|
|
Volume 3 |
|
Goals and History of Science Education |
Twenty-five years ago the context for changing educational materials and practices was clear. Our country's goal was to secure peace and national prosperity through global political and economic dominance. As a technological society in full bloom, we were developing new nuclear submarines, new B-52 bombers, lunar landing modules, and an interstate highway system. Classroom pedagogy reflected the scientific foundation of our technology. The application of scientific inquiry began to be used as a teaching technique in the public schools, thanks to new curricula developed with National Science Foundation funds by such groups as the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSC), the Earth Science Curriculum Project, the Physical Science Study Committee, and the American Chemical Society (ACS).
For the young people of the early '60s, the relevance of science was fairly clear. New Scientific miracles, such as Corning Ware, were in use in the family kitchen and discused at the dinner table. Entertainment shows, such as "Star Trek," convinced us that ionic bonding, plasma physics, and other such mysteries were going to be a part of our daily lives. Students were fascinated by the impact science would have on their careers; someday, as members of the work force, they too would be bringing us such new and exciting technological miracles as remote control television and microwave ovens.
Over the years, however, we became accustomed to miracles. Science became simply another part of our economic enterprise. We described rock bands as "awesome"---not laser beams as the grocery check-out. We came to attention when a space shuttle exploded---not when it flew. We became wired to the rest of the world through new global communications technology, then suffered the fate of novices on the global economic stage. As we lost interest in the mystery and novelty of scientific inquiry and technological innovation, we lost our sense of their immediate relevance and importance. And then we lost our memory of scientific facts. Educators who deal in study skills and learning theory would put it this way: without a "significant context" there is no long-term memory of content.
When scientific literacy began to drop in the '70s, the "education industry"---public and private entities who develop, publish, and teach our science curricula---attempted to tackle the problem by increasing the number of facts students were expected to learn. Most of the textbooks that have been used in classrooms ever since exemplify this "content" solution. They are fact-filled because market research shows that educators want them to be. And educators want textbooks full of facts because student assessments measure how many facts students know, not how much knowledge they can apply. Textbooks now not only include a growing number of facts, but they are also written at oversimplified reading levels, come with ancillary materials that have the effect of reducing the teacher's individualized input, and generally have the effect of replacing scientific inquiry with memorization. Meanwhile, students have been left to fend for themselves when it comes to figuring out why what they are memorizing is personally relevant and applicable to their lives.
Fortunately, as we approach the new century, educators are involved in a great "rethink" about the process of education. And it seems that science educators have now developed a fairly clear---though still very general---consensus on two broad areas of change: 1) Science teaching should be the guided but direct application of scientific inquiry by the student in a hands-on fashion; 2) Science teaching should be carried out in a context that is personally and socially relevant to the student in order to fan the spark of curiosity generated by scientific inquiry.
With this foundational agreement, it is simply unnecessary for us to enter the 21 st century with the kind of mediocre textbooks, ineffective pedagogy, and ill-prepared graduates we have tolerated over the past 15 years. Our schools, our universities, and our educational businesses know where we need to go. Now we must manage our resources wisely and cooperatively to get there.
The trends that will shape science education for the 21 st century are increasingly evident. To some degree, the question of where we are going has already been answered. We are moving toward the teaching of science as a thinking process---a way of "knowing and reknowing" our world as it changes before us. The question of how this teaching can be done is also in the process of being answered. New curricula, new textbooks, and teacher training are all in the works. How widespread will these changes be? How lasting? These are the questions we must ask ourselves now. And the answers depend largely on the willingness of those of us engaged in science education to rediscover that science is the channeling of wonder into a learned process of real world investigation.