A Conceptual Framework for the Consideration of Science Education Reform in the Greenwich Public Schools

Prepared by

David M. Moss, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Science Education

University of Connecticut

Respectfully submitted to the Board of Education, Greenwich Public Schools

November 20, 2008

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

Conceptual Framework for Excellence in Science Education 8

A Brief History of Science Education 8

International Perspectives 13

Standards and Science Education 18

Conceptual Learning 24

Curriculum Reform 28

Nature of Science 37

Greenwich Public Schools and Science Education 41

Science Curriculum 41

Inquiry 53

State Testing 55

A Road Map for Reform 57

Bibliography 62

About the Author 66

2

Executive Summary

This document presents a research-based conceptual framework to be used

for considering the reform of the K-12 science education program in the Greenwich

Public Schools (GPS). This report is written in two distinct sections. The first section

is titled, Conceptual Framework for Excellence in Science Education and addresses a

timely and comprehensive vision for the reform of the GPS K-12 science education

program. This element of the report is divided into six sub-sections: A Brief History

of Science Education; International Perspectives; Standards and Science Education;

Conceptual Learning; Curriculum Reform; and the Nature of Science. The second

major section of the report is titled, Greenwich Public Schools and Science Education

and offers a succinct review of the current state of science education in the GPS.1 It is

presented in four sub-sections: Science Curriculum, Inquiry, State Testing, and A

Roadmap for Reform.

The history of science education offers considerable insight into current

barriers for curriculum reform. Perhaps most urgent is the need for crafting a

shared vision for science literacy as a foundation upon which to pursue reform

strategies which overcome the false dichotomies of content vs. inquiry and

memorization vs. learning. Key questions to consider include: What value does

1 This section is specifically designed to serve as a catalyst for initiating a discussion directed at the reform of the GPS science education program. It was derived from available documents only and is not intended to be a comprehensive, systemic review of the science program, which would directly involve teachers and other professionals in the GPS system, students (former and current), along with a review of professional development programs, textbooks, science kits, and other resources.

3

science hold for individuals and society? What are the most effective ways to

promote learning in the sciences? How should science education be structured in

formal educational settings?

Traditional science programs that prevail in many countries, including the U.S.,

convey science as a massive body of authoritative and unquestionable knowledge.

Reform-minded international perspectives on science education (beyond the U.S.)

generally recognize the urgent need for individuals to acquire the skills of

independent learning and inquiry, an understanding of science-related social issues,

and the impact of technological change. Perhaps most noteworthy is that top-

performing countries from cross-national studies emphasize science-technology-society

issues (STS) in conjunction with science investigations underpinned by timely and

relevant science content. That is, the application of science concepts is more important

than learning science information as merely an end in itself.

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) and associated documents

have recently emerged as the preeminent and most comprehensive sources for

guidance in the reform of science education. Beyond the content standards

themselves, which are the most cited element of the publication, the NSES includes

standards for science education programs and systems, assessment standards,

science teaching standards, and professional development standards. Together

these offer a comprehensive blueprint for reform. Of the content standards, the one

that is perhaps least understood is the History and Nature of Science. This standard

4

goes far beyond what traditional content-centered curriculum typically offer, and is

consistent with what researchers are calling for in the reform of science education.

Up until the 1970’s, a behaviorist learning paradigm dominated educational

psychologists’ thinking regarding curriculum and instructional design, leading to

extensive rote memorization as common classroom practice. In contrast, enduring

learning is a process that leads to long-term change across three domains:

Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Empirical research confirms that in science

education, students’ prior knowledge might be the single most important factor to

consider in the learning process. The “clever” student will “learn” what the teacher

is espousing in class and typically score well on traditional classroom assessments,

which typically demand little more than the recall of the definition of scientific

terminology, but we run the significant risk of graduating students who are

unprepared to take on the responsibilities of a scientifically literate adult.

Curriculum should spiral across the K-12 continuum in a deep and comprehensive

manner. Thus, the vast number of isolated topics attempted in many curricula may

need to be reconsidered in favor of an approach that would yield conceptual

learning. In this way less can indeed be more.

Inquiry continues to play a major role in the reform of science education.

Distinguishing between inquiry as an instructional approach (essentially a method

for learning science content) and inquiry as an outcome in itself (as a learning

objective in its own right) is perhaps the most critical distinction to make. Confusion

in science classrooms typically arises when the curriculum confounds these various

5

definitions of inquiry, and the teacher is unsure about whether they are teaching

about inquiry or with inquiry.

Teaching explicitly for science literacy using a Nature of Science approach

usually requires a significant revision of science education programs. The Nature of

Science is a multi-faceted and rich construct such that the cut and dry beliefs of right and

wrong answers in science are replaced with complex nuances of perspectives backed by

varying degrees of evidence. An understanding of the Nature of Science is viewed by

many researchers as the single most important element of a curriculum designed to

promote science literacy. When the Nature of Science is explicitly viewed as central to

the curriculum, science content then becomes the landscape upon which the notions of

discovery, logical thinking, creativity, and ethical issues are explored. Science content is

not marginalized; to the contrary, we are able to make strategic decisions about the

importance or value of various science topics to be included in the curriculum. With

scientific literacy as our educational goal we can sidestep the unreasonable desire to

cover “all” content in favor of exploring the Nature of Science within the context of

relevant and timely ideas from the life, physical, and earth & space sciences.

Conspicuously absent from the Greenwich Public School curriculum is the

notion of fostering conceptual understandings of the Nature of Science in the pursuit

of science literacy. At present, the GPS Science Objectives for the various grade

levels offer evidence of a traditional comprehensive, topic-based curriculum. The

district has clearly gone to significant lengths in recent years to take into account

the Connecticut science framework from 2004, thus the issue is not that the state

“standards” aren’t present in the curriculum materials – the concern is how they are

6

incorporated. Although teachers may be covering the recommended areas for study

in science, it is apparent that students in the GPS may not be learning the key

concepts in a way that is meaningful and enduring. The lack of spiraling of concepts

in the GPS science curriculum to promote conceptual understanding is prevalent

across the K-12 continuum. That, along with the sheer number of objectives to be

attempted, makes for a challenging curriculum to implement. The implicit message

being sent to teachers is one of placing value on the coverage of content over depth

of learning.

In summary, there is a comprehensive and rich content core to the existing

GPS science curriculum. In fact, the extensive coverage of topics and concepts may

serve to undermine the potential for conceptual learning by students. Mere

exposure to a vast number of topics across the life, physical, and earth & space

sciences does not automatically translate to lifelong learning. Such presentation of

material by the teacher and its subsequent re-telling by students is not consistent

with an enduring vision for conceptual understanding necessary for the

development of science literacy. Although there are excellent elements of the GPS K-

12 science sequence, there is significant room for further development to bring it in-

line with research-supported practices of science education.

7

Conceptual Framework for Excellence in Science Education

A Brief History of Science Education

Schooling in the American colonial period emphasized the development of

reading skills for younger pupils and the study of classical languages for more

advanced students. Benjamin Franklin’s creation of the Philadelphia Academy in

1750 encouraged the teaching of new subjects such as agriculture, natural history,

surveying, and navigation (DeBoer, 1991). Thus science education entered the

American curriculum quite early on and was immediately viewed in competition

with subjects taught in traditional “grammar” schools. Over 250 years later, the

struggle for time and resources among subjects across the curriculum persists.

Over the next 100 years, until the mid-nineteenth century, much of science as

we think of it today was taught through literature. Typically a book would tell a

story in which the focus of the activities was a conversation between adults and

children around subjects such as the planets or the structure of a housefly

(Underhill, 1941). Although rich in science content, it is far from clear that the

conveyance of content was the main purpose of these early readers. In one story

from the period, a child observes a flower during a walk, and the father identifies

and describes the various parts (stamen, pistol, petals, etc.) while emphasizing that

the flower surpasses the ingenuity of man. When the child trips and falls, the father

notes that if she was more careful and obeyed her mother she might have avoided a

bloody knee. Using science content as a vehicle (or context), the aim was to promote

moral virtues, such as obedience, supported by religious undertones.

8

By the mid-nineteenth century, principles from educational philosophers like

Rousseau and Froebel impacted the field by bringing the notion of realism to the

forefront of a rapidly expanding formal educational system – and thus advancing the

idea that true learning comes about through experience. By the 1870’s children

studied objects brought to class, such as rocks, metal wire, seeds, and ivory.

Students were asked to observe objects and memorize appropriate adjectives that

described them. It was widely believed that children could not reason well or

generalize beyond their immediate context and thus memorization was

synonymous with learning. Interestingly, this belief declined rapidly in the late

1800’s because mere memorization and recitation was seen as “sterile and remote

from the lives of children” (Atkin & Black, 2007, p. 785). A vigorous resurgence of

this belief would emerge in the 20th century driven by behaviorist psychology.

Perhaps one of the single most important developments in science education

came about in the final decade of the nineteenth century. The seminal report of the

Committee of Ten gave consistent form to secondary science curriculum across the

United States as well as standardized college admission requirements (National

Educational Association, 1893). Chaired by the president of Harvard University,

Charles Eliot, the committee was composed of university presidents and school

principals. Recommendations were made regarding the age each subject should be

introduced, the number of years it should be taught, and the number of hours per

week for instruction. Interestingly, it also distinguished between whether or not

subject matter should differ for those select college bound students. Along with a

diminished role for classical languages, there was a detailed recommendation that

9

the sciences constitute 25 percent of the high school curriculum. Students in the 21st

century essentially live with many of these 19th century recommendations.

The early 20th century brought a focus on nature study and good citizenship

as a primary focus for science education. With rapid urbanization, nature study

glorified rural life. Not unlike the environmental movement of today, there was a

direct appeal for students to generate a deep sympathy with nature. As young

citizens, students were asked to act responsibly on behalf of the shrinking natural

world. Curriculum was developed purposively to be of interest to students, thus the

use of myths and elaborate story telling became routine in science instruction. Two

important trends were established in this period – an emphasis of the life sciences

over the physical sciences and curriculum that was considered relevant to the times

(DeBoer, 1991).

In the years leading up to the second world war Americans became

increasingly aware of the impact science was having in daily life. Led by Columbia

University Teachers College, an emphasis on the applications of science and

technology permeated the curriculum. Science texts from that period described

how automobiles and refrigerators worked. Students’ attitudes toward science

became a primary area of interest and study (NSSE, 1932).

On October 4, 1957 science education changed forever. With the launch of

the world’s fist artificial satellite, Sputnik I, the space age was ushered in along with

major reforms of science and mathematics education, although the foundations for

this new approach actually pre-dated this significant political and technological

10

event by a number of years. The conspicuous influence of our country’s most

outstanding research scientists on the K-12 curriculum brought a level of prestige

and weight to this reform effort that was lacking in many previous movements.

After all, these mostly theoretical and seemingly abstract scientists developed such

extraordinary things as the atomic bomb and radar, and had been credited in

helping end a prolonged war. In 1959 a conference at Woods Hole, Massachusetts

brought together the top scientists, psychologists and curriculum developers to

unify their work – with unparalleled support from the National Science Foundation

(NSF). Jerome Bruner was charged with preparing the report from this gathering.

At the core of this report was the notion that “…there is a continuity between what a

scholar does on the forefront of his discipline and what a child does in approaching

it for the first time…” (Bruner, 1960, p. 28). Thus, the notions of inquiry science and

children as scientists became the battle cry of many progressive reform-minded

science educators.

The 1960’s brought an extensive period of curriculum development in

science education. With NSF support, projects in biology, the physical sciences, and

the earth sciences were undertaken, and never had such large sums of public money

been devoted to curriculum development. An inherent tension between science

content (supported by the world-class scientists) and student centered inquiry

approaches to science learning (backed by educators and psychologists) emerged –

and persists today.

11

In the final decades of the twentieth century, with the publication of A Nation

at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), science education

shifted from a cold war mentality in which the best and brightest students were

identified and encouraged to pursue science careers in the interest of national

defense to one in which those same individuals would now work to remedy a

perceived decline in the country’s economic competitiveness. Regardless, the

sciences were still viewed by many policy makers as subjects in which only a select

few could excel. By the mid-1980’s with the publication Science for All Americans

(American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989) the notion of

science literacy underpinned by the belief that science could best serve society by

fostering a generation of informed citizens who could utilize science as a tool to

better navigate the challenges of their daily lives became central to the reform

agenda.

This shift in the principal aim for science education cannot be overstated. As

we consider science curriculum for the 21st century, we must acknowledge the

lessons learned across the centuries. We must begin by asking ourselves:

What value does science hold for individuals and society?

What are the most effective ways to promote learning in the sciences?

How should science education be structured in formal educational settings?

Although ostensibly school districts administer science programs to serve all

students, there exists today a prevalence for cramming an ever expanding body of

12

science content into those who will likely pursue advanced studies in science,

although it was over a century ago that education professionals recognized that

memorization and recitation in science was seen as “sterile and remote from the

lives of children.” Moving beyond the false dichotomies of content vs. inquiry,

science vs. other subjects, and memorization vs. learning, we have much to learn

from the history of science education as we craft a renewed vision for the possibility

of promoting literacy in science for all.

International Perspectives

Science learning occurs in a wide range of educational, social, cultural and

political contexts, and various research-informed efforts in science education have

been undertaken in countries all around the world in recent decades. Results from

these international studies highlight important positive trends in science curriculum

reform, and include:

An emphasis on teaching key conceptual issues in depth instead of covering

an ever increasing amount of information;

Promoting science literacy for all students;

Alignment of curriculum and assessment;

Providing more encouragement and support for teacher professional

development (van den Akker, 1998).

13

Additionally, there has been an emphasis on lifelong learning combined with a

greater importance placed on problem solving with a preference for active and

investigatory learning. Keeves and Aikenhead (1995) note that international science

education (beyond the U.S.) generally recognizes the urgent need for individuals to

acquire the skills of independent learning and inquiry, an understanding of science-

related social issues, and the impact of technological change.

Recent cross-national studies on student science learning, including Trends

of International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Programme for

International Student Assessment (PISA), Science and Scientists (SAS) provide

valuable information on the state of science learning by participating countries, and

have generated much interest among policy makers, educators and the general

public alike. Perhaps the most prominent of these studies is TIMSS, in which

assessment of pupil learning was conducted at five grade levels (U.S. equivalent

grades 3,4,7,8, 12) in 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 (the 2007 data will be released on

December 9, 2008). More than half a million students participate in each TIMSS

assessment, which is now conducted in over 40 countries. Exhaustive statistics

confirm the validity of the findings. TIMSS also investigates the state of science

education through analysis of curriculum materials and interviews with teachers

and administrators. Six content areas are covered in the test, including earth

science, life science, physics, chemistry, environmental science, and scientific

inquiry and the nature of science.

14

Significant results over the years demonstrate the overwhelming majority of

4th graders in every country report they liked science, by 8th grade boys showed

higher achievement than girls, and having resources at home (computers, books,

etc.) was strongly related to achievement in every country. For the U.S., the most

recent available data suggest that, as in mathematics, though there was no measurable

difference detected in the average science performance of fourth-graders between 1995

and 2003. However, the standing of U.S. fourth-graders in science relative to their peers

in 14 other countries appears slightly lower in 2003 than in 1995. For eighth graders the

available data show that not only did U.S. eighth-graders show significant improvement

in science between 1995 and 2003, but the standing of our students also improved

relative to students in other countries with data from that period (Martin, 2004). A

positive trend indeed for those with interests in U.S. middle schools, however the state of

elementary science education here at home is deservedly under renewed scrutiny.

Beyond student achievement data, TIMSS illustrates several interesting trends in

international science education. Perhaps most noteworthy is that top-performing countries

(Singapore, Korea, and Japan) were among a few which emphasized science-technology-

society issues (STS) in conjunction with science investigations underpinned by timely

and relevant science content. That is, application of science concepts was as important as

learning science information as merely an end in itself.

Beginning in 2000, PISA assessed 15 year-olds in 43 countries regarding science

literacy (OECD, 2003). Scientific literacy was measured by assessing students’ ability to

use scientific knowledge, recognize scientific questions, identify what is involved in

scientific investigations, relate scientific data to claims and conclusions, and

15

communicate these aspects of science. Literacy in science was reported as a mean score

by country. Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong – China demonstrated the highest performance

on this scale. Other countries which scored significantly above the average included

Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Scores

from Belgium, France, Hungary, Iceland and the United States were not significantly

different from the mean.

SAS was a less comprehensive and ambitious project than that of TIMSS or

PISA, and involved approximately 10,000 thirteen year old students from 21 countries

(Sjoberg, 2000). The SAS questionnaire probed students’ attitudes and perceptions of

scientists and science in action, among other science-related issues. Interesting findings

include that students in developing countries held a more positive view toward science

than those in industrialized countries. Students in industrialized nations described

scientists as sometimes cruel and crazy, whereas in developing countries children saw

scientists as idols, helpers, and heroes. It is suggested that popular media has done a

disservice to science and science education.

Analyzing the challenges revealed by these and other international studies in

recent years, Sjoberg (2002) concludes that science curricula play an important role in

developing and sustaining pupils’ interest in science and in preparing them as citizens for

the 21st century. Additionally, there appears broad agreement about the shortcomings of

traditional science curricula that prevail in most counties, including the U.S., in that

science is conveyed as a massive body of authoritative and unquestionable knowledge

and there is a lack of relevance and deeper meaning for learners and their daily lives.

16

Briefly examining science education from two countries who are recognized for their

reform and achievements in science education is illustrative.

In Japan, science courses typically include scientific phenomena encountered by

students in their day-to-day lives. The overarching aim is to guide students in the

practical aspects of science learning through active engagement strategies, develop their

powers of observation, and hone their ability to interpret and apply their knowledge

(Goto, 2001). Outcomes of the Japanese science curriculum note the following goals: to

help a child develop humanitarian values, self identity as a person living in a global age,

develop the ability to learn and think independently, and encourage ingenuity. Problem

solving and helping students understand the relationship between science and daily life

are emphasized at all ages.

In the United Kingdom, the aim of the science curriculum is to stimulate pupils’

curiosity about phenomena taking place in the world around them. Students are expected

to be able to understand, to question, and discuss how major scientific ideas contribute to

a changing world, affect industry, business and medicine, and improve the quality of life

for all (Osborne, 2001). Moreover, there is the general sense that learning science

involves both knowing about the natural world and having opportunities for personal

inquiry. However, like the U.S., it is recognized that too few young people choose to

pursue careers in science, and research suggests the principal reason being that those

students see science as a catalogue of ideas lacking relevance (Millar & Osborne, 1998).

Recent reforms of the national curriculum is designed to sustain and develop a sense of

wonder inherent in most young people, address more directly scientific issues that

17

permeate everyday life, embrace student-centered pedagogy, and increase out-of-school

and informal resources for exploring science and society ideas.

An international look at science education is helpful for considering challenges

we face here at home. We see that in many countries, the U.S. included, there are falling

enrollments of students studying science, and an inadequate supply of science teachers

and valuable professional development opportunities. Curricular aims and associated

assessments encourage a “coverage of content” mentality which perpetuates a lack of

public understanding of the key scientific and technological issues of our time. What is

needed is systemic reform, which involves research-informed policy making and practice.

Standards and Science Education

Unlike other subject areas in schools, the sciences have not enjoyed cohesive

national leadership in terms of standards and guidelines for excellence in

instruction. In fact, three competing organizations in recent decades have published

national standards in this field, including the National Science Teachers Association

(NSTA), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the

National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. A discussion

of the details underpinning The Content Core (NSTA, 1992), Science for All Americans

and the associated Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1989: 1993), and the

National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) is not productive in that there is

more in common to these various documents than is incongruous.

18

The notion of scientific literacy for all Americans is typically associated with

the AAAS documents of the late 1980’s, and serves as the conceptual core for our

standards today. It is interesting to note however, that the term was first introduced

in the late 1950’s in response to what educators saw as an overemphasis placed on

the success of a select group of advanced students planning to pursue further

studies in the sciences (Fitzpatrick, 1960). Researchers in science education would

note there is no single definition that encapsulates all of the elements underpinning

literacy in science, thus a consensus regarding an operational definition has been

reached for curricular development and research purposes. Science literacy is

widely viewed as one’s awareness of the impact of science on society along with the

ability to make informed decisions regarding one’s personal life. Science literacy is

often considered along five dimensions:

Humanistic - Fostering a well-rounded person

Economic – Ensuring global competitiveness

Civic - Preparing informed voters

Public - In support of discourse necessary for a vital democracy

Social Justice – Promoting equity & action

Presently, the National Science Education Standards (NSES) has emerged as

the preeminent and most comprehensive document for science education reform,

and states, “science literacy enables people to use scientific principles and processes

in making personal decisions and to participate in discussions of scientific issues

that affect society” (NRC, 1996, p.ix). Interestingly, the NSES’s (1996) go beyond

19

articulating content standards for the various developmental levels across the K-12

continuum, and advances a comprehensive plan for reform of the many facets that

comprise the enterprise of science education. In conjunction with the companion

Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000) it is perhaps the

most useful document available today for those engaged in improving science

education. The science content standards which outline what students should know,

understand, and be able to do in the natural sciences are divided into eight

categories, including unifying concepts and processes in science, science as inquiry,

physical science, life science, earth and space science, science and technology,

science and social and personal perspectives, and history and nature of science.

Interestingly only three of the eight strands of the content standards are traditional

content designations (life, physical, earth and space) while the balance significantly

broaden the scope of what is deemed important to explore as one studies science.

Beyond the content standards, which are surely the most cited element of the

publication, the NRC includes standards for science education programs and

systems, assessment standards, science teaching standards, and professional

development standards. Together these offer a blueprint for reform.

The science teaching standards describe what teachers of science at all grade

levels should know and be able to do. They include actions taken to guide and

facilitate student learning, the creation of communities of science learners, and

planning of inquiry-based science programs. Professional development standards

present a vision for professional knowledge and skills among teachers, and include

20

the integration of knowledge about science with knowledge about learning,

pedagogy and students. Assessment standards offer criteria against which to judge

the quality of assessment practices themselves. They cover several areas:

assessment of achievement and opportunity to learn science; consistency; fairness;

and the soundness of inferences made from assessments. Although the science

system standards consist of criteria for judging the performance of the overall

science education system, including the congruency of policies and other such

considerations, and are perhaps not of immediate concern at the district level, the

science program standards are quite applicable for districts engaged in

comprehensive reform. The program standards describe the conditions necessary

for quality school science programs, and include curricula that are developmentally

appropriate and grounded in the content standards, interesting and relevant to

students lives, coordinated with mathematics education and connected to other

school subjects. Additionally, the program standards advocate for appropriate and

sufficient resources, providing equitable opportunities for all students to learn, and

for the development of communities that encourage, support, and sustain teachers.

This last point is of particular importance, in that research tells us that perhaps the

single most important element of quality schools is quality teachers (NCTAF, 1996).

Of the content standards in the NSES, the standard that is perhaps least

understood is the one that deals with the history and nature of science. It is quite

unfortunate, because this standard offers the most guidance to leverage what we

have learned from researchers and our colleagues who work in international

contexts beyond the United States. This standard describes science as a human

21

endeavor, one in which women and men of various social and ethnic backgrounds –

and with diverse interests, talents, qualities, and motivations – engage in the activity

of science, engineering, and the related health fields. It describes science as relying

on basic human qualities such as reasoning, insight, commitment, creativity, and

skill as well as on scientific habits of mind such as intellectual honesty, tolerance of

ambiguity, and openness to new ideas. The nature of science, which will be

discussed in detail in a later section, addresses the very essence of science itself and

together with the history of science offers a rich context in which to explore science

content in a meaningful way. This standard illuminates many possibilities beyond

what traditional content-centered curriculum typically offer, and is consistent with

what many researchers are calling for in the reform of science education (Lederman,

1992; Lederman, et al., 2002; Moss et al., 2001).

Beyond the National Science Education Standards themselves, is the

companion document Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC,

2000) which is designed to serve as a practical guide for teachers, professional

developers, administrators, and others who wish to respond to the NSES’s call for

reform. As will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report, the notion of

inquiry has played a prominent role in science education reform. This document has

been a vital resource to ensure that inquiry has played an appropriate role as a

catalyst for change in traditional curricula where information is delivered to

students in a final and fixed form, essentially depriving students of an experiential

opportunity to explore the many processes underpinning science as it really works –

with all its challenges, uncertainties, and rewards.

22

At the state level here in Connecticut, our own Position Statement for Science

Education adopted September 3, 2008 echoes the core principles of the national

standards:

The Connecticut State Board of Education regards scientific literacy as evidence of a high-quality science education. People who are scientifically literate understand core science concepts of life, earth and physical science; use scientific reasoning; and recognize the interactions among science, technology and society. Science education teaches students to raise questions, to persevere in search of answers, to reason logically, and to distinguish between unsubstantiated claims and those that have valid and reliable substantiation. All students need opportunities to refine and strengthen their scientific content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills on a continuum from preschool through high school and beyond (Connecticut State Board of Education, 2008).

In this position statement, the state then goes on to specifically outline the

responsibilities of school districts, teachers, institutions of higher education and

discusses opportunities for participation in science education by businesses and

other stakeholders.

Although in their current form the science frameworks themselves have been

available since 2004, a revised draft of the curriculum standards with the addition of

the much anticipated grade level expectations for preK-8 became available as of fall

2008. The grade level expectations offer a much needed bridge between the

framework and new science CMT assessment points.

The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and updated

documents from the State of Connecticut offer substantial guidance for the reform of

district-level science programs and curriculum. Unlike earlier versions of standards

advanced in the 1980’s which read as a laundry list of science content to cover

throughout the curriculum, the more recent iterations calls for a programs that

23

foster the development of science literacy for all students. Such a laudable aim

requires that enduring, engaging and meaningful learning of ideas underpinning

science as a way of knowing become the norm in our classrooms across the K-12

continuum.

Conceptual Learning

Earlier in this commentary, the notion of various false dichotomies serving as

barriers to reform was briefly addressed. One of those dichotomies was the contrast

between memorization and learning. Although there is most certainly a distinction

between these two constructs, the problem has resided in the substantial finger

pointing and criticism associated with memorization, when in fact the lack of a

meaningful definition for learning has been the real issue. Although much learning

in the sciences requires some level memorization to scaffold the process, the

problem arises when the drill and recall of disconnected science factoids becomes

the ultimate aim of the curriculum.

Real learning – enduring learning as described by Wiggins and McTighe

(2006) – is a process which leads to long term change in humans across three

domains: Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Brown, 2008). As we consider

enduring learning in science education in the context of science literacy, we are

ideally looking for our students to deeply internalize a scientific way of thinking and

problem solving so that they may participate fully in any public discourse when

issues of science come into play. Additionally, students should be able to make

24

informed decisions regarding issues underpinned by science in their own lives. In

order to foster an enduring shift in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, we must

teach for conceptual change.

In an historical sense, conceptual learning in science has been heavily

influenced by the work of Jean Piaget. Up until the 1970’s, a behaviorist learning

paradigm dominated educational psychologists’ thinking regarding curriculum and

instructional design, leading to extensive rote memorization as common classroom

practice. Moving beyond this model, Piaget described learning as an interactive

process whereby an individual makes sense of the world through cognitive schemes

that are modified as the result of interactions with objects in the world (Piaget,

1971). Adaptation – or learning – as described by Piaget is a process of assimilation

and accommodation. This is essentially interpreting information and subsequently

trying to make sense of it. Although mostly concerned with child development

rather than learning as a result of instruction, his work greatly influenced what we

now term conceptual learning.

Building upon this seminal work, David Ausubel (1968) argued that the most

significant influence on a learners’ conceptual development is their existing

knowledge in the target domain. That is, what a person already knows and believes

when they come to class. Empirical research in the following decades confirmed that

in science education, students’ prior knowledge might be the single most important

factor to consider in the learning process (Driver, 1983; Novak, 1978; Posner et al.,

1982). The conditions needed for a major change in thinking within a scientific field

25

(such as from an earth-centered to a sun-centered model of the solar system) are

that a learner must first be dissatisfied with their existing ideas, and then the new

ideas presented must be seen as plausible. Such accommodations take time, in many

cases substantial time, and the manner in which the new ideas are presented

becomes critical.

The process of conceptual change (enduring and deep learning) must engage

learners at a level that helps them come to terms with their current belief systems.

Merely telling a learner the sun-centered model of our solar system is the

scientifically valid one may run counter to a lifetime of observations of watching the

“sun go around the earth.” In science in particular, students often bring

misconceptions (more recently referred to as alternate conceptions) to their science

classrooms. Thus, the learning experiences we create in formal educational settings

must be as powerful, and experiential, as their ones outside of school if we are to

help learner’s become dissatisfied with their deeply held personal beliefs which

have developed through lived experiences.

The “clever” student will “learn” what the teacher is espousing in class and

typically score well on a traditional recall assessments, but we run the significant

risk of turning out students into the world unprepared to take on the

responsibilities of a scientifically literate adult. To best serve our students, we must

recognize that conceptual change is not wholesale, nor linear. Students must be

afforded the time to struggle with new, and sometimes seemingly irrational ideas in

science (even though they are often the scientifically valid ones), so that they are

26

given the greatest possible chance to internalize these notions. It is not uncommon

that a student at some point in the learning process will hold dual conceptions,

hanging on to deeply seated beliefs while at the same time coming to see a new way

of looking at the world.

We must recognize that individuals’ beliefs about the natural world are

constructed, rather than received. Although students will be required to memorize

certain ideas underpinning scientifically valid explanations of the natural world, our

aim should be to instill a deeper-level of understanding than can be achieved

through the mere coverage and exposure to an ever expanding list of scientific

factoids. We should be aiming to foster learning environments where students are

afforded the time, resources, and support to construct a meaningful understanding

of the world around them – such is the heart of a constructivist approach to

learning.

Ultimately, we would ideally like to impact our students’ knowledge,

attitudes, and behaviors (especially in the areas such as environmental science,

human health, etc..), so that they may live participatory and productive lives to their

greatest potential. Implications for the science curriculum, given a

constructivist/conceptual change approach to learning, are discussed in the

following section.

Curriculum Reform

27

In spite of some debates ongoing in the research realm, the most significant

influence on curriculum thinking in science education has been the constructivist

view of learning developed in the late 20th century. Grounded in numerous empirical

studies on students’ conceptions of science, suggestions for curriculum

organization, instructional interventions, and teacher professional development

have all been proposed with the singular aim of promoting student conceptual

change and meaningful learning (Bennett, 2003; Mintzes et al., 1998; Tobin, 1993).

Considering the international perspective discussed in an earlier section of this

report, constructivist notions have clearly had a strong influence on science policy

in recent years. The Curriculum Profiles for Australian Schools (ACTDET, 1993), The

National Curriculum in England (QCA, 2002), along with our own the National

Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) here at home have all been influenced

heavily by constructivist learning theory. By far, the most significant and prominent

element of these documents, and numerous others, has been the inclusion of the

notion of inquiry as the central constructivist theme.

Although the prominence of inquiry in the science education literature imply

a wholehearted acceptance of this notion, its role in the science classroom continues

to be the subject of much debate, both in how to define inquiry and its merits

(Barrow, 2006). In fact, it has been described as one of the most confounding terms

in all of science education (Settlage, 2003). One of the early references to inquiry

can be traced back to the first volume of the preeminent journal Science Education

(then called General Science Quarterly) in an article by no other than John Dewey

(1916) who noted, “the method of science, problem solving through reflective

28

thinking, should be both the method and valued outcome of science instruction in

America’s schools” (p. 18). Yet nearly a century later, inquiry has not had a sizeable

impact on day-to-day science instruction in most classrooms.

Perhaps the issue is that inquiry can be conceived of as a complex set of

ideas, beliefs, skills, and/or pedagogies (Abrams et al., 2008). Thus, we must come to

understand the various forms of inquiry in order to understand its critical role in

reform. In Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000), they

define inquiry as essentially “doing” science to learn about the world. It involves the

diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world, and harkens back to what

many think of as “the scientific method.” This problematic portrayal of the notion of

a singular, lock-step method underpinning the whole of the scientific enterprise has

been doing a disservice to generations of science students. Although helpful for our

youngest of learners as a heuristic, it oversimplifies the very essence of science and

perpetuates the field as being characterized as static and trivial. Moving beyond a

singular method of science, to one characterized by a process of authentic inquiry,

students may come to learn science as a creative process of constructing

explanations of natural phenomena with uncertain and often contradictory data. In

authentic inquiry, even generating the proper questions for investigation becomes a

significant challenge. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards offers an

excellent practical guide for teachers as they consider the role of inquiry in its

various forms in the classroom (See Table 1). In this table, we see the essential

features of classroom inquiry with associated variations along a continuum in which

the amount of learner self-direction and direction from the teacher can be adjusted

29

depending on the curricular aims, developmental level of the students, available

resources, and other factors present in daily instructional settings.

Distinguishing between inquiry as a pedagogy, essentially a tool for learning

science content, and inquiry as an outcome itself (inquiry as a content objective) is

perhaps the most critical distinction to make. In most science curricula today,

inquiry is the primary means by which to explore what are commonly known as

process skills. These skills include generating questions, making observations,

inferring, predicting, collecting and recording data, analyzing evidence, explaining

data by making conclusions, and communicating findings. Together these comprise

the heart of inquiry as a learning outcome in its own right. A challenge in science

classrooms typically arises when the curriculum confounds these various

definitions of inquiry, and the teacher is unsure about whether they are teaching

about inquiry or with inquiry. These notions need not be mutually exclusive, but the

various instructional aims and supporting assessments should make it clear to the

teachers and students which aspects of inquiry are being emphasized – and to what

end.

Table 1. “Essential Features of Classroom inquiry” (Adapted from NRC, 2000, p. 29).

Essential Feature Variations

1. Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions

Learner poses a question

Learner selects among questions, poses new questions

Learner sharpens or clarifies question provided by teacher, materials, or other source

Learner engages in question provided by teacher, materials, or other source

2. Learner gives priority to evidence in

Learner determines what constitutes

Learner directed to collect certain

Learner given data and asked to

Learner gives data and told

30

responding to questions

evidence and collects it

data analyze how to analyze

3. Learner formulates explanations from evidence

Learner formulated explanation after summarizing evidence

Learner guided in process of formulating explanations from evidence

Learner gives possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanation

Learner provided with evidence

4. Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge

Learner independently examines other resources and forms the links to explanations

Learner directed toward areas and sources of scientific knowledge

Learner given possible connections

5. Learner communicates and justifies explanations

Learner forms reasonable and logical argument to communicate explanations

Learner coached in development of communication

Learner provided broad guidelines to sharpen communication

Learner gives steps and procedures for communication

More---------------------Amount of Learner Self-Direction---------------------------Less

Less----------------------Amount of Direction from Teacher or Material------------More

Unfortunately, when inquiry is incorporated into the science classroom it can place

the learning of traditional content in conflict with the development of process skills,

resulting in the false dichotomy of content versus process mentioned previously in

this report. Teachers sometimes struggle with the notion of inquiry as a pedagogy

and may create overly artificial contexts to squeeze some semblance of inquiry into

their lesson planning. In some cases, incorporating inquiry into science lessons can

undermine any conceptual learning opportunities as teachers make questionable

instructional decisions in the name of inquiry. For example, learning science

31

through inquiry does not preclude direct instruction of traditional science content

as a routine element of classroom instruction. The use of mini-lectures and other

means of explicitly communicating information to students is essential to scaffold

the learning of complex ideas. In contrast, promoting a “guess what the teacher is

thinking” exercise in the name of inquiry is not consistent with best practices of

science education.

Inquiry learning is foundational and essential for a first-rate education in the

sciences. Beyond inquiry as a core element of a constructivist curriculum, research

has demonstrated that teachers hold varying orientations to pedagogy and learning

along a continuum from traditional to reform-minded. Table 2 highlights these

critical differences (See Table 2). Thus, this table helps illustrate that inquiry

teaching is best understood through the lens of inquiry learning. It is not merely

what the teacher is doing, or not doing, but at what level the students are engaged in

an authentic, conceptual learning model.

Table 2. Key research-supported notions of traditional and reform-minded curriculum (adapted from Anderson, 1996).

Old Orientation New Orientation

Teacher as Dispenser: Teacher as Coach:

Transmits information Facilitates students’ thinking

Teacher’s knowledge is static Models learning process

Provides information Helps process information

32

Student as Passive: Self-directed Student:

Records teacher’s information Processes information

Memorizes information Interprets and seeks explanations

At the district-level, as one considers shifting toward an inquiry model of

learning there are two key areas for initial consideration. The first is curriculum

materials, and the second is the professional teaching workforce. A lesson learned

from many of the 1960’s curriculum is that they were essentially designed to be

“teacher proof.” They were developed with the expectation that any teacher could

use them easily in their classroom in a manner that would automatically result in

inquiry learning and improved student understanding of science. In general,

materials did not meet this expectation. Quality inquiry science materials are of

major importance and influence in classrooms, and can serve as a foundation for

reform. On the other hand, materials will not do the job independently of a well-

qualified teacher. Curriculum materials should have the following general

characteristics: (1) are standards-based in that the science content, instructional

strategies, including assessment, optimize conceptual student learning as reflected

in current research on teaching and learning; (2) are inquiry-based, which includes

support for inquiry as a teaching strategy as well as the inclusion of inquiry as

content, including the ability to understand science as inquiry; and (3) grounded in

a carefully developed conceptual framework for the science disciplines, are built

upon the unifying themes in science and reflect the interdisciplinary nature of

science today (Powell & Anderson, 2002; Moss et al., 2008). Additionally, curriculum

should spiral across the K-12 continuum in a deep and comprehensive manner.

33

Thus, the number of topics attempted may need to be reconsidered in favor of an

approach that would yield conceptual understandings consistent with scientifically

sound principles. In this way less can indeed be more.

Assuming quality materials, we should expect a substantial commitment to

state-of-the-art pedagogies and content from our teachers of science. Teachers

should be encouraged to move out of their comfort zone and attempt new practices

for promoting learning in the sciences. Thus, professional development should be a

transformative process, involving teachers in sustained and meaningful experiences

that encourage them to take on significant responsibility in the reform of the science

education program in Greenwich. In part, professional development should be

teacher directed, and connected to their own particular contexts and interests

leading to the development of new classroom practices consistent with their new

understandings. Beyond in-service education classes, it must be tied to teacher’s

day-to-day work in their own classrooms and build strong connections between

teams of teachers across the district to support the need for spiraling. Research

makes it clear that collaboration among colleagues is a key element of effective

professional development (Anderson, 1996). Professional development should

afford teachers the opportunity to ask such questions as: What is most important for

my students to learn? Will my students miss important knowledge if I embrace an

inquiry approach? How do I define science literacy? What skills and knowledge do I

need to promote literacy in science? Consistent with a conceptual change learning

model for students, teachers first need to be dissatisfied with their past beliefs and

34

practices and find viable alternative ones if they are to be convinced that their

revised approaches will indeed result in improved student learning (Prawat, 1992).

One final topic to briefly address in this section is that of assessment, as it is

central to science curriculum. The most significant trend in assessment in recent

years is that it has moved from being viewed as a traditional post-test only measure

to generate a rudimentary score of intelligence, to a model where assessment is

viewed as a facet of learning. Since there appears to be an increased number of

stakeholders in science education, as evidenced by the keen interest in statewide

measures of student performance on standardized exams by business and industry

leaders, there will likely always be a role for psychometric testing across the student

population in the state, but that should not dissuade educational professionals from

considering the multiple purposes of assessment in the classroom. Different forms

of assessment should routinely be considered, including summative and formative.

Beyond the traditional content focus of assessments, teachers interested in

promoting science literacy should also be assessing student views on the nature of

science, science skills, learning dispositions (such as reflection and cooperation) and

a host of other goals central to the notion of a well-informed, active citizen who uses

science in their daily lives. For example, concept mapping is an under-utilized tool

that can help teachers monitor their students learning over time. Portfolios,

interviews and conversations (commonly used in process writing instruction),

predict and explain scenarios, projects, technology-based assessments, and self and

peer assessments are just a few of the valid strategies available to teachers

interested in promoting conceptual change.

35

Consistent with our notions of teaching for advances in knowledge, attitudes,

and behaviors in our students, our assessments must mirror these goals and be able

to offer us information in all three of these domains. Particularly in a spiraling

curriculum, it is not too ambitious to expect significant changes in behaviors of our

most advanced students by the time they complete high school. If we assess

exclusively within the content domain (with perhaps a little process assessment

along the way) we cannot expect that when students move on to new educational

challenges and beyond, they will be able to derive a scientifically literate worldview

from their narrow exposure to science. The K-12 curriculum must explicitly teach

and assess for science literacy if that is the principal aim of the overall science

education program.

Nature of Science

Teaching explicitly for science literacy usually requires a significant revision of

science education programs. It involves the acquisition of knowledge along with the

development of skills and values. It is underpinned by concepts in science and technology

and the interaction of science, technology and society (Bybee, 1993). A comprehensive

science literacy-based curriculum should emphasize personal matters, civic concerns,

cultural perspectives, global challenges, local issues, and public policies. Information

gathering, problem solving, and meaning making (and decision making) are hallmarks of

such a program. Previously defined as having an informed perspective on scientific issues

facing individuals and society, science literacy is also characterized by a willingness to

36

engage in social discourse necessary for a free and open society. To emphasize these

characterizations of science literacy, in a recent book I have asserted the following two

notions as underpinning literacy in science (Moss et al., 2008):

Science for Democratic Participation

Science for Promoting Quality of Life

The ideas encompassed by these statements are interdisciplinary by their very nature and

offer a framework by which reform can be considered. Science curriculum must be

timely and relevant to the pressing issues of the moment, while at the same time consider

what challenges society might face in the long term. Issues relating to biotechnology and

the human genome, sustainability, energy, and even terrorism will be publicly debated

over the next generation and beyond. Yet, supplanting the current curriculum with an

entirely new set of topics, as relevant as they might be, may not most effectively serve

our students of today. The second notion deals with the role of science in promoting a

superior quality of life. Here, issues of human health and technology may serve as the

cornerstones for curriculum. Perhaps one slight contextual difference here might be the

very personal nature of decisions individuals will need to make. Issues of extending life

through technological means and stem cell research have all been at the forefront of

public debate within the past few years, and although discussed publicly, individual

decisions about these matters will likely remain private. Regardless, the need of a high

quality education in science will be necessary to facilitate an informed decision making

process.

37

Since the Nature of Science depicts the scientific enterprise as one of an ongoing

innovation of ideas which builds upon our previous knowledge in a dynamic way, science

curriculum can certainly take its cues from this reality. This recognition of a continuum

of knowledge in science embraces the idea that ideas are not static, and the notions of

science for participatory democracy and ensuring a high quality of life can serve as a

filter by which we can make strategic decisions about what to teach. That is, as we look

forward to what we expect students will need to know to fulfill their democratic and

personal responsibilities over the next decades, we must consider the scientific

foundation upon which their opinions and beliefs will ultimately be built.

The Nature of Science is such that the cut and dry beliefs of right and wrong are

replaced with complex nuances of perspectives backed by varying degrees of evidence.

When the Nature of Science is explicitly viewed as central to the curriculum, science

content becomes the landscape upon which the notions of discovery, logical thinking,

creativity, and ethical issues are explored. Science content is not marginalized; to the

contrary, we are able to make strategic decisions about the importance or value of various

science topics to be included in the curriculum. With scientific literacy as our educational

goal we can sidestep the unreasonable desire to cover “all” content in favor of exploring

the Nature of Science within the context of learning relevant and timely content.

Regarding content in this way is our best prospect of achieving our aim of promoting a

scientifically literate society, but only if we step away from the absurd notion that we can

teach our students everything they will ever need to know in the vast domain of science.

We must prioritize our curriculum.

38

Perhaps not surprisingly, attempts to define the Nature of Science, the very

essence of science itself, have been fraught with controversy. Pragmatically, researchers

and educators who deal with Nature of Science issues have finally begun to operationally

define the Nature of Science for research and curriculum purposes. This important step

has ended a decades long cycle in which the discourse was bogged down in illuminating

the finer philosophical points of the Nature of Science, with little recognition of the

consensus which existed regarding the principal tenets.

In recent years, the science education community has come to agreement that

scientific practice does not necessarily involve seeking one right answer, but seeks to

learn all we can. Some commonly agreed upon Nature of Science tenets which are

consistent with this view are: (1) science fosters awareness of the natural world, (2)

science describes order in the world using theories that are simple and comprehensive, (3)

science is dynamic, creative, interpretative (humanistic), cultural and social, (4) scientific

knowledge is tentative and demands evidence, and (5) there is no one scientific method

(Lederman et al., 2002; Moss et al., 2008).

The Nature of Science is beyond mere process skills and offers a lens through

which curriculum reform may be considered. Taken together the notions of Science for

Democratic Participation and Science for Promoting Quality of Life as curricular filters,

one focusing our attention on science as a way of coming to understand the natural

world and the other allowing us to sort through the vast terrain of science

knowledge, we can begin to consider a curriculum which serves the needs of our

students of today. The State of Connecticut Position Statement on Science Education

(2008) specifically notes, “…every student (should) learn science in a way that is

39

intellectually engaging and contextualized in real-world experiences, schools can open

new opportunities for students who otherwise may not see how prominent science is to

solving the great challenges of this century.” An understanding of the Nature of Science

is essential for overcoming those significant challenges of this new century.

40

Greenwich Public Schools and Science Education

Science Curriculum

If one’s very first introduction to the Greenwich Public Schools’ (GPS) science

program was via the district web page (http://www.greenwichschools.org/), one

would see the following learning goal posted under the science curriculum link:

All students will develop the fundamental knowledge and skills necessary to

apply the scientific method of inquiry to an understanding of living

organisms, of the physical world, and of their interrelationship (retrieved

October 24, 2008).

Conspicuously absent from this learning goal is the aim of a conceptual

understanding of the Nature of Science sustaining the pursuit of science literacy as

articulated in the framework outlined in the first part of this report. Although the

notion of the interrelationships in this statement implies a complexity consistent

with the scientific endeavor, this outcome implies a dichotomy of knowledge and

skills along with a single method of science. Thus, on the surface this statement does

not appear to establish a vision for science education in the GPS consistent with

research-informed best practices in science education. In the recently released The

Connecticut Plan: Academic and Personal Success for Every Middle and High School

Student, the State of Connecticut (2008) notes:

41

The old “basics” … are still essential, but they are no longer sufficient. Today’s students must learn to locate, analyze, interpret and communicate information in a variety of media and formats, and solve problems creatively and logically. Living and competing successfully in a global society and economy will require an understanding of our interconnectedness, collaboration and leadership skills, habits of personal and social responsibility, and adaptability to change.

This statement supports many of the ideas outlined in the conceptual framework for

reform presented in this report, and offers evidence the timing is excellent for

considering changes to the GPS science education program.

At present, the GPS Science Objectives for the various grade levels offer

evidence of a traditional comprehensive, topic-based curriculum. Clearly, the

district has made use of the State of Connecticut Core Science Framework (2004) in

the development of these district-level objectives. As one correlates the framework

with the GPS science curriculum, substantial agreement is noted.

A GPS K-5 curriculum theme termed The Nature of Scientific Inquiry, Literacy

and Numeracy appears as a distinct set of learning objectives in the curriculum for

each of the six years. In each of these years, the process skills are greatly

emphasized, including making observations, predicting, and utilizing simple

measuring tools. Progressively students appropriately move from using non-

standard units of measures to standard tools, and by grade three move beyond

describing properties (length, weight, etc.) to analyzing, interpreting, and

presenting data. Regrettably, there are no explicit connections from this process-

oriented series of objectives to the more traditional content standards.

42

It is interesting to note that in grade one, it explicitly states under the

heading Important to Know and Do that students will “Recognize that an experiment

(emphasis in original text) is done to answer a specific question.” However, this

notion does not appear again under this set of learning objectives anywhere in K-5,

which highlights several noteworthy points. Perhaps most importantly is the lost

potential for significant spiraling across these grade levels (which culminate in the

grade 5 science CMT). This pattern is also evidenced in the numerous life, physical,

and earth & space science topics attempted only one time across the K-5 continuum.

Additionally, it is not until grade three that we see that students are expected to

design and conduct simple investigations. (It is assumed that an investigation is the

same as an experiment.) Keeping in mind the distinction between learning about

inquiry and learning with inquiry, it appears that there is a disconnect between

these two roles of inquiry in the classroom. The core of asking questions and

observing are present from the earliest grades, as these process skills appear as

objectives in their own right, but nowhere do we see an explicit and purposeful

connection of these skills to be utilized as a catalyst for exploring scientific ideas.

Yet, we assume this learning about inquiry is done in some scientific context - but

that curricular connection is not made explicit in the materials. When these inquiry

standards only appear as stand alone outcomes, there is significant potential for

confusion of the role of inquiry in science instruction.

As one considers the learning outcomes themselves in The Nature of Scientific

Inquiry, Literacy and Numeracy objectives, careful attention should be placed in

examining and evaluating the distinction between the required and optional

43

learning aims. For example, in kindergarten under the Worth Being Familiar With

designation is the statement, “Recognize that science is an adventure in which all

people can participate.” Oddly, this one-time statement only appears in

kindergarten and yet seems foundational to the very notion of science for all.

Perhaps the alternative assessments required to measure the learning of this

“attitude” led to the inclusion of it as a non-required element of the curriculum.

Finally, great care should be taken in reviewing all of the learning objectives

listed in this inquiry driven set of outcomes not only for the potential to connect

(spiral) them and embed them throughout the more traditional content objectives

when appropriate, but to characterize and designate them in terms of their richness

and complexity. In grade two, an objective states, “Recognize that change is always

happening in both the natural and physical worlds as a result of both natural and

physical causes.” Although this natural/physical distinction may be confusing in its

own right, certainly this outcome is far more complex and rich than merely using a

tool to take the temperature of an object, which is another objective for this grade.

Moreover, one should gain some experience using tools to make scientific

measurements before one is ready to deeply consider the prospect of ongoing

change in the natural world. The very notion of change is one of the unifying

concepts (big ideas) in science (NRC, 1996) and likely requires examination and

reflection across a number of years beyond the second grade to fully grasp the

implications of such a construct. In fact, one could likely build an entire science

curriculum around this very idea.

44

In examining the content standards themselves in K-5, one sees a fairly

traditional suite of topics addressed throughout these years. In kindergarten such

topics as zoology, botany, and structures of matter are seen. Interestingly, human

anatomy and astronomy are included as well. Although the State of Connecticut

(2004) identifies these as Content Standards 5.2 and 5.3 respectively, they appear in

the GPS kindergarten curriculum. It is important to note that throughout the state,

various school districts have taken varying approaches to the inclusion of the

required content standards in their science curriculum. Some districts have very

closely mapped their curriculum to the standards year-by-year while others, with

encouragement and approval from the state, have included standards “out of year.”

Since the state has not required that certain topics be covered in certain grades,

which harks back to the notion of a lack of national science leadership calling for

such a sequence, there is nothing technically improper about the inclusion of the

topics in this grade. However, one must carefully consider the developmental

appropriateness of the material to be learned as well as the consideration of

whether students will be adequately prepared for the grade 5 CMT, especially if

critical learning outcomes are tweaked for the “out of year” grade level and not

attempted again prior to the exam. In districts across the state, certain topics remain

in certain grades, not out of appropriate learning considerations, but out of tradition

and ownership. “We have always taught weather (in such and grade)” or “Mr. Smith

likes teaching (a certain topic)” are all too common sentiments, but may not be in

the best interest of the overall science program. Additional “out of year” content

standards are seen throughout the K-5 sequence.

45

As mentioned earlier, the lack of spiraling of topics to promote conceptual

understanding is prevalent in the elementary science curriculum. That, along with

the sheer number of objectives to be attempted, makes for a challenging curriculum

to teach. The implicit message being sent to teachers is one of placing value on the

coverage of content over depth of learning. Combined with a lack of a unifying

theme (such as nature of science), it may result in a curriculum that presents as a

series of disconnected ideas. That, along with potential for the few inquiry learning

opportunities because of the confusion about teaching with inquiry versus teaching

about inquiry, may result in science content being portrayed as a static body of

knowledge with little that is yet to be discovered.

The GPS District K-12 Science Coordinator, Ms. Sheila Civale, has at the time

of the writing of this report already identified many of the inconsistencies in

terminology, poor labeling, developmental considerations, and missing elements in

the science curriculum documents, and our discussions and her notations suggest

she has made excellent progress in distinguishing the most critical areas for

editorial revision. Beyond that effort, the final conceptual areas to address in the K-5

documents are the Science and Technology objectives. Although the current GPS

learning objectives in this area are consistent with the state’s framework for science

and appear to meet the minimum elements required for this area at this level, it is a

missed opportunity to not expand this area under a new designation titled, Science,

Technology, and Society (STS) as it already (essentially) appears in the middle grade

documents. As written, the learning outcomes in this area read as a dumping

ground which includes such topics as the preparation of microscope slides in grade

46

5 and describing materials used to build houses at the kindergarten level. Coupled

with that is the wide-ranging learning objective which reads, “Distinguish between

science and technology and describe how they are related” (grade 5), which again

indicates a lack of consistency in the depth of the objectives as noted earlier.

Compounding the issue, Science and Technology objectives are absent from select

grade levels all together. Re-conceptualizing these objectives along the lines of an

STS framework could easily meet the minimum standards mandated by the state

while at the same time offering students a richer context in which to explore the

many timely and relevant issues underpinning society today.

In the middle grades, we also see a very close alignment between the GPS

curriculum and the state framework for science. Again, The Nature of Scientific

Inquiry, Literacy, and Numeracy appears as a distinct element of the curriculum,

potentially leading to a segregation of content and process. Although it is specifically

noted that these mostly science process objectives are to be integrated into “the

teaching of the science disciplines,” the content standards themselves offer little or

no explicit connection to these inquiry objectives. Although at this level we do see

the more comprehensive designation of Science and Technology in Society (as

opposed to only Science and Technology in the elementary grades)– it only appears

in grades 6 and 8 and not in all three years. Additionally, there are “out of year”

considerations in the middle grade documents, but they are less of a concern both

developmentally and for assessment purposes given the fewer number of years in

this grade range.

47

The middle grades science program integrates topics from the life, earth &

space, and physical sciences each of the three years. Interestingly, a heading on the

middle grade documents says, “Curriculum sequence reflects GPS’s attempt to

address the State Standards while preserving the current middle school sequence.”

Although this may read as problematic given the territorial and business as usual

tendencies referenced earlier, it goes on to state, “State Standards are included as a

subset of a larger set of curriculum objectives.” This very notion that a district can,

and should, go above and beyond the minimal guidance offered by the state is an

excellent reform-minded stance to adopt with regard to the curriculum. Of course,

the challenge remains to develop a rich, coherent, timely, learner centered,

challenging and spiraling curriculum that accomplishes that aim.

The sheer number of learning goals in each of the years of the middle school

should be closely evaluated. Across the sixth grade year alone there are over 60

measureable objectives stated beyond the enduring understandings and essential

questions. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these objectives are traditional

content ones, leaving little time not only for dissonance and reflection needed to

build deep understandings, but for students to pose their own questions about the

natural world. Although there are fewer objectives attempted in the 7th grade there

are nearly 80 articulated for the 8th grade. In one unit alone in the 8th grade, titled

Atomic and Molecular Structure, there are 29 learning objectives identified – with

each and every one being designated as “Important to Know and Do.” Once again Ms.

Civale has annotated the document with suggestions for combining objectives and

eliminating others as well as making corrections when needed (in some cases

48

standards are incorrectly identified), but such time consuming efforts should only

be viewed as a temporary fix which ignores the larger issue of a lack of unifying

thread leading to a greater purpose for science instruction across the district.

In the high school setting, with the state Core Science Framework (2004) only

providing guidance through the 10th grade, there is an exceptional opportunity to

consider an advanced science education program tailored specifically to the district

mission. In the current GPS science curriculum we again see a comprehensive, topic-

based approach to covering the required content and process components. The high

school curriculum (especially in the 9th and 10th grades) approaches the sciences

through a disciplinary lens, with little integration of concepts from the life and

physical sciences. This segregated approach is counter to the trends in many college

science programs that are influenced by the interdisciplinary nature of actual

scientific research. Within the courses there are numerous distinct objectives

articulated and lists of terminology identified to serve as the core content. Although

Essential Questions and (enduring) Understandings are noted, it is often difficult to

see how they add value to the overall curriculum. For example, for the biology

materials in the section on cells, an essential question is posed as, “What are the

fundamental differences between cells?” Under the learning objectives it states that

students will know: Cell theory; the difference between prokaryotic & eukaryotic

cells; the difference between plant, animal, and bacterial cells; along with other

similar points of information. The very close alignment between the essential

question and the learning objectives is excellent, but in fact may be too close. That

is, the essential question should ideally help establish the relevance for and

49

motivation behind the inclusion of the learning objective – for both students and

teachers – and not merely mimic it. Essential questions help justify content points to

be covered and prioritize which ones are most important. In this case, an essential

question that asks about the form and function of an organism (a unifying concept in

science) in relation to cellular makeup might bring a bit more relevance and

direction to the topic at hand.

Although the curriculum materials seem to indicate an extensive use of labs

and embedded tasks in support of CAPT preparation, it is impossible to tell from

these materials how these elements of the science program interact within the

overall course of study. The ample opportunity to do science activities and inquiries

in high school (and middle school) offer built in times to consider the connection

between inquiry and content. Depending on how the labs and activities are run

would determine in what ways the The Nature of Scientific Inquiry, Literacy, and

Numeracy standards are met. Once again, although the standards are listed with the

GPS materials, they are presented as distinct from the traditional content.

Although not included in the scope and sequence for the GPS curriculum, the

syllabus for GHS: Honors Research Seminar (taught by Mr. Bramante) is worth

briefly addressing. This course is described as a “non-traditional, non-lecture course

that is designed to allow students to develop problem solving skills…to complete a

defined research project.” It is a year-long course, open to only juniors and seniors,

which encourages students to pursue high caliber independent research projects

under the guidance of a science mentor. It appears to be performance graded in that

50

“The final grade for each quarter and semester will be based upon the quality of the

completed project…” Although the ability to replicate this course across the GPS

system is impossible given the obvious developmental, logistical, and resource

limitations inherent to such an ambitious approach, the conceptual core of the class

offers much in terms of possibilities for reform in the district. Given the syllabus, I

suspect the classroom teacher is no longer being viewed exclusively as the deliverer

of information, but takes on a new role as facilitator. Such a stance by faculty across

the district could simultaneously help students prepare for the state exams while

helping them move down the path toward science literacy.

Substantially absent from all of the curriculum materials K-12 is the notion of

the Nature of Science as a central theme for science learning. As noted in this report,

an understanding of the Nature of Science is seen by many researchers as the single

most important element in a curriculum designed to promote science literacy. Ideas

underpinning the Nature of Science, such as the principle of falsifiability, inductive

and deductive reasoning, the history of scientific ideas, theories and scientific

revolutions, pseudoscience, uniformity of nature, causality, and a host of other ideas

all provide a rich context in which to consider traditional content in the life,

physical, and earth & space sciences (Okasha, 2002). Such a unifying notion, with an

eye toward science and the role it plays in our personal lives and society, would

provide a much needed framework to move beyond the disconnected, content-

driven nature of the current documents.

51

On a more pragmatic note, also missing from the GPS science program is a

fully integrated science safety plan. With renewed emphasis to be placed on hands-

on science along with state mandated performance assessments it is essential that

veteran staff and new teachers understand the legal and practical considerations of

safety and science education. The state offers excellent guidelines in this area for the

middle and high schools (CSDE, n.d.), and these plans can readily be adopted for the

elementary grades. These publications discuss OSHA regulations for laboratory

safety and offer specific safety specifications for general science, physics, chemistry,

biology, and earth & space science courses. Additionally, they address prudent work

practices and personal protective equipment essential for promoting a safe learning

environment. It is essential that GPS fully develop and implement policies and

practices along these lines so that the district may achieve its learning aims for

science.

In summary, there is a comprehensive and rich content core to the existing

curriculum. In fact, the extensive coverage of topics and concepts may serve to

undermine the potential for conceptual learning by students. Mere exposure to a

vast number of topics across the life, physical, and earth & space sciences does not

automatically translate to lifelong learning. As noted in the conceptual framework

presented earlier in this report, a clever and motivated student can navigate this

vast landscape of content and perform reasonably well on scheduled classroom

assessments, which typically demand little more than the recall of the definition of

scientific terminology. Such exposure to material by the teacher and its subsequent

re-telling by students is not consistent with an enduring vision for conceptual

52

understanding necessary to for the development of science literacy. Although there

are excellent elements of the GPS K-12 science sequence, there is significant room

for further development to bring it in-line with research-supported practices of

science education.

Inquiry

As articulated throughout this report, inquiry has played a major role in the

consideration of reform of science education. However, with a widespread

misunderstanding of the role of inquiry in America’s classrooms, it may have caused

more harm than good for K-12 science curriculum. At the K-5 level in GPS’s

curriculum, science kits seem to be the primary vehicle for promoting hands-on and

potentially inquiry-oriented opportunities. Although research has demonstrated

that science kits can add value to a science curriculum, associated professional

development and careful managing of the kits’ resources are necessary for them to

achieve any positive impact (Shymansky et a., 1983). Such an impact not only

showed gains in student achievement, but in attitudes toward science as well.

However, it is important to note that much of the research on science kits was

completed using materials developed through government sponsored programs and

non-commercial products, and much of the data available regarding the utility of

contemporary kits is provided by the publishers themselves. The commercial kits

adopted by GPS are widely utilized across the U.S. and appear consistent with the

topics identified in the K-5 curriculum. The potential down side to the use of kits

53

centers around the possibility that teachers may engage students with materials, but

the principles underpinning inquiry-oriented instruction may be readily ignored.

Also, kits may afford students with little opportunity to explore materials with the

explicit purpose of generating investigable questions and pursuing their own

inquiries (a developmentally appropriate approach modeling what is done in the

Research Honors Seminar at the high school) and thus not achieving their greatest

potential as a classroom resource.

As previously noted, in the middle grades and at the high school level, there

are built in opportunities to explore science through inquiry via the use of dedicated

lab times. Lab experiences designed to encourage students to pursue investigable

questions offer an ideal opportunity to explore creativity and problem solving

underpinning the scientific endeavor. By definition, relevant science content

supports such an approach. At present, however, there seems to be a significant

divide between traditional content and science as inquiry in the GPS curriculum

materials. Of course, actual classroom practice may reflect a different reality to some

degree. It is strongly recommended that if kits at the elementary level or formal lab

opportunities in the upper grades are considered to be the primary vehicles for

closing the gap between inquiry and other elements of the curriculum, that any

revisions explicitly include opportunities for students at all levels to generate their

own investigations and see the scientific process through to the communication of

findings to their peers or perhaps when appropriate even beyond the school

context. That does not imply that all science ideas are taught through this approach,

54

but that the key concepts for each unit are reinforced with an active learning model

– such as inquiry science.

State Testing

The desire to perform well on mandated state testing is widespread, if not

universal. Although it should not be the sole justification behind a reform agenda,

the pursuit of excellence in science education, as defined by research and

international perspectives, and improved performance on statewide tests need not

be mutually exclusive. In a RAND study of nearly 300 local reform projects, two

lessons were learned: Reform takes time and it must include both a top down and

bottom up approach (McLaughlin, 1990). Without both approaches, one of the key

ingredients of “buy in” or leadership may be missing. Such buy in must include

teachers, the public, students and the host of other stakeholders in the success of the

GPS science program.

Recent data from statewide tests demonstrates that students in the GPS’s are

not yet performing at levels of students across the District Reference Group. In

2008, 53.2 percent of the GPS grade 10 students scored at or above goal for science.

The mean score for this reference group is 69.5 percent of the students scoring at or

above goal (the range is 53.2 to 80.7 percent), while the state mean is 46.5 percent.

Proficiency data show higher percentages across the board and the comparison

between GPS and the reference group is less pronounced, however GPS is the only

school in the group to average below 90 percent proficiency for 2008. CAPT

55

performance data for the five year period 2001-2006 (second generation) reveal an

essentially level trend. However, the district is currently at a five year low for

advanced, goal, and proficient levels.

The Science CMT was administered for the first time in 2008 and will serve

as a baseline for comparison in years to come. Preliminary data for 2008 reveal

approximately one-quarter of the students scoring in the advanced category, three-

quarters of the students at goal, and 90 percent of the students scoring as proficient.

Although these numbers appear lower than the other content areas for GPS, it is

premature to derive significant conclusions from the one time dataset.

Although stakeholders in the success of the GPS science program may utilize

the state data to suggest students should be doing better, the reality is that given an

improved curriculum and an associated professional development program, there is

every indication that they could indeed perform better on these assessments. The

district has clearly gone to significant lengths in recent years to take into account

the science framework from 2004, thus the issue is not that the state “standards”

aren’t present in the curriculum materials – the issue is how they are incorporated.

Although teachers may be covering the recommended areas for study in science, it is

apparent that students in the GPS may not be learning the key concepts in a way

that is meaningful and enduring. Revisiting a theme addressed throughout this

report, the coverage of content does not equate to conceptual learning. This deep

learning takes time and must stem from a curriculum which affords students and

teachers the opportunity to explore, struggle with, and assimilate challenging ideas

56

consistent with current thinking in science, and which are often counter to the ways

in which humans see the world. It is not uncommon for students to score well on

summative classroom assessments without making real gains in the understandings

of science and the scientific enterprise. Although the state provided data may be

discouraging to the members of the Greenwich community, there is every reason to

believe that the execution of a reform-minded strategic plan for the improvement of

the science education program could in five years from the implementation of the

revised curriculum show gains in performance on state mandated tests while at the

same time move toward the fundamental goal of fostering science literacy for every

child in the school system.

A Road Map for Reform

The goal of the GPS curriculum is to “guide teaching and learning so that

students graduate…as productive, responsible, creative, and compassionate

members of society…to the greatest extent possible, curriculum should…develop

deep and enduring understandings about an area of study, and be able to apply

learning in multiple domains” (GPS, n.d.). According to GPS documents, the

curriculum review process should occur in multiple steps, with the very first step

citing developments in research and practice both nationally and internationally.

This report was developed to meet that essential requirement which is all too often

neglected by districts engaging in curriculum review and development. Taking this

important first step demonstrates real progress and bodes well for the balance of

57

the process. This report was also intended to provide a snapshot of the current

status and desired curricular outcomes while ensuring alignment with state

standards. As noted in the Executive Summary of this report, this snapshot is

specifically designed to serve as a catalyst for initiating a discussion and any

subsequent efforts directed at the reform of the GPS science education program. It

was derived from available documents only and is not intended to be a

comprehensive, systemic review of the science program, which would directly

involve teachers and other professionals in the GPS system, students (former and

current), and a review of professional development programs, textbooks, kits, and

other science resources. Providing for community input and involvement in the

upcoming months will only serve to refine the vision and strengthen the

commitment for any curriculum revision efforts.

Moving forward, it is essential that the stakeholders in the revision of the

GPS science program (including curriculum reform, review of professional

development opportunities, resources, etc…) plan for adequate time to establish a

shared vision for science literacy. This report points to the need to carefully

articulate and operationally define that fundamental notion such that it does not get

relegated to the back burner as the “real” work of so called curriculum reform and

development progresses. In a book on interdisciplinary curriculum Moss et al.

(2003) noted:

Curriculum must be understood as more than a sum of its parts and the associated technical process of assembling the material. It is more than a means of ensuring a pathway for standardized and simplistic accountability…We do not dismiss the logistical dimension of what it takes to

58

create curriculum materials as trivial or unimportant. Nor do we reject the pragmatic necessity of a well-articulated blueprint for facilitating learning. However, we believe that, at its core, curriculum is as much about philosophy and epistemology as it is product and process…Perhaps the most critical question with regard to curriculum centers on the notion of the value or worth of knowledge. Without addressing the issues underlying the normative implications of what we ought to teach, curriculum development as an enterprise is usually relegated to merely a technical undertaking. The resulting products of this technical effort are destined to foster a coverage-of-content mentality common to so many classrooms today. Without a philosophical compass, the process offers no guidance to answer questions of what is most important to teach and why (pp. 3-4).

In The Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction Tyler (1949) offers a blueprint

for curriculum design that has been followed by many districts for decades. Over a

half century since its publication, this book is perhaps the most influential book ever

published in the area of curriculum - for better or worse. Much of what we take for

granted in terms of curriculum design, such as the relationship between objectives

and evaluation, is clearly delineated in this influential work. Even the very nature of

how most curricula are set up and organized can be traced to the ideas outlined in

this book. Although Tyler briefly outlines the utility of a philosophical perspective as

it guides curriculum development, he essentially ignores the normative foundation

upon which curriculum is based. What he states seems reasonable at first blush, and

even prudent, and we certainly advocate that the development of curricular

materials should be consistent within one’s philosophical stance. Curriculum,

however, is much more than merely a technical enterprise where one plugs in

various elements to achieve a final product. He seems to want to avoid the

inherently messy aspects of curriculum in favor of a veneer of order and

organization. In his work, the most challenging and rewarding aspects of curriculum

are repressed in favor of the nuts and bolts approach of the compilation and

59

alignment of materials. The real work of curriculum lies in the challenge of

elucidating one’s beliefs about how individuals learn, which knowledge has worth,

and the role of schooling in society.

Thus, the GPS should strongly consider the implications and potential for

establishing a clear vision of science literacy consistent with the conceptual

framework outlined in this report. As discussed, the overarching notions of Science

for Democratic Participation and Science for Promoting Quality of Life may serve as a

much needed framework to promote literacy in science along the following five

dimensions:

Humanistic - Fostering a well-rounded person

Economic – Ensuring global competitiveness

Civic - Preparing informed voters

Public - In support of discourse necessary for a vital democracy

Social Justice – Promoting equity & action

When the Nature of Science becomes the principal curriculum element around

which appropriate content can be explored, there becomes the significant potential

to move beyond the veneer of order, organization, and alignment characteristic of

many district-level curriculum today.

After the vision is firmly established and materials are subsequently refined

by teachers and administrators , it is essential that a significant piloting phase be

implemented to ensure that the vision becomes explicit during the actual

instructional implementation. Such an effort should be supported by the collection

of data along the lines of a case study at each of the three developmental levels

60

(elementary, middle, high school). Such piloting should involve peer modeling and

feedback as part of the professional learning process necessary to implement what

is likely to be an ambitious agenda for reform. Such an effort should explicitly

communicate to all stakeholders that although “extra” time is needed for such an

extensive effort, the potential for long terms gains in achievement are predicated

upon a refined, high quality spiraling curriculum in which in the entire professional

staff is ready and willing to implement.

In the mid- and long term beyond implementation, sensitive to budgetary

considerations, data collection beyond standardized measures required by the state

should become a routine element of the science program. New research on learning,

inquiry science, the Nature of Science, etc… all must contribute to the ongoing

refinement of the entire GPS science program to ensure that every graduate is

prepared to meet the numerous scientific and technological challenges we already

are facing in the early 21st century.

61

Bibliography

Abrams, E., Southerland, S.A., Evans, C. (2008). Inquiry in the classroom: Identifying necessary components of a useful definition. In E. Abrams, S.A. Southerland, and P. Silva (Eds.) Inquiry in the classroom; realities and Opportunities (pp. xi-xlii). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington DC: AAAS.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R.D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 33-36.

Atkin J.M. & Black, P. (2007). History of science curriculum reform in the United States and the United Kingdom. In Research on Science Education (pp. 781-806). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training (ACTDET). (1993). Curriculum profiles for Australian schools. Retrieved ACTDET website.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Barrow, L. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265-278.

Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science. London: Continuum.

Brown, S. (2008). Assessment is Not a Dirty Word: Measuring Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors in Interdisciplinary Learning Environments. In D.M. Moss, T. Osborn, and D. Kaufman (Eds.) Interdisciplinary Education in the age of assessment (pp.7-30). London: Routledge.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bybee, R.W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.

Connecticut State Board of Education (2004). Core Science Framework: An invitation for students and teachers to explore science and its role in society. Hartford, CT: State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Board of Education.

Connecticut State Board of Education (2008). Position Statement for Science Education. Hartford, CT: State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Board of Education.

62

CSDE (Connecticut State Department of Education) (n.d.) Connecticut high school (middle school) science safety: Prudent practices and regulations. Hartford, CT: CSDE.

Dewey, J. (1916). Method in teaching science. The Science Quarterly, 1, 3-9.

DoBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

Fitzpatrick, F.L. (1960). Policies for science education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University.

Goto, M. (2001). Japan. In M. Poisson (Ed.). Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 31-38). Geneva: International Bureau of Education.

Greenwich Public Schools [GPS](n.d.). Greenwich Public Schools: Programs, Services, and Curriculum (draft). Greenwich, CT: Greenwich Public Schools.

Keeves, J. and Aikenhead, G. (1995). Science curricula in a changing world. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 13-45). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.

Martin, M.O. et al. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international science report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center.

McLaughlin, M. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19, 11-16.

Millar R., and Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: Kings College.

Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., and Novak, J.D. (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.

Moss, D.M. Abrams, E.D., & Robb, J. (2001). Describing student conceptions of the nature of science over an entire school year. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771-790.

63

Moss, D.M., Osborn, T. A. and Kaufman, D. (2003). Going beyond the boundaries. In D. Kaufman, D.M. Moss, and T.A. Osborn (Eds.) Beyond the boundaries: A transdisciplinary approach to learning and teaching. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Moss, D.M., Settlage, J., and Koehler, C., (2008). Beyond trivial science: Assessing the nature of science. In D. M. Moss, T.A. Osborn, & D Kaufman. Interdisciplinary education in an age of assessment. London: Routledge.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The Imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the secretary of education. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

National Commission for Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: NCTAF.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National science education standards. Washington, DC: Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (1992). The content core. Washington DC: NSTA.

National Society for the Study of Education. (1932). A program for teaching science: 31st Yearbook. Bloomington, IN: Public School Publishing Company.

Novak, J. (1978). An alternative to Piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Studies in Science Education, 5, 1-30.

OECD. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from OECD/PISA 2000. Retrieved from PISA website.

Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Osborne, J. (2001). United Kingdom (England). In M. Poisson (Ed.). Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 99-101). Geneva: International Bureau of Education.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., and Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Powell, J.C. and Anderson, R.D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practices: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107-136.

64

Prawat, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100, 354-395.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2002). National Curriculum for England. Retrieved QCA website.

Settlage, J. (2003). Inquiry’s allure and illusion: Why it remains just beyond our reach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., and Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.

Sjoberg, S. (2000). Science and scientists: The SAS study. Retrieved from SAS website.

Sjoberg, S. (2002). Science and technology education: Current challenges and possible solutions. Retrieved from SAS website.

Tobin, K. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Underhill, O.E. (1941). The origins and development of elementary-school science. Chicago: Scott Foresman & Co.

U.S. Office of Education (1893). Report of the committee of secondary school studies (Committee of Ten), appointed by the National Education Association. U.S. Office of Education, 205. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Wiggins, G, and McTighe (2006). Understanding by design (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum; Between ideals and outcomes. In B.J. Fraser & K.B. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 421-447). London: Kluwer Academic.

65

About the Author

Dr. David M. Moss is an Associate Professor in the Neag School of Education

at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. His faculty appointment is in the

Department of Curriculum & Instruction specializing in environmental education

and science teacher education. His current research interests are in the areas of

international education, environmental education, and teacher education reform.

Dr. Moss has authored over 50 articles, book chapters, and reviews on such diverse

topics as student understandings of the nature of science, interdisciplinary

education, teacher education, and forest ecosystem monitoring. Books to his credit

include, Interdisciplinary Education in an Age of Assessment (Routledge, 2008),

Portrait of a Profession: Teachers and Teaching in the 21st Century (Praeger, 2005),

and Beyond the Boundaries: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Learning and Teaching

(Praeger, 2003). He is currently under contract for a book on resistance and reform

in education and has projects underway in the areas of K-12 environmental

education and preparing university faculty to be excellent teachers. Dr. Moss is the

recent recipient of the University of Connecticut Teaching Fellow award, which is

the highest university-wide honor conferred for instructional excellence and

leadership. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of New Hampshire and

completed his undergraduate work at Alfred University, NY. He has extensive

curriculum development and assessment experience on projects funded by the

National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Education, and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

66