Introduction
What we have learned
Where are we headed?
Developing Leadership
Conclusion
J. Myron Atkin
Rodger W. Bybee
(George DeBoer)
Peter Dow
Marye Anne Fox
John Goodlad
Jeremy Kilpatrick
Glenda T. Lappan
Thomas T. Liao
F. James Rutherford
Introduction
What we have learned
Where are we headed?
Developing Leadership
Conclusion
J. Myron Atkin
Rodger W. Bybee
(George DeBoer)
Peter Dow
Marye Anne Fox
John Goodlad
Jeremy Kilpatrick
Glenda T. Lappan
Thomas T. Liao
F. James Rutherford
Introduction
What we have learned
Where are we headed?
Developing Leadership
Conclusion
J. Myron Atkin
Rodger W. Bybee
(George DeBoer)
Peter Dow
Marye Anne Fox
John Goodlad
Jeremy Kilpatrick
Glenda T. Lappan
Thomas T. Liao
F. James Rutherford
Introduction
What we have learned
Where are we headed?
Developing Leadership
Conclusion
J. Myron Atkin
Rodger W. Bybee
(George DeBoer)
Peter Dow
Marye Anne Fox
John Goodlad
Jeremy Kilpatrick
Glenda T. Lappan
Thomas T. Liao
F. James Rutherford
|  | What we have learned and where we are headed: Lessons from the
Sputnik Era (continued)
George E. DeBoer, Colgate University
Where are we headed?
In many ways it seems that we are very much on track in our thinking
about science, mathematics, and technology education. Educational
leaders have taken the best ideas of the progressive era and the
Sputnik era and modified them to produce statements about
education that speak to a rigorous engagement with organized
content within a context that is sympathetic to issues of personal and
social relevance and to student interest. But more needs to be done.
In the space remaining I would like to point to some areas of science,
mathematics, and technology education that still need improvement
and how we might achieve our goals.
In the August, 1997 issue of the Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, Bill Kyle addresses the need to improve undergraduate
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at the
postsecondary level (Kyle, 1997). He refers to two recent reports:
one is the NRC's (1996) From analysis to action: Undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and
the other is the NSF's (1996) Shaping the future: New expectations
for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology. Both reports note the critical but unmet need for all
college students to acquire "literacy in these subjects by direct
experience with the methods and processes of inquiry" (Kyle, 1997,
p. 547). Advocates of scientific literacy say that our students must be
able to make informed decisions as citizens regarding science related
issues and work collaboratively to solve science related problems
that affect society. The call for scientific literacy has been made
continuously by science educators since the phrase was first
introduced by Paul DeHart Hurd in 1958, although it was blunted
somewhat during the reform movement of the 1960s because of the
emphasis on mastering the disciplines (Pella, 1967). With that
exception, some form of scientific literacy has been an explicit
objective of science teaching throughout most of the 20th century.
Our failure to achieve the important goal of scientific literacy and to
impart functional knowledge to our students is as important now as it
has ever been. There is today a very significant anti-science attitude
in this country and a growing belief in the claims of pseudo-science
(Sagan, 1996). To many people it is simply more interesting and
easier to base their beliefs on limited evidence. Claims of the
effectiveness of alternative cures for disease and herbal health
remedies are accepted credulously. It is surprising how much play
supernatural explanations for physical occurrences get even from
very well educated individuals. It is upsetting how often scientific
integrity is abused by individuals who invoke the images of science to
sell products or make assertions having questionable validity
(Toumey, 1996). And the mass media is too quick to report
uncritically on scientific findings and to sensationalize their reporting.
Often the political context in which scientific research is carried out
has become so entangled with the research itself that people are
beginning to doubt scientists' motives and wondering if scientists can
any longer remain disinterested, impartial, and objective in the
conduct of their research or the interpretation of their findings.
Everyone seems to have a personal agenda or to be tied to a funding
source that has a special interest. Others question the universality of
rational scientific thought and argue that science is not objective but
rather socially constructed and linked to the cultural norms of the
society in which it is conducted. As evidence, they say that different
cultures produce sometimes incommensurably different scientific
modes of investigation and world views. This is followed by the claim
that in a multicultural society these differing views should not be
dismissed but should be considered just as valid as the modern
scientific view. (See Wagner, 1991, 1997 for a discussion of the
multicultural and incommensurability issues.)
The impact we are having in developing an understanding of the
nature and role of science in our world is extremely limited. Neither
schools, nor the mass media, nor the scientific community itself has
been able to present science so that it is understood and appreciated
by the general citizenry. The National Science Board, in its annual
surveys, consistently shows that for the majority of Americans, an
understanding of the nature of science is almost nonexistent (National
Science Board, 1996). Some would even question whether this is an
achievable goal at all (Shamos, 1995). Can anything be done? I
would like to make four suggestions, each of which point to what I
will call a more humanistic approach to science, mathematics, and
technology education. I propose a humanistic approach because I
believe it is the only way to genuinely engage students in the study of
science, mathematics, and technology so that they become
knowledgeable about their importance in our world. A humanistic
approach effectively connects science to those things that make us
uniquely human, to the ways we think about the world and to the
ways we live our lives. It is intended to prepare individuals to live
intelligently and to engage thoughtfully and critically with the most
important issues of the day. Its purpose is to liberate human beings
by giving them responsibility and choice. A humanistic curriculum is
authentic and meaningful because it is built around genuine questions
that people have about the world. It is holistic and organic, not
fragmented. It recognizes the worth and dignity and fullness and
complexity of human beings, and it promotes actions that
demonstrate respect for natural processes and a concern for the
humane development of individuals in society. Although in many
ways the reform documents of the past decade take a humanistic
stance and promote the same kind of actions that I am proposing
here, still more needs to be done to move us further and more
forcefully in that direction.
1. The study of science, mathematics, and technology must be
made more enjoyable and interesting.
Science, mathematics, and technology education
must be made much more enjoyable and
interesting if we are to have any success at all in
our efforts at scientific literacy. Science is
perceived by many to be distasteful and hard to
learn. I believe it is distasteful to many people
because the approach of science is to analyze
our experience with the world into parts and
particles that have very little meaning for the way
we actually live our lives. Thus, science is often
criticized as being coldly analytical and objective,
and without passion. These technical subjects are
hard to learn because they are still too often
presented as dry disconnected facts or as
abstract mathematical formulas. Although we
obviously have the mental capacity to break the
world we experience down into smaller and
smaller parts, we live and find most of our
satisfaction at an organismic level. Science,
mathematics, and technology must be presented
in ways that make sense to people and connect
with the actual lives they live. We need to keep
relating the parts and particles back to the
organic level, especially as they connect with
human beings if we are going to make science
interesting to larger numbers of people. These
subjects should also take into account the
emotional and aesthetic experiences of human
beings and should focus on those aspects of
nature to which we have a direct existential
relationship. They should deal with the
connections between human beings and the
natural world--our alliance with nature, the ways
we encounter nature, and the responsibility we
have for the maintenance of a viable natural
world (Bunder, 1997).
2. Science, mathematics, and technology education should be
used for personal intellectual development and not to
accomplish the society's political goals.
Instead of using the educational system to
accomplish specific instrumental goals of the
society, a humanistic approach maximizes
personal intellectual development. Prominent
political goals in this country have included the
desire to achieve military and economic
supremacy in the world and to be first on
international tests of science and mathematics
knowledge. One critic of this approach says:
"Everywhere we hear that our nation's future
depends on a scientifically educated populace,
that our children must work harder and do better
if 'we' are to retain our competitive edge, that
Americans should not settle for anything lower
than first place. But what about the lives of
children? What about the things that really matter
to students--and, for that matter, to all of us?
Are we just chess pieces to be pushed around in
a world game of competitions" (Noddings, 1992,
p. xii)? The same issue is raised by Bill Kyle who
objects to the awkwardness of such flag-waving
at a time of rapid globalization. He says: "I
questioned whether a central goal of
undergraduate SME&T education ought to be
the notion of perpetuating a perceived national
preeminence in science and technology....The
purpose of education in a global context is not to
perpetuate nationalistic ambitions. Perhaps the
focus of a renewed SME&T education could be
upon how such an education could contribute to
a vision of education that facilitates global
democracy espousing a dialogic and critical
learning process" (Kyle, 1997, p. 548).
It is one thing for a free democratic society to
compel its students to attend school in order to
give them a broad general education that will
help them to engage with the world in an
intelligent way, to recognize their responsibilities
to each other and to the maintenance of the
natural world, and even to learn what we think it
means to lead a virtuous life. But it is something
very different for that society to educate these
students to achieve specific nationalistic aims.
Regardless of our personal ambitions for national
supremacy or for global democracy, we must
always keep in mind that the only legitimate goal
that we can have for our students is their own
personal growth as it relates to the world in
which they live. Their autonomous development
is what will make them true citizens in a free
society.
3. Teachers and local school districts should have the
autonomy to interpret broadly stated aims of education in
terms of local conditions and the cultural norms of the
community.
Education in the United States grew up around a
rational, technical, management model of
curriculum and instruction whose purpose was
the efficient transformation of society (Westbury,
1995). Since the early years of the 20th century,
educators have attempted to specify in great
detail what is important to know and how to get
students to learn it so that societal goals can be
met. Teachers are asked to take on the role of
educational technicians whose responsibility is to
present the curriculum package and to measure
its outcomes. When expected learning outcomes
are not achieved, teachers are blamed for not
delivering the curriculum to the students or for
not demanding more of the students. There are
two problems with this approach to teaching and
learning. The first is that it restricts the choices
that students can make. If everything is specified
and "essential," there is little room for choice on
their part. The second is that it fails to make
adequate use of the knowledge and expertise of
individual teachers by limiting their autonomy to
act as responsible professionals. Both of these
issues can be addressed by rethinking the notion
of what we consider essential knowledge and
how much should be left to the personal
preferences of students and teachers.
We have let go of a lot of what we consider
essential knowledge in recent years, but we need
to let go of even more. There is simply too much
to choose from. There are hundreds of versions
of science courses that could be taught in high
school, each with a different approach and focus,
but each legitimate in its own way. We must take
the "less is more" philosophy seriously and get to
the place where only the broadest outlines of the
subjects are considered essential. Individual
teachers and school districts should then have the
freedom to address these broad goals in the way
that they feel is most suitable for their own
students. Teachers need to be able to offer the
learning experiences that their students can
understand and find success with. This is one
important way to give teachers the autonomy
they need as professional educators and as
broadly educated individuals themselves. Their
job is not to mechanically pass on material that
has been predetermined for them but to
represent the most important aspects of the
culture to their students as they see fit. This is the
"frameworks" approach at its best--experts
identify the overarching themes and critical
concepts within the disciplines, but local schools
fill in both the details and the ways to accomplish
them.
Documents such as the National Science
Education Standards and the Benchmarks for
Science Literacy of Project 2061 are rightly
presented as significant voices in the
conversation concerning what makes good
science education. They are very important
statements of some of the most salient features of
science, mathematics, and technology, and
effective ways of teaching those subjects, but
they are not the last word. Thus, they should be
used as guides, not as blueprints for curriculum
development. One thing we have learned from
our previous experiences with science education
reform is that when experts create plans without
adequate involvement or perceived need by the
participants, success is limited (Yager, 1995).
Nor should we look at consensus as a virtue. A
democratic society is a work in progress, not a
finished product. New ideas are essential for
maintaining a dynamic society. We can maximize
the development of new ideas by ensuring that
individual teachers and local school districts have
as much responsibility as possible to create their
own courses.
4. We should make greater use of student-directed learning.
With respect to students' participation in their
own learning, the NRC's Standards discusses at
considerable length a model of shared
responsibility for teaching and learning in their
chapter on "Science Teaching Standards."
According to this model, teachers begin with the
questions that students have and build instruction
around these questions jointly with them. This
will insure intellectual engagement in a way that
coercion never will. At all levels of education,
students represent a rich resource of life
experiences that they can share as well as
creative ideas about how teaching and learning
can effectively occur. Given responsibility for
organizing the classroom, they can devise
strategies that work for them. Student-directed
learning is more than student-centered learning. It
gives students, in cooperation with the teacher,
the freedom to organize the classroom and to
decide on the content that they are to learn.
Student-directed learning is an educational ideal
that has not been given an adequate chance to
prove itself. It is commendable that the NRC's
Standards takes such a strong stand on this
issue. It is another place where science
educators will have to let go of some things that
they consider important since students will not
always choose the topics or the methods that the
experts are most comfortable with. But I think
the important question to ask is whether the
content and methods that we are now choosing
are working. Do they make sense to the
students? Students must be given choices to
study what is of interest to them and what they
can be most successful at. Choice leads to
success by providing the opportunity for genuine
intellectual engagement. One of the most
dispiriting things we can do to our students is to
ask them to engage in activities with which they
cannot be successful, either because of a lack of
ability or lack of interest. Especially painful to
observe is the still too common practice of
requiring students to memorize lists of facts, not
only because little learning takes place, but
because it is disrespectful of a person's real
ability to make sense of and appreciate the
natural world.
In summary, a humanistic approach to science
education grants students and teachers the
freedom they need to grow together toward a
deeper understanding of the role of science in
our contemporary world. It offers an awareness
of the methods of science, a sense of the
enormous influence that science and technology
have had on the physical and intellectual
landscape of the modern world, an
understanding of some of the major theories that
have been offered to explain the phenomena that
we observe in the natural world, and an
appreciation for the limits as well as the power of
scientific thinking to describe human experience.
A humanistic approach to science education
presents a particular way of thinking and the
knowledge that has been generated by those
methods. It is not fragmented. It is holistic and it
is organic. It always comes back to the big
questions. It is humanistic because its primary
interest is in how studying the natural world and
the developments that have come from it affect
all of humanity.
Developing and Sustaining Leadership in Science,
Mathematics, and Technology Education 
|
