Editor's Note: Jack Rhoton, co-editor of the new NSTA Press book Teaching Science in the 21st Century, introduces a new NSTA Reports series based on the book.
A simple question I often hear asked goes something like this: “How have our K–12 science programs changed in the last 100 years?” As we ponder this question, it is difficult to imagine ways in which they haven’t changed. But upon closer examination, the unfortunate reality is we are doing many things similarly to what we were doing a century ago. Perhaps a more compelling question is “How do we best position our science programs for students to succeed in the 21st century?”
The answer to this question is the focus of this new series in NSTA Reports, “Teaching Science in the 21st Century.” The series is based on the new NSTA Press book of the same name; the book is a joint publication of the National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA) and NSTA and represents a comprehensive effort to identify practical approaches needed to establish the foundation upon which effective science programs can be built. The compelling nature of the book’s subject matter prompted the editors of NSTA Reports and the book’s authors to collaborate on this series in an effort to continue sharing the research, insights, and experiences of some of our nation’s leading experts in science education.
Addressing science teachers and science leaders—but also including curriculum directors, superintendents, university personnel, policy makers, and any others with a stake in science education—these experts articulate a compelling vision for improving science education in our nation’s schools. Each essay contributes to the dialogue on how to develop a culture that allows and encourages science leaders to continually improve science programs.
NSTA Reports will highlight topics covered in selected chapters from the book. Chapter authors will contribute opinion pieces crafted around the subject matter of their particular chapters. These opinion pieces will be based on the latest research, trends, and best practices and the wisdom of expert practitioners. The primary purpose of the opinion pieces will be to highlight the book’s subject matter in such a fashion as to illustrate the utility of topics to practitioners, teachers in the classroom as well as all stakeholders. I’m pleased to introduce the series, which begins with “An Evolutionary Framework for Instructional Materials” by George Nelson.
We believe the final determinant of success in our effort to improve science education will be measured, in large degree, by the quality of science programs delivered to our students and by student outcomes. It is our hope that you will find these opinion pieces stimulating, thought-provoking, and useful as you search for ways to effect positive change in your approach to science education.
For more information on Teaching Science in the 21st Century, visit http://store.nsta.org/showItem.asp?product=PB195X.
Editor’s Note—The author of the first piece in this series is George Nelson, director of science, mathematics, and technology education at Western Washington University and principal investigator for the North Cascades and Olympic Science Partnership. He previously served as director of Project 2061 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science and associate vice provost for research/associate professor of astronomy and education at the University of Washington in Seattle and is a former NASA astronaut.
An Evolutionary Framework for Instructional Materials
The confusing cacophony of information and hype that accompanies instructional materials continues to plague districts across the country each year as they face curriculum adoption and implementation decisions. Once those decisions are made, teachers encounter the challenge of making the materials “work” for themselves and their students. I offer a simple framework that is intended to help sort instructional materials into one of four broad categories and pose implementation and professional development implications unique to each.
We can consider materials as belonging to a sequence of four “generations,” each developed amid new research, learning theories, policy initiatives, and perceived needs. Though the generations emerged chronologically, they continue to coexist in the marketplace. Understanding the common characteristics of the materials from each generation makes it possible to intentionally implement instructional modifications to best help students learn and strategically support professional development to most successfully help teachers use the materials to the greatest effect.
Generation 1—Textbooks
Generation 1 is the traditional textbook. It has been with us since the early years of the 20th century and still dominates the marketplace, especially in high schools and almost universally in introductory undergraduate science courses. Textbooks, including the wonderful four-color pictures and all of the bells and whistles that publishers package with them, have a primary strength: They are excellent reference books, full of solid content presented in a logical, if not always pedagogically sound, sequence. Some books do have serious errors, and many contain misleading representations. The amount of content included in textbooks is usually much more than is called for in the Standards. Every classroom should probably have one or two of these books as reference materials.
The learning theory behind Generation 1 materials posits that students are passive learners who accumulate the facts, algorithms, and vocabulary of science through a didactic pedagogical model. Teaching from Generation 1 materials is straightforward: Present attentive students with definitions, algorithms, and vocabulary; offer clear explanations of concepts; show examples of problems and their solutions; provide problems for practice and cookbook laboratory exercises to confirm the concepts; then test for memory and use of the algorithms and vocabulary. The broad use of Generation 1 materials by well-intentioned teachers has contributed to the low U.S. scores on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and to the lack of general science literacy (Weiss et al. 2003).
Of course, students are learning some science, which is a credit to the creative work of teachers. Much effort has been expended to overcome the shortcomings of these materials through innovations in the classroom. Interactive lectures, lecture tutorials, student response systems, concept tests, and many other techniques all show some gains in student learning over a straight “stand-and-deliver” class using a Generation 1 material. Many teachers have assembled and developed collections of activities, demonstrations, and laboratories to supplement or replace the text. Student learning results from these collections are difficult to assess, and the materials, even when they are successful, are rarely shared. Few teachers have the expertise or time, and we have no right to expect them to develop their own materials without training, resources, and a team of experts.
Generation 2—Inquiry-Based Materials
The emergence of Generation 2 was spurred by both the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the new ideas about science that were emerging from thinkers such as Thomas Kuhn. The idea was that science should be taught in the same way as science is done; that is, through inquiry (Schwab 1958). With daring funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and dedicated participation by teachers and scientists working together, innovations such as beginning instruction with guided observations, facilitating more open-ended experiments that often cleverly employ technology, and applying a learning cycle to guide instruction resulted in an alphabet soup of materials such as SCIS, ESS, PSSC, BSCS, SAPA, FOSS, STC, and SEPUP, among others.
The underlying learning theory of Generation 2 is constructivism, which can be summarized as the idea that students build their own new understandings based on their prior knowledge and new experiences. Because constructivist-based instruction requires more time than simply presenting vocabulary and algorithms from textbooks, the number of topics included in Generation 2 materials was reduced. Before the Standards were published, the choice of topics was made, usually very carefully, by the developers based on the historical curriculum and the research on what was developmentally appropriate. Materials developed after the Standards were published align reasonably well with the content topics in the Standards and the reduced emphasis on technical vocabulary. An important characteristic—and shortcoming—of Generation 2 materials is that they do not explicitly provide instruction that will help students learn about scientific inquiry itself. For the materials that emerged early in this period, knowledge about science as inquiry was not one of the intended learning goals. With newer materials, an implicit and incorrect assumption exists that doing inquiry results in learning about inquiry.
Since Generation 2 materials call for a very different, student-centered teaching style, teachers need significant professional development to be able to use them with high fidelity. In instances when they have been used as intended by well-prepared teachers, the results have been impressive (Amaral et al. 2002). Students do learn more and remember more. The caveat here is that without the necessary teacher preparation, students fare no better with these materials than they do with Generation 1 materials and instruction.
Generation 3—Cognitive Research-Based Materials
Generation 3 materials have been available in mathematics for 10 years or so, but they are just now beginning to appear in science. Like Generation 2 materials, they are built on constructivist learning theory, but this next generation incorporates new learning research as summarized in the findings in How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Research Council 2000). Briefly, these findings are 1) Attention must be paid to preexisting student ideas; 2) Students need a deep foundation of factual knowledge stored in a conceptual framework that is accessible; and 3) Students need to develop metacognitive skills to become independent learners.
Generation 3 materials provide support for teachers to draw out and address their students’ initial conceptual ideas. Like Generation 2 materials, they may make sophisticated use of technology through data collection and simulation. Formative assessment is a key instructional element built into the materials themselves. They help the teacher pose structured questions to guide student thinking toward scientific thinking. Equally important is the inclusion of strategies for students to assess their own understanding. The inclusion of these “metacognitive prompts” provides a means for students to monitor their own understanding, recognize how their understanding developed, and direct future learning experiences.
Generation 3 materials require much more from teachers in terms of content and pedagogical content knowledge and therefore demand more and different professional development experiences. Teachers must become proficient at “hearing” their students’ ideas about science, responding with questions to probe those ideas, and posing appropriate activities to develop a more scientifically accurate, conceptual understanding.
Generation 4—Teacher Collaborative Learning
Generation 4 materials haven’t reached the market yet, but emerging research foreshadows what lies ahead. Evidence is mounting that student learning is enhanced when teachers are members of authentic professional learning communities that share a collective responsibility for all of their students’ success (DuFour and Eaker 1998). When teachers engage in focused collaboration around specific learning issues—using structured processes such as lesson study or protocols for examining student work—student performance, teacher satisfaction, and school climate all improve.
Generation 4 materials, most likely developed with NSF support, will include not only the important elements from Generations 1–3, but also detailed support of teacher collaborative learning aligned with the materials themselves. This advance will create a seamless link between instructional materials and professional development. Administrative support to develop and sustain professional learning communities and high-quality professional development that targets deeper content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and understanding of the instructional materials and the underlying learning research will be essential for this new generation to achieve its potential.
Implications
This framework points to the instructional and support elements that are missing in each successive generation of materials and suggests what instructional modifications or professional development models are needed to produce positive student outcomes. Each new generation is actually “harder” to use than the previous one, but if we are honest about our commitment to increasing student conceptual understanding of important scientific concepts, the new models are the obvious choice. We can only expect increased student achievement with successive generations of instructional materials if we use them with high fidelity and modify instruction as we learn more about teaching and learning. It may be difficult work, but it is what we must do to fulfill our responsibility of helping all students achieve at their fullest potential.
References
Amaral, O.M., L. Garrison, and M.P. Klentschy. 2002. Helping English learners increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal 26 (2): 213–239.
DuFour, R., and R. Eaker. 1998. Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
National Research Council. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Schwab, Joseph J. 1958. Teaching science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists XIV (9).
Weiss, I. R., J.D. Pasley, P.S. Smith, E.R. Banilower, and D.J. Heck. 2003. Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Available at www.horizon-research.com/reports/2003/insidetheclassroom/looking.php.
See www.project2061.org for descriptions of instructional analysis criteria, reviews of materials, and resources from the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science.