Chapter
1:
Reform
in science educationthe late 20th century has been a central issuehere
in the United States. After WWII the push was for the structure ofscientific
disciplines and the process of scientific inquiry. Moreover, the1990's
has seen a push for more policies to bring the many disciplines ofscience
together so that students can have a deeper, more enrichedunderstanding
of concepts. However, the policies that were developed tobring the disciplines
together have failed because their has not been a linkfrom those policies
to new programs and curiculii for teachers to utilize inthe classroom.
In summary, this author feels that "Science educators havefailed to transform
purpose into practice".
CHAPTER 2
This
second chapter introduces the systems perspective and talks about contemporary
reform. In the introduction the author states that the science education
community has done an excellent job in changing purposes, a good job in
developing instructional materials, and an extremely poor job in implementing
new programs and in improving instructional practices.
The
author provides a definition of system and asserts that systems have four
general features: boundaries, components, flow of resources, and feedback.
It is clear that reform is not going to be easy because it requires change
and people are reluctant to change. Bybee states that the real arena for
reform is going to be the science classroom and that resistance to reform
occurs because teachers have lost contact with the philosophy of education
so they don’t necessarily share the goals and purpose of reform in science
education.
The
problems that educators face in the classroom are discussed, as well as
the fact that many of these problems do not originate in school, like poverty,
abuse, addiction, lack of parental support or family structure, and others.
Chapter 3
Bybee,
Rodger W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From purposes to practices.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chapter
three of Bybee states the history of education in searching for scientific
literacy. Beginning with the 1950's thru the 1990's. Given are the points
or focus in science the students should know according to different views
of people in education. Bybee strongly agrees with the scientific literacy
unlike Morris Shamos who believes the scientific literacy is hopeless.
Chapter 4: Defining Scientific
Literacy
Many science educators have
used the term Scientific Literacy. It is the ultimate goal that is trying
to be reached by educators within the context of science and technology.
When the word scientific literacy comes to mind most think of being able
to read and write the vast terms of science. However, it goes a little
deeper than that. In this chapter, Bybee makes an attempt to provide concrete
definitions for scientific literacy and emphasizes that it goes beyond
reading and writing. He also discusses the different levels of scientific
literacy provided in a framework he created. He stresses that scientific
literacy must be a continuum of understanding and that it must accommodate
all students and give direction to those responsible for curriculum, assessment,
research, professional development and those who teach to a broad range
of students
CHAPTER 5: ESTABLISHING
NATIONAL STANDARDS
This
chapter begins by describing the long process by which the development
of the National Standards underwent. Establishing national
education goals and developing national standards for achieving those goals
became an important strategy in the national effort to support educational
reform. (Bybee, p.87) As the movement for scientific reform progressed
through the 80’s and 90’s; the National Research Council (NRC) eventually
undertook the challenge of developing a consensus on national science education
standards. After the development of several committees, several drafts,
and a change in leadership, the NRC printed its first draft of the Standards
in spring of 1994. Following an extensive review process, The National
Science Education Standards was released in December 1995. These
standards provide policies to guide the reform of science education and
are an important intermediate step between the purpose of achieving scientific
literacy and the programs and practices of schools and science teachers,
respectively. (Bybee, 108) As an overview, this chapter describes the characteristics
of the National Science Education Standards as they pertain to assessment,
teaching, and content. Finally, the chapter ends by comparing the
National
Standards with another project known as Project 2061. Project
2061, which began in 1985, provides tools for school districts to use in
developing their own curricula so that all students achieve scientific
literacy.This project also includes the idea that schools do not need to
teach more content, they need to teach less content better. National
Science Education Standards, which began in 1991, is a short-term reform
initiative designed to produce long-term improvements in science education.
The national standards will guide a transformation of the science education
system in productive and socially responsible ways. (Bybee, 99-101).
Chapter 7
Enriching
the Science Curriculum
This chapter
defines the role and duties of the professional curriculum developer in
science education. Suggestions on how to improve current science curriculum
are broken down as engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and
evaluation. Also, cognition, motivation, development, and social psychology
principles are incorporated into the idea of learning processes and assessment
in the science curriculum. New materials are introduced in order to facilitate
the translation of standards to the curriculum. Finally, at the end of
this chapter Bybee gives a National Science Education Standards (NSES)
example of "Fundamental Understanding from the Life Sciences: grade 9-12
: Biosphere and interdependence."
Chapter 8
This
chapter offers a historical perspective of instructional learning models
that have influenced our contemporary ideas of teaching and learning and
led to the development of the current 5 Es instructional model. It gives
an account of the instructional models of some pioneers of constructivism
such as Friedrich Herbart, John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and J. Myron Atkin
and Robert Karplus. Herbart’s instructional model consisted of assessing
the students’ prior knowledge and presenting new ideas that students could
connect with their prior knowledge and build on to form new concepts. John
Dewey’s model centered on the importance of scientific inquiry and reflective
thinking in the development of concepts and conclusions that are meaningful
to the students. Jean Piaget proposed that students learn through a process
that includes equilibration and disequilibrium. By working through the
disequilibrium to reach equilibration, the students restructure their schemata
and understand new concepts. The Atkin/Karplus model builds on Piaget’s
instructional model. It is comprised of three phases that include exploration,
invention, and discovery. The students integrate "new concepts with related
concepts to reach a new level of cognitive organization" (p. 173). The
instructional model for contemporary science reform has five phases, which
are engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation.
Through this model, "students redefine, reorganize, elaborate and change
their initial concepts through self-reflection and interaction with their
peers and their environment" (p. 176).This current model provides a good
start for science reform. It was constructed under the umbrella of constructivism
and was designed based on contemporary research and practical issues of
science teaching, but the teacher still remains the most important figure
in the process of conceptual change.
Bybee
Chapter 9
Bybee
begins chapter nine with the assertion that national standards for science
education must be viewed holistically in order to provide a foundation
for the improvement of curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional
development. Standards provide a variety of functions within the framework
of science education which include a call to action, a measure of qualitative
and quantitative value, assessment, a definition of scientific literacy
and feedback for different reform components. There are several assumptions
underlying the use of science education standards in reform. Most importantly
is the belief that all students can learn, which places equity in the center
of reform. The ability to fulfill the promise of science education standards
is rooted in systemic reform. Systemic reform is a "process of educational
reform based on the premise that achieving excellence and equity requires
the alignment of critical activities and components" (Bybee, p. 202). All
involved parties must be able to see the big picture and promote a total
systems approach that integrates vertical and horizontal approaches to
reform. All components must contribute equally to the purpose of achieving
scientific literacy through the reaching of national science education
standards.
Summary of Chapter 10
Chapter title: The year 2000
and beyond
The chapter was open on
page 208 with a focus on The ‘Myth of Scientific Literacy’. In this sub-section
the author makes reference to Morris Shamos’ book entitled ‘The Myth of
Scientific Literacy’. According to Bybee in the book Shamos claims that
‘Scientific Literacy is for all intents and purposes an unachievable goal
and that it has lead astray all those who are trying to improve science
education’. Bybee gives a brief summary of Shamos’ book and then discusses
Shamos’ interpretation of the word myth. On page 209, he agrees with Shamos
when the term myth is defined as appealing to the consciousness of a people
by embodying aspirations.
The author takes us from
viewing scientific literacy as a myth to an achievable reality. According
to the author, the goal of scientific literacy can be achieved through
reform. On page 211, he says ‘such reform can operate as four connected
and interdependent areas: purposes, policy, programs and practice. In the
chapter Bybee advocates standards based reform. On page 220, he says ‘
the standards-based reform is an explicit attempt to raise expectations
and refocus our attention on our fundamental goals.
Bybee closes the chapter by
going back to asking the same questions he asked in the prologue, ‘Are
we sinking, drifting or sailing?’ He then answers on page 225 by saying,
‘I do not think we are sinking. Some aspects of the science education system
may be adrift, but we can and must sail toward the future’.