Critical Issue: Implementing Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Standards for Science Education

ISSUE: The intense criticism of America's schools following the publication of A Nation At Risk (1983) has fostered many initiatives to create curriculum, instruction, and assessment standards in all academic areas. For science education, both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Research Council have proposed important new standards. However, since no set of standards will succeed without the understanding and support of classroom teachers, several questions must be answered before implementing science standards:

• Which science standards are likely to be used?
• Will the science standards be used as guidelines or as mandates for change?
• What processes are in place to ensure the quality of the science standards?
• What are the organizational and professional development issues to be considered?
• What are the implications for curriculum and instruction?
• What is the connection between assessment, accountability, curriculum, and instruction standards?
• What support will be required for science programs to enable all learners to become scientifically literate?
• How will we evaluate the extent and impact of implementation?
• Above all, what actions must be taken to infuse the new science education standards into classroom practice?

OVERVIEW: Since 1983, many states have passed legislation requiring standards for curriculum and assessment, while professional and government groups have been calling for national standards in most disciplines. The recently enacted Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), establishing eight national education goals to be achieved by the year 2000, attests to the nation's desire to improve its schools.

The state of science education is similar to that of other disciplines. While research shows a clear need for new instructional strategies based on a constructivist model of learning, practice remains rooted in behaviorist theory and rote methods of learning. Regardless of which science standards are implemented, a new vision of science teaching and learning must be based on instruction that emphasizes engaged learning, in which students create meaning from their own experiences.

GOALS:

• Students will develop the skills and knowledge needed to construct their own understanding of science, technology, and the world in which they live.
• Approaches to science teaching and learning will no longer be based on behaviorist thinking, but will emphasize learner-centered classrooms, problem-based learning, and the construction of understanding and meaning by students.
• The organization of science content will promote a more holistic view of science, rather than the traditional division of science subject matter.
• Assessment will be a normal part of instruction and will help students evaluate their own learning.
• Teachers will rethink their beliefs about the nature of science and science learning, resulting in a new commitment to help all students become scientifically literate.
• Policymakers and administrators will break down barriers to systemic reform, such as limited time, resources, and facilities.

Robert Donmoyer from the National Center for Science Teaching and Learning in Columbus, Ohio, challenges administrators to eliminate barriers to systemic reform. Excerpted from NCREL's videoseries, Schools That Work: The Research Advantage, videoconference 3, Children as Explorers (NCREL, 1991). (Audio comment, 137k) A text transcript is available.


• Teachers as well as administrators will engage in strategic planning to implement the new vision for science education.

ACTION OPTIONS: Change requires clear vision, commitment to continuous improvement, and willingness to challenge past practice. The following actions to bring about systemic reform should be part of a strategic plan:

• If we truly expect American students to "be first in the world in science and mathematics" (Goals 2000, 1994), we must allow more time for science learning and teacher preparation at all grade levels.
• Professional development programs must provide the knowledge and skills that teachers need to make good decisions, including an understanding of the nature of science and of learners, as well as new ways of providing science education.
• Accountability models using traditional testing formats for "high-stakes" evaluation of student learning are not effective in shaping systemic reform. As states embark on extensive (and expensive) testing programs to collect data for program accountability, they need to provide professional development for teachers who require new skills for assessing student learning.

Elizabeth Stage from the National Research Council comments on current assessment practices used in the nation's schools. Excerpted from Gateway to the Future: Exploring Science Through Technology, produced by NCREL and the Great Lakes Collaborative (1993).(Audio Comment, 306k) A text transcript is available.


• Incorporating assessment into the learning process is critical to developing learners capable of creating their own knowledge.
• At the state and local levels, curriculum frameworks must be developed that provide meaningful learning for all students, take a more holistic approach to science curricula, and provide new forms of assessment. Most important, the frameworks should emphasize the processes of science.
• The facilities used in science learning - both inside and outside of the school - should be up-to-date and available for student use. Add and equip laboratories in the schools, open existing facilities outside of the schools for greater student access, and collaborate in designing new facilities that will benefit students both during and after the regular school day.
• Increase access to technology by making the technology delivery system more user-friendly and providing easy access to data for learners of all ages.

IMPLEMENTATION PITFALLS: Identifying standards for curriculum, assessment, and instruction in science education raises many questions, including the following:

• Should science standards be written and adopted at the national, state, or local level?
• What level of specificity is appropriate for national, state, and local standards?
• Are science standards to be descriptive or prescriptive?
• Will science standards accommodate an integrated and disciplined approach?
• How will science standards be used to develop instructional materials?
• Who will ensure that teachers can use the science standards?

Successful change requires careful planning, and the interests of all stakeholders need to be accommodated. Reforms must be carefully explained and demonstrated to parents, so that they will understand and accept changes in methodology and content organization. Teacher acceptance is critical, and experience shows that teachers seldom adopt changes that are implemented from the top down. Policymakers need to realize that systemic reform takes time and resources. Students are the most important stakeholders, and all change must increase the likelihood of their success.

Successful implementation of science standards is impossible without considering the professional development needs of teachers and administrators and ensuring that they have the requisite skills, knowledge, time, and resources to implement the reforms. However, the greatest error would be to go forward with reforms assuming that both teachers and administrators accept the recommended reforms. Before any actions are taken, teachers and administrators need to understand the need for change, the rationale for the recommended changes, and the relationship between the new science standards and the reforms themselves.

DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW: Many teachers feel comfortable with existing science courses and content organized in the traditional manner. They believe that the best way to build knowledge is to collect and integrate a set of discrete facts. They also may favor the traditional didactic, authoritarian approach to instruction. Naturally, such teachers do not embrace a learning model that gives students flexibility and allows them to participate in decisionmaking. They accept and practice the methods that they used to acquire their knowledge and understanding of science.

Proponents of the current organization of content in science usually draw heavily on a behaviorist theory of learning. They assume that knowledge grows from simple ideas to complex concepts, with new knowledge building on previous understanding in a predictable manner.

Current schooling practices are built on past learning theories that are far different from those arising from new research. Earlier models assumed that structure and practice using a prescribed method created knowledge and understanding for students. The teacher's primary task was to select the "best" method - i.e., the method that provided success for the greatest number of students. The students were expected to retain facts and knowledge, applying them to new areas of learning. Inability to do so resulted in failure.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Michigan Department of Education Model Content Standards for Curriculum

CONTACTS:

Midwest Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
1120 Diehl Road, Suite 200
Naperville, IL 60563-1486
(630) 649-6500, fax (630) 649-7600
Internet e-mail: info@ncrel.org
http://www.ncrel.org/msc/msc.htm

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education
The Ohio State University
1929 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1079
614-292-7784, Fax 614-292-2066
Internet e-mail: info@ENC.org
For materials and resources for the science classroom, search the online catalog of curriculum resources ENC Resource Finder.

Argonne National Energy Laboratory
Division of Educational Programs
9700 Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439

Center for School Change
Joe Nathan, Director
301 19th Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55455

National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230
703-306-1600

American Association for the Advancement of Science
1333 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
202-326-6400

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
1742 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-328-5800

References

Date posted: 1995