Today,
with
the
increasing
demands
on
schools
and
the
growing
importance
of
science
and
technology,
the
nature
of
science
education--what
children
should
know
and
how
they
should
learn
it--may
be
the
most
important
discussion
of
all.
It
is
not
a
new
question
or
a
settled
one,
but
it
is
the
obvious
starting
point
for
rethinking
the
science
education
enterprise.
This
chapter
introduces
the
National
Science
Education
Standards,
a
document
designed
to
establish
a
common
direction
for
the
science
education
system
and
help
guide
teachers
and
schools
in
achieving
specific
educational
goals.
The
American
education
system's
greatest
asset--and
its
worst
liability--is
that
it
is
a
quintessentially
democratic
institution.
Any
opinion
about
education,
especially
about
what
is
taught
and
how
it
is
taught,
has
a
place
to
be
heard
somewhere
in
the
system.
And
we
all
have
some
opinion
about
the
American
education
system,
because
most
of
us
are
products
of
it.
From
a
teacher's
point
of
view,
this
cacophony
of
commentary
may
take
the
form
of
requirements
from
principals,
mandates
from
school
boards,
expectations
from
parents,
guidelines
from
state
boards
of
education,
recommendations
from
superintendents--even
laws
from
legislators.
Then
there
are
the
textbook
publishers,
test
makers,
and
professional
development
providers
who
have
their
own
take
on
what
is
needed
in
the
classroom.
In
the
words
of
the
old
radio
men,
the
"noise-to-signal
ratio"
is
very,
very
high.
At
best,
these
messages
are
mixed;
at
worst,
they're
out-and-out
contradictions.
So
what
does
a
teacher
do?
One
teacher
might
react
to
these
competing
signals
by
closing
the
door,
shutting
the
noise
out,
and
doing
whatever
he
or
she
feels
is
best
for
the
students
anyway.
Another
teacher
might
grab
the
nearest
basal
text,
start
from
page
one,
and
work
as
far
through
the
book
as
possible
before
the
school
year
runs
out.
Under
the
circumstances,
these
are
both
reasonable
strategies.
Analysis
of
the
Problem
This
problem
of
policy
fragmentation
has
resulted
in
a
state
of
affairs
in
which
a
teacher
(or
any
worker)
must
sort
out
conflicting
demands
from
multiple
constituencies
and
bosses.
In
the
absence
of
any
clear
direction
provided
by
the
education
system,
each
teacher
must
decide
how
best
to
navigate
a
course
on
his
or
her
own.
While
some
people
may
look
to
the
teachers
and
the
students
when
educational
results
do
not
measure
up
to
expectations,
much
of
the
fault
actually
lies
with
those
of
us
whose
job
it
is
to
help
them.
However,
this
picture
of
the
problem
is
incomplete.
It
is
not
true
that
teachers
lack
any
standards
about
what
to
teach
or
how
to
teach
it.
We
have
de
facto
standards.
They
are
provided
by
textbook
publishers
and
commercial
test
makers.
Any
teacher
will
tell
you
that
what
they
teach,
and
how
they
teach
it,
is
most
influenced
by
the
instructional
materials
they
use
and
what
their
students
are
asked
on
"the
tests
that
count."
Those
tests,
of
course,
are
the
ones
we
all
read
about
in
the
daily
newspapers:
the
SAT,
Stanford-9,
Iowa
Test
of
Basic
Skills,
and
so
on.
From
an
early
age,
humans
puzzle
over
phenomena
of
nature
they
encounter
and
ask
many
questions
about
them.
Whether
asked
verbally
or
in
actions,
these
questions
indicate
curiosity-
an
intense
desire
to
know
or
to
find
out.
Curiosity
is
thus
a
fundamental
human
trait.
But
how
does
one
find
answers
to
these
questions?
Is
it
by
inquiring
into
them
directly,
or
is
it
by
obtaining
answers
from
those
who
already
know
them?
What
we
do
to
get
an
answer
to
a
question,
and
how
we
know
when
an
answer
is
"correct,"
are
also
indications
of
human
curiosity.
Since
curiosity
is
at
the
center
of
inquiry,
these
questions
too
are
an
integral
part
of
inquiry,
which
in
turn
must
be
a
human
habit
of
mind
and
learning.
The
National
Science
Education
Standards,
developed
by
the
National
Research
Council
(1996),
elaborate
major
components
of
learning
and
teaching
science
through
inquiry.
"Students
at
all
grade
levels
and
in
every
domain
of
science,"
it
states,
"should
have
the
opportunity
to
use
scientific
inquiry
and
develop
the
ability
to
think
and
act
in
ways
associated
with
inquiry,
including
asking
questions,
planning
and
conducting
investigations,
using
appropriate
tools
and
techniques
to
gather
data,
thinking
critically
and
logically
about
relationships
between
evidence
and
explanations,
constructing
and
analyzing
alternative
explanations,
and
communicating
scientific
arguments"
(p.
105).
Although
this
definition
refers
to
qualities
of
inquiry
that
are
especially
related
to
the
learning
and
practice
of
science,
inquiry
also
relates
to
learning
in
other
areas
of
study.
The
best
standards
area
step
or
two
ahead
of
where
the
rest
of
us
are.
What
is
wrong
with
this
picture?
For
commercial
producers
of
texts
and
tests,
the
problem
is
a
simple
marketing
dilemma:
What
is
the
education
marketplace
buying?
In
the
absence
of
any
standards,
the
response
is
everything!
If
I
am
a
commercial
producer
of
textbooks
and
every
state
has
different
(or
no)
standards,
and
there
are
14,400
school
districts,
each
with
its
own
educational
goals,
and
85,000
schools
all
wanting
different
books
with
different
concepts
emphasized,
my
best
strategy
is
to
put
everything
under
the
sun
into
those
texts
and
tests.
The
result
of
this
strategy
is
the
creation
of
materials
that
provide
a
superficial
treatment
of
most
things,
and
in-depth
coverage
of
very
little.
Hence
the
primary
criticism
pointed
out
in
the
latest
Third
International
Mathematics
and
Science
Study
(TIMSS),
that
the
American
school
curriculum
is
a
"mile
wide
and
an
inch
deep"
(Schmidt,
McKnight,
and
Raizen,
1997,
p.
122).
Think
back
to
the
days
when
you
or
your
parents
attended
school.
Science
textbooks
averaged
half
an
inch
to
one
inch
in
thickness.
Today,
the
average
is
more
like
two
inches--and
growing.
In
fields
like
science,
where
new
knowledge
is
doubling
every
few
years,
this
is
an
acute
problem.
You
could
keep
a
student
in
class
for
12
straight
years,
7
hours
a
day,
just
studying
science,
and
still
not
cover
the
whole
expanse
of
the
topic.
Moreover,
by
the
time
the
student
finished,
half
of
what
he
or
she
just
learned
would
have
become
obsolete!
So
who
decides
what
science
is
most
worth
learning
and
why?
What
is
essential
knowledge
in
science?
Standards
documents
do
not
change
educational
outcomes.
People
do.
Enter
the
Standards
What
if
we
had
nationally
developed
standards
in
each
of
the
academic
disciplines
that
were
concise
and
clear
and
generally
acceptable
to
everyone?
We
might
agree,
for
instance,
that
by
the
end
of
the
third
grade,
students
should
understand
that
there
are
three
states
of
matter--liquid,
solid,
and
gas;
or
by
the
time
they
graduate
from
eleventh
grade,
they
should
be
able
to
explain
the
social,
economic,
and
political
factors
that
led
to
any
major
American
war.
In
order
to
develop
these
standards,
we
would
need
to
determine,
in
a
rigorous
way,
what
types
of
knowledge
are
most
essential
to
each
discipline,
and
then
convince
the
majority
of
the
rest
of
us
that
these
are
reasonable
things
for
most
of
us
to
learn.
That
is
exactly
the
process
that
the
National
Research
Council
embarked
on
in
1992
to
produce
the
National
Science
Education
Standards
(see
sidebar
on
page
22
for
details).
It
is
also
similar
to
the
process
that
most
every
other
academic
discipline
initiated
during
the
late
1980s
and
first
half
of
the
1990s.
The
first
thing
to
note
is
that
these
are
not
federal
standards,
as
some
may
believe.
In
every
case,
the
national
education
standards
were
driven
by
the
primary
national
professional
association
in
the
discipline,
such
as
the
National
Council
of
Teachers
of
Mathematics
or,
in
the
case
of
science,
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences.
These
organizations
are
driven
by
the
professional
interests
of
practicing
mathematicians,
scientists,
and
teachers
of
these
disciplines.
The
key
to
their
credibility
and
success
in
creating
the
standards
was
finding
the
most
eminent
scientists,
leading
researchers
of
learning,
and
successful
classroom
teachers
to
draft
the
documents.
The
best
standards
are
a
step
or
two
ahead
of
where
the
rest
of
us
are.
They
are
not
intended
to
be
true
consensus
documents,
nor
do
they
stray
into
untested
waters.
Rather,
they
represent
the
place
where
the
best
of
us
have
already
tread.
Documents
of
complete
consensus
would,
by
definition,
represent
the
mathematical
mean:
in
other
words,
they
would
be
what
we
already
have.
Standards
documents
are
meant
to
be
vision-setting
documents.
That
is
why
most,
even
today,
remain
somewhat
controversial,
as
they
ought
to
be.
Most
important
to
note
is
that
standards
documents
do
not
change
educational
outcomes.
People
do.
This
gets
at
the
heart
of
how
standards
documents
such
as
the
National
Science
Education
Standards
are
intended
to
be
used.
We
do
not
create
a
state
of
educational
nirvana
by
simply
producing
standards
documents.
Creating
the
Standards
is
the
easy
part
(and
none
too
easy
if
you
ask
any
of
those
directly
involved).
It
does
not,
in
itself,
change
the
systems,
institutional
structures,
and
material
resources
that
determine
instructional
priorities
in
the
classroom.
So
what
good
are
the
Standards?
Herein
lies
some
of
the
current
debate.
Some
observers
and
critics
argue
that
the
science
Standards
are
designed
for
teachers'
direct
use:
to
compare
current
classroom
curriculum
and
instructional
practices
against
specific
pages
in
the
documents.
I
believe
this
is
a
naive
view.
Teachers
are
bound
by
the
policies,
instructional
materials,
tests,
and
professional
development
experiences
provided
to
them
by
others.
That
is
why,
in
additional
curriculum
guidelines,
most
national
standards
documents
also
address
changes
to
the
policies,
materials,
assessments,
and
teacher
preparation
experiences
necessary
to
implement
these
student
learning
standards.
With
so
many
issues
beyond
their
control,
it
does
little
good
for
teachers
to
compare
the
Standards,
point
by
point,
to
their
own
teaching
practice.
In
my
view,
the
Standards
are
most
appropriate
for
the
rest
of
us
in
the
system:
staff
developers,
school
board
members,
college
professors
who
teach
teachers,
test
makers,
producers
of
instructional
materials,
and
so
on.
If
those
of
us
outside
the
classroom
could
align
ourselves
with
a
single
set
of
standards,
the
teacher's
world
would
make
much
more
sense.
We
could
have
system
agreement
and
a
unity
of
purpose
at
both
the
school
and
classroom
level.
In
short,
all
of
our
actions--individually
and
collectively--are
necessary
for
the
Standards
to
have
a
positive
effect
on
student
learning.
Looking
Forward
How
can
the
science
Standards
be
useful
to
us?
Here
are
five
contributions
that
the
Standards
can
make
for
any
science
instructional
program
in
the
process
of
improvement.
1.
To
simplify
the
curriculum.
The
extraordinary
push
for
coverage
is
one
of
the
greatest
problems
in
American
education
and
leaves
more
and
more
students
in
the
dust.
No
teacher
has
either
the
expanse
of
collective
scientific
expertise
or
the
time,
for
that
matter,
to
determine
what
is
most
essential
for
students
to
learn.
The
Standards
should
be
used
as
much
to
determine
what
should
be
pruned
out
of
the
curriculum
as
what
should
be
grafted
in
its
place.
We
cannot
keep
adding
without
taking
away.
By
its
nature,
the
Standards
solve
the
problem
of
deciding
what
is
most
important
or
essential
to
learn.
2.
To
provide
a
common
point
of
reference
for
different
and
sometimes
divergent
interests.
One
cannot
expect
that
teachers,
parents,
school
administrators,
political
office
holders,
instructional
materials
producers,
or
commercial
test
makers
will
have
the
same
interests
at
heart.
Test
makers
and
publishers
want
to
sell
the
most
units.
Principals
want
to
look
good
on
tests.
Politicians
want
to
look
like
they
are
doing
something
about
education
reform.
Teachers
want
their
students
to
do
well.
However,
to
the
extent
that
we
can
get
all
these
disparate
groups
to
agree
on
one
thing-what
is
most
important
for
all
students
to
learn-the
rest
of
us
can
arrange
our
world
to
deliver
that
and
still
win
in
our
individual
domains.
This
seems
like
a
monumental
task
at
the
national
level.
I
believe
it
is
more
possible
at
the
local
program
level.
Student
learning
standards
is
the
right
place
to
establish
some
common
ground.
3.
To
argue
about
the
right
things.
As
noted,
not
everyone
agrees
with
everything
in
the
science
Standards.
But
the
Standards
do
provide
something
essential
that
has
been
sorely
lacking
in
the
education
reform
debates
of
the
past:
discussion
about
the
most
important
parts
of
schooling-curriculum,
instruction,
and
assessment.
They
are
at
the
heart
of
the
matter.
In
the
1980s,
school
governance,
finance,
restructuring,
longer
school
days,
and
longer
school
years
were
all
targeted
for
possible
reform.
These,
I
think,
are
interesting
projects,
but
secondary
areas
of
concern.
They
are
off
the
mark.
What
good
is
a
longer
school
day
or
year
if
it
is
just
more
of
the
same
old
type
of
instruction
that
produced
the
earlier
failures
and
dissatisfaction?
It
is
as
if
an
automobile
manufacturer
decided
to
improve
the
performance
of
its
cars
by
adding
another
shift
to
its
plants.
The
Standards
can
help
local
programs
stay
focused
on
the
most
important
products
of
their
enterprises-student
learning-and
make
everything
else
in
the
system
subordinate
to
it.
Arguments
about
what
students
learn,
and
how
they
learn,
are
worth
our
time.
4.
To
ensure
everybody
the
opportunity
to
learn.
Without
challenging
school
systems
to
make
some
fundamental
changes,
we
ensure
that
some
students
will
continue
to
have
better
educational
opportunities
than
others.
In
the
absence
of
pre-set
academic
standards,
it
is
easy
for
the
educational
system
to
allow
qualitatively
different
learning
experiences
for
different
sets
of
students.
The
tendency
is
to
remediate
by
slowing
learning
down,
rather
than
accelerating
a
student's
learning
to
help
him
or
her
catch
up.
This
is
not
an
impossible
task.
The
military,
for
instance,
has
managed
to
come
up
with
ways
for
(almost)
all
its
soldiers
to
reach
some
specific
standards.
Without
standards,
excuses
are
easy
to
come
by,
and
accountability
is
easy
to
avoid.
5.
To
lift
our
sights.
Much
theoretical
debate
has
ensued
in
the
Standards
community
about
whether
the
Standards
should
be
ultimately
obtainable
or
not.
Should
they
exemplify
the
Platonic
state
of
ideals
that
we
unrelentingly
strive
for,
or
should
they
be
easily
obtainable
by
most
students
in
the
near
future?
If
you
accept
the
argument
that
these
are
vision
documents
a
bit
ahead
of
their
time,
then
some
standards
ought
to
be
a
great
challenge
to
us.
That
is
the
case
for
including
inquiry
as
part
of
current
science
Standards.
In
that
document,
inquiry
is
seen
as
being
a
way
to
approach
three
important
aspects
of
science
learning:
the
content
of
science;
the
skills
needed
to
carry
out
inquiry
science;
and
the
teaching
methods
used
to
introduce
children
to
science
inquiry.
"Learning
is
something
students
do,"
the
document
says,
"not
something
that
is
done
to
them"
(p.
20).
Teaching
and
learning
science
using
inquiry
methods
is
not
an
unreachable
goal,
as
examples
from
classroom
practice
(including
those
recounted
in
this
book)
have
shown.
But
it
is
a
challenging
one
for
most
of
us.
The
Standards
should
reveal
at
the
local
level
some
new
territory
or
goals
that
stretch
science
instructional
programs
toward
genuine
excellence.
The
"Next
Word"
in
Science
Learning
At
a
recent
meeting
at
which
the
nation's
governors
and
business
leaders
discussed
academic
standards,
some
governors
suggested
that
standards
were
not
necessary
for
education
improvement.
Many
business
leaders
were
incredulous.
Without
standards,
they
asked,
how
do
you
measure
success?
How
do
you
guide
an
enterprise
to
what
is
most
important
to
accomplish?
The
question
was
never
raised
again.
It
may
be
more
important
to
raise
the
question
of
what
all
of
us
can
do
with
these
science
standards
now
that
we
have
them.
The
Standards
are
the
"next
word,"
not
the
"final
word,"
in
our
attempts
to
improve
science
programs.
In
the
true
scientific
sense,
the
Standards
are
our
best
working
hypothesis
of
where
we
need
to
go.
As
the
data
from
experience
come
in,
we
need
to
revisit
and
revise
this
working
hypothesis.
If
excellence
and
scientific
literacy
for
the
general
populace
are
our
genuine
goals,
the
Standards
are
the
obvious
place
for
us
to
start.
References
National
Research
Council.
(1996).
National
science
education
standards.
Washington,
DC:
National
Academy
Press.
Schmidt,
W.H.,
McKnight,
C.C.,
and
Raizen,
S.A.
(1997).
A
splintered
vision:
An
investigation
of
U.S.
science
and
mathematics
education.
Dordrecht,
The
Netherlands:
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers.
About
the
National
Science
Education
Standards
In
1996,
the
National
Research
Council
published
a
250-page
report
called
the
National
Science
Education
Standards.
This
document
has
two
primary
organizational
dimensions.
The
first
focuses
on
the
content
of
science
itself
and
is
organized
by
grade
levels.
The
second
focuses
on
major
features
of
the
educational
system
that
need
to
change
to
bring
"coordination,
consistency
and
coherence
to
the
improvement
of
science
education"
(p.
3).
The
National
Science
Education
Standards
identify
the
essential
concepts
in
building
an
exemplary
instructional
program
in
science,
from
kindergarten
through
grade
12.
It
also
declares
two
fundamental
tenets
that
establish
the
intent
of
all
its
recommendations:
first,
that
the
Standards
are
for
all
students;
and
second,
that
every
student
must
be
given
the
opportunity
to
learn
science--meaning
they
should
have
access
to
skilled
teachers,
adequate
classroom
time,
a
rich
array
of
learning
materials,
and
so
on.
Both
of
these
conditions
are
necessary
if
science
understanding
is
to
change
from
the
province
of
a
select
minority
(in
particular,
the
college-bound),
to
a
literacy
skill
for
the
vast
majority.
The
Standards
also
make
the
case
that
given
current
changes
in
the
workplace
and
economy,
science
is
now
a
basic
literacy
skill.
It
reinforces
the
moral
commitment
that
everyone
deserves
to
share
in
the
excitement
of
science
and
technology.
And,
perhaps
most
compelling,
it
points
out
the
need
to
make
sure
that
every
student
has
the
opportunity
to
learn
both
the
information
science
offers
and
the
critical
process
and
reasoning
skills
that
support
informed
everyday
choices
and
decisions.
In
terms
of
science
content
standards,
Chapter
Six
of
the
document
outlines
three
grade-level
clusters
(K-4,
5-8,
and
9-12),
and
divides
each
into
the
same
eight
categories:
* Unifying
concepts
and
processes
* Earth
and
space
science
* Science
in
personal
and
social
perspective
* History
and
nature
of
science
These
categories
outline
standards
for
each
of
the
grade
levels
identified.
One
standard
under
"physical
science"
for
grades
K-4,
for
instance,
is
for
students
to
understand
that
"Light
can
be
reflected
by
a
mirror,
refracted
by
a
lens,
or
absorbed
by
the
object"
(p.
127).
The
document
stresses,
however,
that
the
content
standards
are
not
intended
or
designed
as
specific
curricula.
Instead,
they
"provide
criteria
that
people
at
the
local,
state,
and
national
levels
can
use
to
judge
whether
particular
actions
will
serve
the
vision
of
a
scientifically
literate
society"
(p.
3).
Accordingly,
the
document
also
sets
out
criteria
for
all
the
other
parts
of
a
teacher's
world.
Specifically,
four
to
seven
standards
are
outlined
for
each
of
these
five
areas
of
the
education
support
system:
* Professional
development
for
teachers
of
science
* Assessment
in
science
education
* Science
education
programs
* Science
education
systems
"Learning
essential
science
content
through
the
perspectives
and
methods
of
inquiry"
(p.
59)
is
one
example
of
a
standard
for
teacher
professional
development.
The
document
goes
on
to
describe,
in
greater
detail,
what
each
of
these
standards
mean
by
way
of
descriptions,
examples
from
actual
classrooms
and
schools,
and
references
to
research.
BACK
NEXT
PDF for
CHAPTER 3
|