The Importance to Teach Through the Standards in Science Curriculum - Essay Example

Abstract Science curriculum has remained neglected for a long time and there are still needs to improve the curriculum according to the needs of the students and the development that is required by the students. Teachers as well as students feel that the science curriculum needs to be structured according to the standards so that they can get a better chance to learn more. One same philosophy cannot be applied to all the disciplines of studies. For each and every subject, separate standards are required to be designed and followed. Science curriculum should be taught by following the standards that must be designed according to the environment of students so that they can make use of their science knowledge in their practical lives. The Importance to Teach Through the Standards in Science Curriculum The history of the development of the science curriculum The development of science education has structured more and more recently. So, by looking back at the last century, the curriculum of schools was very basic and everybody used to think about multi-curriculum from his own angle. More in depth, teaching strategies were clustered around the teacher himself, and he was the center of the classroom. At the beginning, scientists were the one who used to control the science curriculum, and they had the authority for choosing the content to be taught in schools. Thus, it was hard for teachers and students to handle the science subject based on the scientists’ perspective rather than science educators’ perspectives. However, the reformation that was called for by Dewey had taken place in the late 1950s. The development of teaching science as inquiry has taken place in the 1950s, nevertheless, the years 1955-1974 were called the Golden Age in Education. Numerous findings were poured into education in order to develop curriculum. The 1960s were even enriched with more science projects toward the science curriculum but the reformation was not very clear, until late 1960s when studies showed some achievements and attitude toward science. During the 1970s, the focus of NSF (The National Science Foundation) was on exploring the impact of the new science curriculum such as improving science methods, working in labs and discovering inquiry learning. In the 1980s and 1990s, the development of technology, computer and the World Wide Web were enough to call it a new reformation besides that the beginning of 1990s, it was the beginning of something new, it was the standard era. The complexity of the life style after the 1990s was not only sensed in the States but globally too and the science education became a field for competition through many different assessment tests. Thus, there was an essential need of national standards to improve the science education curriculum and bring students in a position of being literate citizens. The standards Content: In science, three efforts have contributed significantly to the development of standards. The National Research Council (NRC) published the National Science Education Standards in December 1996. Material related directly to content standards fills over one-third of the work's 262 pages, while additional chapters address standards for science teaching and professional development, as well as assessment, program, and system standards. The science content standards are written for three grade levels: K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. At each grade level, seven general science topics are addressed. Standards related to these topics become increasingly comprehensive at each grade level. Scientific Literacy and standards The technological development in many countries established the essential need of scientific literacy. Scientific literacy helps people dealing with everyday life issues such as logical arguments, problem solving and making decision based on evidences. I agree with Rutherford’s and Ahlgren’s viewpoint of considering that a great number of Americans are not science literate. The reason for this agreement came from my own personal experiences. First, my daughter went to an excelling performance elementary school in Tempe district. The teacher in her classroom focused only on the language, arts and mathematics. Badria, my daughter, had some experience in three to four lessons in biology for two quarters. According to Rutherford and Ahlgren, in their article an example from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that the average performance of high school level student in 1986 was lower than 1969. Even internationally, the United States was ranked near bottom in science and mathematics performance. Furthermore, they explained that college students expressed their negative feelings about teaching science in the future because their background was not rigid enough and they experience low quality of science teaching. Most of those students were taught by teachers that did not follow the standards. Why Are Standards Important? There appears to be three principal reasons for the development of standards: standards serve both to clarify and to raise expectations, and standards provide a common set of expectations. Former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch is commonly recognized as one of the chief architects of the modern standards movement. In her book National Standards in American Education: A Citizens Guide (1995), Ravitch provides a common-sense rationale for standards: “Americans . . . expect strict standards to govern construction of buildings, bridges, highways, and tunnels; shoddy work would put lives at risk. They expect stringent standards to protect their drinking water, the food they eat, and the air they breathe. . . . Standards are created because they improve the activity of life.” (pp. 8-9) Ravitch (1995) asserts that just as standards improve the daily lives of Americans, so, too, they will improve the effectiveness of American education: "Standards can improve achievement by clearly defining what is to be taught and what kind of performance is expected" (p. 25). Such a view is apparently shared by many. The polling firm Public Agenda conducted a number of surveys on the issue of standards over the last several years. They found that most Americans strongly support higher standards that are clear and specific (Farkas, Friedman, Boese & Shaw, 1994), believing that higher expectations produce better performance. Teachers, as well, support proposals to raise standards, through which they expect to improve their students' academic performance (Johnson & Farkas, 1996). A recent finding indicates that students also see value in standards, saying that higher standards will make them work harder, and they expect to learn more as a result (Friedman & Duffet, 1997). Standards and Standards Tests (AIMS- TIMSS- PISA) PISA is a big issue in Europe and Africa, and it is an assessment of science and mathematics that takes place in every three years. I disagree with the strategy of PISA where there are no samples or even no announcement about the topics students will be testing on. I consider it as a stressful assessment as compared with TIMSS, may be because I have experienced TIMSS but not PISA. Whether it is PISA or TIMSS, it is a great opportunity for us now to share and discuss nation performance in science education globally. I can say that this is a big matter for educators and is spread over a time of 100 years. Critical issues regarding the standards What is after the standard era? Are all school districts following the standards? Is science for all Americans a dream that cannot take place in the reality? I have read many researches about improving science curriculum and methods of teaching science but unfortunately those researches are being applied in some schools only such as private schools. The performance of Science in United States is not quite strong as compared to many countries. My prediction for this problem is that the schools are not practicing the standards properly. What did I find? As many attendees noted, the development of state and national science education standards has become extremely politicized, and states have done an uneven job interpreting, sequencing, and prioritizing existing standards. Many states and local districts also have failed to provide adequate guidance to teachers of science on how to best implement standards in the classroom, leading to uneven and often inadequate implementation. We are now in year 2008; the standards-based reform effort that began with publication of Science for All Americans (AAAS 1989) was a significant step forward for the science education community and so do the benchmarks. Yet the anchors are a new reform toward blend benchmarks and standards together. The anchors are aiming to be clear, coherent, and manageable science standards for teachers. The table on page 4 shows how topics spread out for students. The purpose of Anchors from the Science coordinators, curriculum developers, and teacher educators will find the document a useful guide for understanding learning goals at different grade levels. Goals for developing anchors are: 1- Since there is no “one size fits all” science curriculum, so teachers need to assess their students as individuals and decide how best to incorporate individual needs when orchestrating class lessons. It is true, and I agree with this point because you can’t teach all the students across the United States about the same weathering or erosion lesson plan. It has to be something that relates to their environment. 2- The learning progressions within the Big Ideas are intended to help teachers diagnose students’ needs by clarifying what they need to know and be able to do before starting a new instructional unit and also explaining what students need to learn before going on to the next level. While some students may need the building blocks from an earlier level, others may be able to go on to the next level, or need practice in using their current capabilities in novel ways. 3- Although some of the recommendations for learning progressions within the Big Ideas are based on educational research; others will be based on prior practice and intuition, so that there is fertile ground for further research; and these guidelines for what is most appropriate for different ages may change over time as educational researchers continue to make progress. Standards and Linearism I appreciate the guidelines set out by Ralph Tyler for effective curriculum design. It is a systematic and efficient way to guide teachers towards designing an effective curriculum that can be implemented to educate students. Specifically, the order he has described makes sense and that we, in the science education community, need to spend some time in discussion of the principles that Tyler has discussed. Currently, the science curriculum in grades 6-12 prepares students to be scientists instead of preparing students to effectively view and practice science in their personal and professional lives. We need to work on Tyler's step 1: What educational purposes should the school seek to attain, specifically in the science discipline? Quoting directly from Tyler, "What can your subject (science) contribute to the education of young people who are not going to be specialists in your field; what can your subject contribute to the layman, the garden variety of citizen?" We need to create a set of goals that are inferred from studies of the learner and from studies of life outside the school. My perspective on standards In my ideal curriculum, these goals would include: Communicating scientifically Becoming more efficient problem solvers Thinking critically Applying science to practical situations to solve problems and make predictions Subject specialists should be involved, but must obtain input from users of science. Students should experience, actively (as described in the opening vignette), the study of science in order to model real world phenomena, improve critical thinking abilities, and solve meaningful problems. Currently, the main science classroom, grades 7-community College, is a classroom where students passively receive instructions to perform meaningless skills. Having visited dozens of classrooms, I rarely see what I consider an effective, exciting classroom experience for students and it does not reflect the standards. The evaluation of learning in the type of classroom that I am advocating should be diverse. Traditional paper and pencil tests can be used to evaluate students' ability to apply the skills and demonstrate an understanding of the concepts studied. But, also, students should demonstrate their abilities in alternative ways such as projects, portfolios, interviews, and learning reflections. From the culture that I come from, I consider myself as a linearist to the extent that I believe that curriculum should be developed by creating practical objectives based on the needs of the learner; creating active, varied experiences to help students obtain these objectives; organizing these learning experiences to create an effective unit, course, or program of study; evaluating the learning in a variety of ways. Here, I use the term practical objectives to describe what I believe students should learn. I am using the term to mean the specific things that students should learn, but in the context of a problem situation or application. Tyler’s Philosophy In my opinion, these criticisms are not strong enough to diminish the common-sense applicability of Tyler’s rationale, and I personally feel that his philosophical screening process is followed by every curriculum maker to some degree or another— consciously or unconsciously. After all, no human is completely unbiased, and even "scientific" curricular computer programs are designed by biased humans. As for criticizing the locally-based nature of Tyler’s rationale, I believe that we have far too long accepted a top-down, one-size-fits-all philosophy. How can state "experts" know exactly what students need in my local community? Still, Tyler clearly calls for expert guidance and input. We should not misinterpret him to say that the students and their environment are the main—or only—source of objectives. Rather, he maintained that these would be a tempering piece of the pie. His acceptance of subject-area experts is explicit, but he also realizes that the needs of students and society must be taken into consideration, as well. The Progressive movement lost much of its momentum in the late 1940s in the United States and from that period the work of Ralph W. Tyler, in particular, has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice.  He shared Bobbitt's emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity.  His theory was based on four fundamental questions: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? 3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? 4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?  (Tyler 1949: 1) Like Bobbitt, he also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioral objectives. Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the students' pattern of behavior, it becomes important to recognize that any statements of objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the students.  (Tyler 1949: 44) We can see how these concerns translate into a nicely-ordered procedure:  one that is very similar to the technical or productive thinking set out below. Step 1: Diagnosis of need Step 2: Formulation of objectives Step 3: Selection of content Step 4: Organization of content Step 5: Selection of learning experiences Step 6: Organization of learning experiences Step 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it. (Taba 1962) The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power.  Central to the approach is the formulation of behavioral objectives - providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results are evaluated. Conclusion Science teaching is a specific field and there should be no generalizations for teaching science. There should be some standards that should be followed by the teachers in order to facilitate the students to attain a better knowledge of science. With the passage of time, inquiry and pragmatic approaches of science has improved the discipline of science teaching. By following the standards, it can be expected that the students will come up with advanced knowledge of science. Also, the students should be taught science according to their own environment so that they can implement their attained knowledge in their surroundings. The science education that is acquired by students should be beneficial for their practical lives as well as personal lives. When the students will be taught according to a science curriculum that will be developed by following certain standards, the students will be able to get better scientific knowledge. References Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Read More