment Defend conclusions after analyzing data - Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1990’s international study of student and teacher performance and practice (41 countries participating). USA 8th and 12th graders in the middle on Earth and Life Sciences, much lower in physics. Worse yet in Mathematics. Lots of factors: No single “vision” for Math and Science teaching, too many topics taught, too broad and too shallow. III. Innovative Instructional Materials A. Scope, Sequence, and Coordination 1. NSTA initiative to teach general science, biology, chemistry, earth/space, and physics each year 6-12 2. Emphasizes interdisciplinary and less-is-more reform items B. Middle school level 1. Great Explorations in Math and Science a. b. Modules on interdisciplinary topics Activity and engagement oriented 2. Project WILD, WET, GLOBE a. b. Environment and Conservation focus of interdisciplinary topics Use interest of students in nature as focus 3. Science Education for Public Understanding a. b. Focus on chemicals and the roles in society Provide background for students to analyze science/society issues 4. Integrated Science a. b. c. Tries to meet Benchmarks while following Scope, Sequence ideas Heavily supported by videos, internet, teacher training, etc… Hands-on observations of familiar phenomena C. High school level 1. BSCS Biology: A Human Approach a. Emphasizes biology from a human perspective b. Distinguishing characteristics of humans c. Human place in biosphere: science/society issues 2. Biology: A Community Context a. Ecology, evolution, and genetics are major focus b. Inquiry-based activities c. “Science Conference” activities require cooperation, collaboration 3. Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom) a. American Chemical Society course emphasizing chemistry/society b. Problem solving relevant to students’ everyday lives c. Problem, laboratory, discussion, decision-making approach 4. Conceptual Physics a. Tries to overcome fear of math-based physics b. Uses concepts and language rather than equations IV. Standards On-Line A. Benchmarks for Science Literacy http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/b olintro.htm B. National Science Education Standards http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/ C. Connecticut State Department of Education Science Standards http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/curriculum/currsci.htm Click (Word Document, PowerPoint or PDF) under Connecticut Curricular Frameworks.