ERIC EJ877451: Leadership in Science Education: Focusing on the Unknown and Moving to Knowing

2004·0.22 MB·English

by  ERIC

Robert E. Yager
Leadership in Science
Education: Focusing on the
Unknown and Moving to Knowing
An argument is made that science leaders must take the goals of
science education seriously and use them to frame our teaching
and staff development efforts.
Never has there been a time when 3. engage intelligently in public identifying the unknown, proceeding
the need for creative leadership is discourse and debate about to knowing—even if it is a personally
more needed in schools to ensure that matters of scientific and constructed answer or explanation
the focus is upon meeting the major technological concern; and (but wrong in terms of current science
goals on which there is agreement. 4. increase their economic pro- academy notions) of the original
Effective leaders should not portray ductivity through the use of the question arising from personal
themselves as knowing what an knowledge and understanding, curiosity.
exemplary science education is and and skills of the scientifically
Enlarging Our Visions
then forcing all persons in the district to literate person in their careers.
move toward it. Instead, as in science, (NRC, 1996, p.13) of Science
it is first important to know what Science educators tend to define
For many the first goal is the
the issues, questions, and problems science as the information found
most important since it ensures that
are and then move toward answers in textbooks for K-12 and college
every student will have a firsthand
and solutions—perhaps slowly and courses or the content outlined in
personal experience with science.
taking time to amass evidence that state frameworks and standards. Such
This means exploring nature with a
the various actions undertaken indeed definitions omit most of what George
natural curiosity, which all humans
are appropriate ones for meeting the Gaylord Simpson (1963) described as
enjoy. It means asking questions,
agreed upon goals. the essence of science; Simpson’s five
The National Science Education activities which define science are:
Standards (NSES) clearly articulates
1. asking questions about the
four goals (justifications) for requiring
natural universe; i.e., being
science in K-12 schools. These four
Most laboratories curious about the objects and
goals are producing students who
events in nature;
are but verification
can:
2. trying to answer one’s own
activities of what
1. experience the richness and
questions; i.e., proposing
excitement of knowing about teachers and/or possible explanations;
and understanding the natural
textbooks have 3. designing experiments to
world;
determine the validity of the
indicated as truths
2. use appropriate scientific
explanation offered;
processes and principles making about the natural
4. collecting evidence from
personal decisions;
world. observations of nature,
SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 21
mathematics calculations, and, students to design experiments that experience with science as it is defined
whenever possible, experiments could improve human existence. by Simpson (1963). Brandwein
carried out to establish the validity Science education should be contended that most high school
of the original explanations; about drawing people out in terms of graduates complete their schooling
and engaging their minds. Instead, most without even one experience with real
science programs focus on directing science. Many within the National
5. communicating the evidence to
others who must agree with the students to what they should learn— Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
interpretation of the evidence i.e., the explanations of objects and have argued that we should aim for
in order for the explanation to events that scientists have accepted more than one science experience
become accepted by the broader as truths or explanations of the in thirteen years—instead at least
community (of scientists). natural world and/or technological one each year of the thirteen year
(Simpson, 1963, p. 3) achievements (e.g., automobiles, continuum of a general education for
airplanes, air conditioners) (AAAS, all. Most teachers would argue that
1990). Education has become training; thirteen such experiences are but “a
i.e., getting students to accept and be drop in the bucket.”
Science education able to recall explanations others have
offered. This is often done under the
should be about
guise that specific concepts and process
drawing people out in skills are necessary prerequisites for Many high school
terms of engaging their understanding even though it is now
teachers enjoy teaching
apparent that such approaches are
minds.
useless and that understanding is the best students who
rarely accomplished until students are preparing for
The elements of science identified see the importance and the need for
college and not for
by Simpson are rarely studied in them (Resnick, 1986; NRC, 1996;
schools. For example, science students Greeno, 1992). meeting any other goal
seldom determine their own questions
or benefit for their
NSES and Changing Goals
for study; they are not expected to
study.
be curious; they rarely are asked to for Science Education
propose possible answers; they seldom The first and overarching goal
are asked to design experiments, and for science education for the decade The other three goals from the
they rarely share their results with following the 1996 publication of NSES focus upon experiences in
others as evidence for the validity of the NSES provides a direction for school science which will affect the
their own explanations (Weiss et al., our field—every school science daily lives of students that can help
2001). coordinator, supervisor, curriculum them make better scientific and societal
One could argue that “real” science leader, and department head must decisions and lead them to increased
is seldom encountered or experienced internalize and work diligently toward economic productivity. These are
in most science classrooms. The typical meeting it. It should be the goal that almost identical to three of the four
focus is almost wholly on what current unifies us all. But, it will be the most goal clusters Norris Harms used for
scientists accept as explanations difficult to achieve. School science his NSF-supported effort conceived in
(Harms & Yager, 1981; Weiss et al., is rarely seen as an experience that 1977 called Project Synthesis (Harms
2001). Competent science students enriches and excites students about & Yager, 1981). The four goals Harms
only need to remember what teachers their knowing and understanding of used were:
or textbooks say. Most laboratories the objects and events found in the 1. Science for meeting personal
are but verification activities of natural world. needs. Science education should
what teachers and/or textbooks have Paul Brandwein once said that prepare individuals to use
indicated as truths about the natural science literacy would begin to be science for improving their
world. There is seldom time for realized if every student had one own lives and for coping with
22 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
an increasingly technological the next teaching level) actually builds
world. on what is taught earlier.
2. Science for resolving current While most teachers It is refreshing to note that the
societal issues. Science education academic preparation goal that framed
accept the importance
should produce informed citizens Project Synthesis is not included as
prepared to deal responsibly with of student-centered one of the NSES goals even though
science-related societal issues. approaches, few it was the one on which nearly all
concentrated and used as justification
3. Science for assisting with career students ever sense
for their teaching practices. It is also
choices. Science education
that typical classrooms noteworthy that the other three goals—
should give all students an
not approached well nor achieved in
awareness of the nature and result in their being
1980—remain major goals for the
scope of a wide variety of science partners in learning
current decade.
and technology-related careers
rather than recipients
open to students of varying
Instruction and Curriculum
aptitudes and interests. of it.
and Meeting the Goals
4. Science for preparing for further
But, what is done in typical schools
study. Science education should
that is designed to specifically meet (or
allow students who are likely further study) was the only one for
move toward) any one of the four NSES
to pursue science academically which teachers justified what they
goals? The curriculum has remained
as well as professionally to were doing. In excess of 90% of all
rather static. In spite of the NSTA
acquire the academic knowledge U.S. science teachers justified their
Scope, Sequence and Coordination
appropriate for their needs. teaching and curriculum because the
Project (NSTA, 1992) (designed to
(Harms & Yager, 1981, p7). next grade level “expected” it. The
eliminate the “layer cake” curriculum),
Project Synthesis was funded information and skills were thought the same curriculum seems to exist
and carried out at a time of great to be important and useful to the next and flourish. Textbooks rarely focus
disillusionment in the U.S. about the teacher. The greatest justification upon anything but the same content
purposes and directions that science was in the high schools where the strands, which characterize most
education had taken in the years after discipline bound (sometimes called state standards, the same topics in
the Soviet Sputnik caused Americans the “layer cake”) curriculum was standardized assessment schemes, and
to question what they were doing in firmly entrenched. This was caused the content frameworks characterizing
school science. The period ushered by Harvard University requiring high textbook adoption states.
in reforms—the likes of which were school physics for entrance in 1892; If we are to meet the four NSES
contrary to nearly forty earlier national ten years later they required chemistry. goals, much more attention to them
reform efforts for school science. Until Many of the universities followed the is needed. More discussions of how
the 1959-70 reforms funded by NSF, Harvard lead with most high school each could be met, how teaching must
national reforms had all focused on a science offerings seen primarily as change, how the curriculum materials
science that was tied to daily living—a prerequisites for college entrance. must change, and how evidence can
science that had practical utility and We know today that chemistry and be amassed to determine the degree
included (perhaps used) technology. physics were offered primarily for the goals have been met.
The post-Sputnik era focused on college preparation with advanced Science leaders must help
producing and advocating science as biology often included for the same practitioners to change their
it is known to scientists (in terms of reasons in grades 11 and 12. Many high instructional strategies. Again the
processes/skills used in laboratories school teachers enjoy teaching the best NSES clearly state nine ways teaching
and the most recent explanations students who are preparing for college should change to result in more and
arising from their research). and not for meeting any other goal or better student learning and to move
Project Synthesis revealed that benefit for their study. And yet, there toward meeting the stated goals. These
goal four (preparing students for is little evidence that any teacher (at changes are summarized in the NSES
SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 23
Table 1 question about the natural world and
offer possible explanations, devise
Less Emphasis On: More Emphasis On: tests to determine the validity of the
1. Treating all students alike and Understanding and responding to explanations, enter into dialogues with
responding to the group as a individual student’s interests, others concerning the explanations
whole strengths, experiences, and needs (attempts to meet Goal One of NSES).
And, are there any indications the
2. Rigidly following curriculum Selecting and adapting curriculum
changes encouraged or impacted the
3. Focusing on student acquisition Focusing on student understanding
way students live their daily lives
and use of scientific knowledge,
(attempts to meet Goal Two)? Is
ideas, and inquiry processes
there any evidence that instruction
of information
or curriculum provides experience
4. Presenting scientific knowledge Guiding students in active and
or information about solving societal
through lecture, text, and extended scientific inquiry
problems? Are there any attempts
demonstration
to tie science learning to economic
5. Asking for recitation of acquired Providing opportunities for productivity and possible careers?
knowledge scientific discussion and debate
among students
6. Testing students for factual Continuously assessing student
information at the end of the understanding
Questions provide the
unit or chapter
heart of science.
7. Maintaining responsibility and Sharing responsibility for
authority learning with students
8. Supporting competition Supporting a classroom community
The Centrality of Questions
with cooperation, shared
Central to science are questions!
responsibility, and respect
Science begins with the unknown and
9. Working alone Working with other teachers to it is the goal of science practitioners
enhance the science program to move to the known.
(NRC, 1996, p 52) Perhaps in science education we
need more science concerning our
own profession—that is questioning
as contrasts between “less emphasis” on adaptation and implementation how we teach, what we teach, whether
conditions (which are commonly of curricular materials (which most our teaching results in more and better
used strategies by most teachers) to consider first as reforms and changes learning, and whether our efforts are
the “more emphasis” conditions (see are contemplated). Most of the new helping us meet our stated goals.
Table 1). materials (even those supported by Science begins with questions and
Interestingly the teaching standards NSF funding) contain few instances or as they are considered often more
are first in the 1996 publication because pathways for meeting the four stated questions emerge. Some would argue
of their importance in realizing the goals from the NSES. that all real learning starts with a
goals and because they were the It could be a worthwhile exercise question and not a teacher assignment
least controversial of all the visions to examine state standards, most or a textbook suggestion. The NSES
contained in the NSES. Science popular texts, and teacher lesson visions for teaching invite student
education leaders and programs plans in a search for any evidence that involvement.
they organize for teachers should instructional strategies, content, and While most teachers accept the
concentrate their attention on ways lesson plans reveal any indications importance of student-centered
to meet the four goals—rather than that they will help students ask a approaches, few students ever sense
24 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
that typical classrooms result in their Table 2. Percentage of Students Demonstrating Creative Thinking in STS
being partners in learning rather than and Textbook Courses
recipients of it.
Textbook-Driven
Students must be involved with
STS Classes Classes
problem identification and ques-
tion-asking. Science lessons need to Questions 81 30
include open entry in addition to Unique Questions 70 13
student ideas about possible answers,
Explanations 87 11
student designs of experiments, open-
Unique Explanations 68 6
ended laboratories. And yet far too
little is known about “problem find- Tests for Validity 71 14
ing.” Penick (1996) used Dillon’s of Explanations
work (1982) in this regard as he urged Unique Explanations 51 5
teachers to focus on stimulating more
Distinguish Between 91 43
creative students. Dillon pointed out
Cause and Effect
that “few abilities or accomplishments
have been praised or rewarded less
than problem finding. Yet, compared questions from a new angle all require well exemplified by the Science-
to the volume of literature on problem imagination and creativity”. Questions Technology-Society classroom. A
solving, there is almost nothing writ- provide the heart of science. We all variety of studies have examined
ten about the process or learning of need to help students to question more, creativity as a result of STS instruction.
problem identification. As a result, to act on their natural curiosities, to Myers (1998), Foster and Penick
no theory of problem identification experience the excitement and thrill (1985) and McComas (1989) used the
has been put forth.” Dillon also of the whole scientific process (Goal Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.
noted that problem finding, including One of the NSES). In all cases the investigators found that
discovering, formulating, and pos- students scored significantly higher
ing questions, may represent a more Creativity and after experiencing STS classes than
distinct and creative act than finding Communication in Science after learning in a more traditional
a solution. Many writers (Getzels and Students with creativity, curiosity, classroom. Table 2 indicates typical
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Mackworth, and questions often desire to results attained in studies resulting
1965) have concluded that ques- communicate (Risi, 1982). When from the Iowa Chautauqua Program,
tion posing and problem finding are one discovers, does, or invents which has sought to encourage
crucial, at the heart of originality, and something, a natural first response the NSES visions with an STS
form an extremely strong association is to let others in on the excitement. approach.
with creativity. Yet, in most educa- Without communication of ideas, Mackinnu (1991) also reported on a
tional endeavors, problem finding is science would not exist as we know study using fifteen creativity measures.
ignored while concentrating on the it. It is one of the essential features He found that STS students showed
more mundane aspects of solving prob- of Simpson’s definition cited earlier. significantly more gain on every item
lems presented by the text, the teacher, Chaudhari noted that “Students’ than students from more text-oriented
or worksheets. Paul Hurd (1991) questions are their curiosity in action, classrooms. These results are what
has suggested that we should leave their mind hunger” (Chaudhari, 1986, one would expect considering the
problem-solving to the mathemati- p. 34-36). But, Penick (1996) argued fact that classrooms employing the
cians. Few science problems can be that if students are to communicate STS approach encourage student
solved in a class period, during a grade effectively and to formulate and ideas, initiative, and communication
period, or often in many years. follow-up on questions, they must have with other students. These results
Einstein has often been quoted as a classroom climate where creativity are also significant in the sense
saying that “raising new questions is valued, encouraged, modeled, that we all want students who can
new possibilities, regarding old and rewarded. This environment is raise questions, suggest causes, and
SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 25
predict consequences. Yet, while all The teacher is uniquely important in “Why did that happen?” students are
teachers involved with implementing enhancing such creativity. Well-posed put off because the “why” sounds
NSES goals are overtly seeking these questions stimulate thinking, revealing very absolute and threatening. “Why”
outcomes, more typical teachers only alternate points of view and logic, and implies someone knows (or should
hope for them as a by-product of may be viewed as the embodiment of know) the answer or is possibly
didactic instruction. curiosity. But, to be a model of creative wrong (Why did you hit your little
In addition to all these studies inquiry, a teacher must use questions sister?” A better approach is to begin
having similar findings, there is a that go beyond mere description. with the concrete, asking questions
common thread that ran through all Questions to stimulate creativity about what students did or what was
must require and allow multiple observed. Then, ask how they might
possible answers and demand actions. do it differently and what might hap-
Questions model thinking as relevant pen if…? Predictions are a reasonable
Science education problems are pursued. Questions act next step as well as questions seek-
as windows on the phenomenon in ing to determine relationships with
leaders must
question and continue the process until other, similar phenomena. Since we
portray science the desired evidence or explanation consciously model good question-ask-
have been revealed. ing behaviors, then types of questions
and constructivist
follow a logical hierarchy that students
practices if the reforms Crafting Appropriate
can emulate. We want them to delve
envisioned by NSES Questions into the problems and these assist in
Penick has noted that the tendency that endeavor. The “why” questions
are to flourish.
is often for teachers to ask the ultimate sound like test questions and are best if
question, “Why?” When a phenom- never asked. Table 3 suggests a simple
the classes taught by teachers enthused enon is introduced and teachers ask, hierarchy of questions which may
with the NSES and the four stated
goals. The common thread was a
stimulating classroom climate where
Table 3. Penick’s Hierarchy for Questions in Science Classrooms
student questions and ideas were
valued, their initiative encouraged,
1. Asking questions that describe:
and where evaluation was based on a
a. What you did?
wide variety of criteria. This classroom
b. What happened?
climate, an essential element for both
c. What did you observe?
creativity and teaching advocated in
2. Asking questions that predict:
the NSES, is made possible only by
a. What you will do next?
the teacher.
b. What will happen if you…?
Penick (1996) has suggested that the
c. What could you do to prevent that?
teacher must be involved in this initial
part of “sciencing”. Teachers must
3. Asking questions that relate to situations with others:
provide students with considerable
a. How does that compare to…?
intellectual freedom, safe opportunity,
b. What did other people find?
and time to be spontaneous, explore,
4. Seeking explanations:
test, decide courses of action, and take
a. How would you explain that?
risks. Students will not ask questions if
b. What caused it to happen?
they feel they and their questions may
5. Asking for advice:
be pushed aside, rushed, or subject
a. What evidence do you have for that?
to ridicule. A rush to judgment is the
b. What leads you to believe that?
opposite of creativity.
Penick, 1996, p. 89
26 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
would you design an experiment to programs) with no rationale, and no
…?” reference to NSES goals.
Science coordinators, To stimulate multiple answers, we
A Charge for Teachers
must accept all answers, regardless of
curriculum experts,
how good they may be. To encourage Science education leaders must
department heads, students to tell us their thinking, we portray science and constructivist
and others in school must show them that each of their ideas practices if the reforms envisioned
has value, that we are paying attention by NSES are to flourish. Already
districts must take the
to them. And, since evaluation stifles eight years have passed since the first
lead. creative thought and reduces thinking versions of the NSES were available.
initiation, we must avoid judgment. But Unfortunately too little has occurred to
be asked to help organize the ques- this does mean we let everything pass change teachers and their classrooms
tions teachers interested in creativity by without comment or is it a matter of to generally accomplish the reforms
enhancement should ask. evaluation avoided? In fact, evaluation needed. It will take concentrated and
Table 3 is an elaboration of and assessment are vital parts of prolonged efforts to succeed.
Penick’s suggestions for a hierarchy science. They are seen as critical parts Science coordinators, curriculum
for questions. This is an important of what science is about. (One might experts, department heads, and others
contribution for science educators consider again Simpson’s definition in school districts must take the lead.
who wish to help teachers in analyzing of science.) Science education leaders Such leadership should take the goals
and using their own questions and should focus on questions, possible of science education seriously and
those of their students. It is a way of explanations, and the design of tests frame all we do. At this same time we
helping teachers and their students in for the validity of personally posed need to identify ways of knowing if
recognizing and using questioning as a tests in professional development our goals have been met prior to our
central ingredient in science and where efforts for teachers. It is too common teaching and any staff development
the thinking, reflection, and learning to find new programs (e.g. kit-based
of science should begin.
Table 4 is Penick’s attempt to Table 4. Penick’s Suggestions for Making Creativity Flourish in Science Classrooms
outline ways teachers and professional
developers can increase student 1. Provide opportunities for creative work:
involvement and creativity in science (Time, material, expectations)
classrooms. He has recommended that 2. Ask questions that demand answers:
we ask questions to obtain information, (no “yes/no, recall, or answers you already know)
not to test students. When we seek
3. Wait for responses;
information, we do not ask questions
(Don’t rush, if you really ask a question, wait for the answer.
if we already know the answer. In
And wait again for multiple responses)
good adult conversation, adults ask
4. Accept unusual ideas, questions, or products:
each other questions to find out, not to
(No judgment, just acknowledge and ask for more)
examine. We would not spend much
5. Ask students to examine causes and consequences:
time with an adult who continually
(If that’s true, then…?, What may have caused that?)
quizzed us, particularly if they
followed up by evaluating our answers. 6. Allow students to make decisions:
Our students are not different except (Structure activities so that decisions must be made and allow
they are captives of our classroom. As students to do so)
a rule of thumb in the classroom, if you 7. Model creative thinking, action, and decision-making:
wish to stimulate student involvement (Ask questions yourself, express curiosity, make the classroom
and creativity, never ask if you already stimulating)
know. We should also seek opinions
Penick, 1996, p. 90
and points of view such as, “How
SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 27
efforts. If we want students to Greeno, J.G. (1992). Mathematical and National Research Council. (1996). Na-
experience the thrill and satisfaction scientific thinking in classrooms tional science education standards.
of raising questions about the natural and other situations. In D.F. Halpern Washington, D.C.: National Academy
(ed.). Enhancing thinking skills in the Press.
world, we must encourage it at all
sciences and mathematics. (39-61). National Science Teachers Association.
levels and at all times. If we expect
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (1992). Scope, sequence, and coordi-
science to affect our daily lives, help
Harms, N.C. (1977). Project Synthesis: An nation of secondary school science:
with decision making concerning
interpretive consolidation of research Volume I. The content core. A guide
science issues, improve economic
identifying needs in natural science for curriculum designers. Washington,
productivity and choice of careers, education. (A proposal prepared for D.C.: Author.
we need to help practitioners with the National Science Foundation). Penick, J.E. (1996). Creativity and the
their teaching strategies, curriculum Boulder: University of Colorado. Value of Questions in STS. Science/
materials, and assessment techniques Harms, N.C., & Yager, R.E. (eds). (1981). Technology/Society As Reform In Sci-
which illustrate the NSES visions. What research says to the science teach- ence Education. Robert E. Yager, (ed),
er, Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: National University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
References Science Teachers Association. Resnick, L.B. (1986) Cognition and
Hurd, P. DeH. (1991). Closing the educa- instruction: Theories of human compe-
American Association for the Advance-
tional gaps between science, technol- tence and how it is acquired. Pittsburgh:
ment of Science. (1990). Science for
ogy, and society. Theory into Practice. Learning Research and Development
all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford
30(4), 251-259. Center.
University Press.
Mackinnu, (1991). Comparison of learn- Risi, M. (1982). Macroscale: A holistic
Chaudhari, U.S. (1986). Questioning and
ing outcomes between classes taught approach to science teaching. A discus-
creative thinking: A research perspec-
with a science-technology-society sion paper, D-82/2. Science Council of
tive. The Journal of Creative Behavior.
(STS) approach and a textbook ori- Canada, Ottawa.
56(2), 31-36.
ented approach. Unpublished doctoral Simpson, George Gaylord. (1963). Biol-
Dillon, J.T. (1982). Problem finding and
dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa ogy and the Nature of Science. Science.
solving. The Journal of Creative Be-
City. (3550), 81-88.
havior. 16(2), 97-111.
Mackworth, N.H. (1965). Originality. The Weiss, I.R., Banilower, E.R., McMahon,
Foster, G.W., & Penick, J.E. (1985).
American Psychologist. 20, 51-66. K.C., & Smith, P.S. (2001). Report of
Creativity in a cooperative group set-
McComas, W.F. (1989). Sparkling creative the 2000 national survey of science and
ting. Journal of Research in Science
thinking with S/T/S education: The re- mathematics education. Chapel Hill,
Teaching. 22(1), 8898.
sults of the 1987-88 Chautauqua work- N.C, Horizon Research, Inc.
Getzels, J.W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.
shops. Chautauqua notes. 4(8), 1-2.
(1975). From problem solving to
Myers, L.H. (1998). Analysis of student Robert E Yager is Professor of Science
problem finding. In I.A. Taylor and outcomes in ninth grade physical sci- Education, University of Iowa.
J.W. Getzels (eds), Perspectives in
ence taught with a science department
Creativity (221-246). Chicago: Aldine
science/technology/society focus ver-
Publishers.
sus one taught with a textbook orienta-
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
28 SCIENCE EDUCATOR