DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 406 203 SE 059 918

AUTHOR Berry, Richard; And Others

TITLE Science Learning Matters: An Overview of the Science
Report Card.
INSTITUTION Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.;
National Assessment of Educational Progress,
Princeton, NJ.
SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
REPORT NO ISBN-0-88685-077-0
PUB DATE Sep 88
CONTRACT NIE-G-83-001-1
NOTE 24p.
AVAILABLE FROM Educational Testing Service, Rosedale Road,
Princeton, NJ 08541-0001 (No. 17-S-02; free).
PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Classroom Environment; *Educational Strategies;
Elementary Secondary Education; *Equal Education;
*High Risk Students; Program Evaluation; Relevance
(Education); Science Curriculum; *Science
Instruction; Standards; Statistical Data
IDENTIFIERS Educational Testing Service; National Assessment of
Educational Progress

ABSTRACT
This interpretive overview of the "Science Report
Card" provides a description of the ways in which science can empower
and enrich the lives of students. This booklet also contains: (1)
statistics which provide a picture of the state of science learning
in the United States; (2) specific data that help provide a sense of
the status of science learning for at-risk populations; (3)
assessment of students' access to the opportunity to learn science;
(4) discussion of the relationship between the amount of science
instruction and proficiency in science; (5) explanation of science
learning in the spirit of science; and (6) discussion of the
discrepancy between the picture provided by the data of science
learning and the model of science learning based both on research and
effective practice. Data for this report were obtained from the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (DDR)

***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
 U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE NATION'S
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Cr) REPORT
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CD
CENTER (ERIC) CARD
CN1
This document has been reproduced as
;)
CD
,wed from the person or organization
originating it
",71' Minor changes have been made to
r-__4, improve reproduction quality

w Points of view or opinions stated in this

document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy
h..

III I I
.
0

I 0 I1 .I
s
IP
1 f Ia o

I r

f .
0 0 a I
f: f a
-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

I I I
A I s D

I .

2
This overview of The Science Report Card is based on contributions and
comments from the NAEP Interpretive Panel. The Science Report Card can be
ordered for $14.00, including shipping and handling, from the Nation's Report
Card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), at Educational
Testing Service, Rosedale Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08541-0001. This
interpretive overview, No. 17-S-02, can be ordered free of charge from the
address above.

Library of Congress, Catalog Card Number: 88-62070

ISBN 0-88685-077-0
The work upon which this publication is based was performed pursuant to Grant No. NIE -G -83 -001
1

reflect the
of the Office for Educational Research and Improvement. It does not, however, necessarily
views of that agency.
Educational Testing Service is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.
Educational Testing Service, ETS, and E S are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.
QD

3
SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS
An Overview of The Science Report Card

Based on Contributions and Comments from the

NAEP Interpretive Panel

Richard Berry Senta Raizen

Audrey Champagne Iris Weiss
John Penick Wayne Welch

Ina V.S. Mullis and Lynn B. Jenkins, Editors

The Nation's Report Card

September 1988
Report No: 17-S-02
"The distinctive character of
our own time lies in the vast
and constantly increasing part
which is played by natural
knowledge. Not only is our daily
life shaped by it, not only
does the prosperity of millions
. . . depend upon it, but our

whole theory of life has long

been influenced, consciously or
unconsciously, by the general
conceptions of the universe,
which have been forced upon us
by physical science."

Thomas Henry Huxley, 1880

5
 Science Learning Matters
THE SCIENCE REPORT CARD
INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

Science Empowers and Enriches

Huxley's statement on the value of science is even more valid today
than when it was written more than one hundred years ago. Then, and
increasingly so now, the pervasive influence of science on the quality of
our lives makes an understanding of science central to our personal,
national, and global welfare. With the accelerating pace of scientific
discoveries and technological advances over the last century, knowl-
edge of the methods and products of science has become ever more
essential to full participation in contemporary American society. In
addition to enhancing the minds and lives of individual citizens, science
learning is crucial to the social and economic development of our
country. To understand and resolve the increasing number of societal
problems related to science and technology for example, the deple-
tion or pollution of natural resources our schools must produce a
large majority of graduates who are literate about these issues and an
increasing percentage of students who are both highly prepared and
motivated for advanced careers in science.

From a broader perspective, there is growing concern over our country's

future ability to compete in the global economy) A highly technological
nation such as ours requires civic and educational leaders whose

' Education Commission of the States' Task Force on Education for Economic Growth,
Action for Excellence: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve our Nation's Schools (Denver,
CO: Education Commission of the States, 1983).
4 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

understanding of science and technology is sufficient to make decisions

based on valid information and rational analysis. Our nation's economic
growth and its place in world markets are determined in part by its
ability to provide intelligent leadership in technological fields.

The State of Science Learning

It is widely believed that the condition of science education in this
country needs improvement, and the results of NAEP's 1986 science
assessment do not assuage this concern. In 1983, the National Science
Board's Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science,
and Technology described the implications of neglecting science
education:

Alarming numbers of young Americans are ill-equipped to

work in, contribute to, profit from and enjoy our increas-
ingly technological society. Far too many emerge from the
nation's elementary and secondary schools with an inade-
quate grounding in mathematics, science and technology.
As a result, they lack sufficient knowledge to acquire the
training, skills and understanding that are needed today
and will be even more critically needed in the 21st cen-
tury.2

Since this statement was made, as many as 100 national reports have
been issued calling for greater rigor in science education and suggesting
numerous reforms. The nation has responded by updating standards for
school science programs, strengthening teacher preparation, increasing
the use of assessments, stiffening graduation requirements, and imple-
menting a wide variety of research efforts to deepen our understanding
of science teaching and learning. Despite these efforts, average science
proficiency across the grades remains distressingly low.

2 National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science,

and Technology. Educating Americans for the 21st Century (Washington, DC: National
Science Foundation, 1983).
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 5

Trends for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds across five national science assess-
ments conducted by NAEP from 1969 to 1986 reveal a pattern of initial
declines followed by subsequent recovery at all three age groups. To
date, however, the recoveries have not matched the declines.

At age 17, students' science achievement remains well

below that of 1969. Steady declines occurred through-
out the 1970s, followed by an upturn in performance
between 1982 and 1986.

At ages 9 and 13, the declines were less sizable than

those at age 17 and recovery began earlier, in the late
1970s. In 1986, however, average achievement at age
13 remained below that of 1970 and at age 9, simply
returned to where it was in the first assessment.

National expectations are high. Students are expected to complete their

high-school studies with sufficient science understanding for assuming
their responsibilities as voters and as efficient contributors in the
workplace. In addition, school science is expected to prepare ade-
quately for postsecondary science courses those students who are
continuing their formal education. Unfortunately, these expectations
have not been met. An examination of NAEP trends in science profi-
ciency suggests that a majority of 17-year-olds are poorly equipped for
informed citizenship and productive performance in the workplace, let
alone postsecondary studies in science.

More than half of the nation's 17-year-olds appear to

be inadequately prepared either to perform compe-
tently jobs that require technical skills or to benefit
substantially from specialized on-the-job training. The,'
thinking skills and science knowledge possessed by
these high-school students also seem to be inadequate
for informed participation in the nation's civic affairs.
 6 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

Only 7 percent of the nation's 17-year-olds have the

prerequisite knowledge and skills thought to be need-
ed to perform well in college-level science courses.
Since high-school science proficiency is a good predic-
tor of whether or not a young person will elect to
pursue post-secondary studies in science, the proba-
bility that many more students will embark on future
careers in science is very low.

These NAEP findings are reinforced by results from the second interna-
tional science assessment, which revealed that students from the United
States particularly students completing high school are among the
lowest achievers of all participating countries.3

At grade 5, the U.S. ranked in the middle in science

achievement relative to 14 other participating coun-
tries.

At grade 9, U.S. students ranked next to last.

In the upper grades of secondary school, "advanced

science students" in the U.S. ranked last in Biology and
performed behind students from most countries in
Chemistry and Physics.

Given evidence from both the NAEP and international results that our
students' deficits increase across the grades, projections for the future do
not appear to be bright. The further students progress in school, the
greater the discrepancies in their performance relative both to students
in other countries and to expectations within this country. Because
elementary science instruction tends to be weak, many students
especially those in less affluent schools are inadequately prepared
for middle-school science. The failure they experience in middle school

'International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Science

Achievement in 17 Countries: A Preliminary Report (New York, NY: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1988).
9
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 7

may convince these young people that they are incapable of learning
science, thus contributing to the low enrollments observed in high-
school science courses. Unless conditions in the nation's schools
change radically, it is unlikely that today's 9- and 13-year-olds will
perform much better as the 17-year-olds of tomorrow.

The Status of Science Learning for

"At-Risk" Populations
Students do not all arrive at the kindergarten door with equal opportuni-
ties and aspirations. Social and economic realities have begun to have
an impact long before that time, and schooling does not serve to
eradicate these inequities.

The NAEP data show substantial disparities in science proficiency

between groups defined by race/ethnicity and gender.

Despite recent gains, the average proficiency of 13-

and 17-year-old Black and Hispanic students remains
at least four years behind that of their White peers.

Only about 15 percent of the Black and Hispanic 17-

year -olds assessed in 1986 demonstrated the ability to
analyze scientific procedures and data, compared to
nearly one-half of the White students at this age.

While average science proficiency for 9-year-old boys

and girls was approximately the same except in the
physical sciences a performance gap was evident at
age 13 and increased by age 17 in most science con-
tent areas. At age 17, roughly one-half of the males but
only one-third of the females demonstrated the ability
to analyze scientific procedures and data.

10
 8 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

The marked edge in the physical sciences shown by

boys at grade 3 increased at grades 7 and 11; by the
eleventh grade, the performance gap in physics was
extremely large.

The large difference in science performance by gender

cannot be explained by differential course-taking pat-
terns; in some cases, the proficiency gap between
high-school-aged males and females actually in-
creased with course-taking.

Since a higher proportion of Black and Hispanic children than White

children come from homes of lower socioeconomic status, disparities in
performance attributed to race/ethnicity may be due in large part to
differences in such factors as parents' education levels and access to
reading and reference materials in the home. In fact, recent research on
mathematics achievement shows that when other school and home
factors are controlled, students' socioeconomic status accounts for a
large part of the performance gap.4 Economically disadvantaged stu-
dents are likely to enter school at an educational disadvantage, because
they appear to be behind their peers and are therefore placed in reme-
dial classes. The consequence of this early tracking is that many of these
students are poorly prepared to pursue higher-level science and mathe-
matics coursework when they get to high school.'

In the case of performance disparities between male and female stu-

dents, there is growing evidence of differential treatment and opportuni-
ties in science instruction. Teachers have higher expectations for boys
than girls, and ask them higher-level questions.6 Textbooks may also

4 DOna Id Rock et al., Excellence in High School Education: Cross-Sectional Study, 1972 -
1980 (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1984).
'Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1985).

6Marsha Matyas and Jane Kahle, "Equitable Precollege Science and Mathematics: A
Discrepancy Model," paper presented at the Workshop on Underrepresentation and
Career Differentials of Women in Science and Engineering (Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences, 1986).
11
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 9

send the message that most of the notable accomplishments in science

are attributable to White males. Because there are still relatively few
female and minority scientists, students are unlikely to encounter them
as role models.

While one would expect in-school experiences to contribute to stu-

dents' participation and achievement in science, the NAEP data also
suggest that some of the factors underlying performance differences may
originate outside of the school. This appears to be particularly true for
the performance gap by gender. In the 1986 assessment, females were
substantially less likely than males to report science-related activities or
experiences.

While the NAEP data cannot tell us what causes these differences, there
is evidence from other sources that sex- and race-role stereotyping are
often major deterrents to the participation of female and minority
students in science and science-related activities.' For example, parents,
peers, the media, teachers, counselors, and curriculum materials may
give females and minority students the idea that only certain roles are
appropriate for them. Within- and out-of-school experiences appear to
reinforce one another in creating and perpetuating differences in
achievement.

Research on teaching and learning indicates some approaches that

appear promising for improving the participation of females and minori-
ties in science. For example, to counteract the aversion toward physical
science that girls seem to develop even before they enter school,
elementary science should include an abundance of hands-on activities
related to concepts in electricity, magnetism, and other areas, structured
so that girls play an active rather than a passive role. In addition,
appropriate role models should be provided through interactions with
both male and female scientists of various racial/ethnic backgrounds,

'Shirley Malcom, "Why Middle School Is Important to Science Equity Concerns," in

Developing Options for Managing the National Science Foundation's Middle School
Science Education Programs, ed. Iris Weiss (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute, 1986).

12
10 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

both in person and through textbooks, films, and other instructional

materials.

Teacher education, both pre-service and in-service, should make

teachers aware of the more subtle behaviors that communicate low
expectations to particular students, and give them assistance in imple-
menting instructional techniques that are effective with female and
minority students, as well as White males. Finally, alternative mecha-
nisms need to be developed to foster the skills that will prepare students
for academic sequences in high school rather than curtail their opportu-
nities.

Opportunity to Learn Science

Two distinct aspects of an opportunity to learn are the amount of time
spent on instruction and the quality of that time. The first is a necessary
but insufficient condition for the second; however, results from the 1986
NAEP science assessment suggest that neither condition of the opportu-
nity to learn science is afforded our nation's youth.

More than two-thirds of the third-grade teachers re-

sponding to NAEP's 1986 teacher questionnaire re-
ported spending 2 hours or less each week on science
instruction; many spent more than that amount of time
maintaining order and disciplining students in the
classroom.

Eleven percent of the third graders assessed in 1986

reported having no science instruction at the time of
the assessment; in addition, one-third of the elem6n-
tary students who were receiving instruction reported
spending no time on science homework.

All but 6 percent of the seventh graders reported

taking some type of science course in 1986, but enroll-
ment dropped substantially by grade 11. Only 58 per-
13
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 11

cent of the eleventh-grade students were taking a sci-

ence course at the time of the assessment.

Approximately half of the teachers in grades 7 and 11

reported spending three hours or less providing sci-
ence instruction each week.

Of the seventh- and eleventh-grade students taking a

science class in 1986, 12 to 16 percent reported
spending no time on science homework each week.

These findings are corroborated by recent literature in which teachers

reported spending only an average of 18 minutes per day on science at
grades K-3 and only about 29 minutes per day at grades 4-6. Across
these grades, the amount of time spent was greatest for reading, fol-
lowed by mathematics, then social studies and science a ranking
which had not changed since 1977.8 Thus, even for those students who
are enrolled in science classes, the amount of time actually spent on
science learning appears to be minimal.

In addition, very few students in this country take advanced science

courses. Preliminary results of a follow-up transcript study of eleventh-
grade students participating in the 1986 assessment indicate that while
90 percent of these graduating students had studied at least one year of
Biology, only 45 percent had studied one year or more of Chemistry,
and 20 percent that amount of Physics. Although these findings repre-
sent increases in science course-taking since 1982, enrollments gener-
ally remain low from an international perspective. Only about 6 percent
of all high-school students in this country take advanced courses in
Biology, compared with 45 percent of the students in Finland and 28
percent of the students in English-speaking Canada. Similarly, students
studying advanced Chemistry and Physics represent a very small
percentage of the total U.S. student population; by comparison, in other

81ris Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Educa-
tion (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1987).
12 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

countries these students represent as much as one-sixth to one-fourth of

the total student population.9

The Relationship Between Amount of Science

Instruction and Proficiency
A recent report issued by the National Academy of Science Committee
on Indicators of Precollege Science and Mathematics Education re-
viewed the research literature linking instructional time and student
learning; it concluded that at both the elementary- and secondary-
school level, the amount of time given to studying a subject is correlated
with student performance as measured by achievement tests. The report
also found that the amount of time spent on homework is correlated
with student achievement, and that teachers' attention to homework
affects its contribution to performance.'°

These conclusions are further reinforced by NAEP findings from the

1986 assessment, which suggest positive associations between science
proficiency and the amount of time spent in science learning (i.e.,
through course-taking and homework), particularly among eleventh-
grade students. It may be, however, that highly proficient students
choose to take more courses or select more challenging courses that
require more homework. Further, as previously noted, time spent in
science classes per se cannot guarantee the quality of that instructional
time. Although both common sense and empirical findings indicate that
more time spent in science instruction will improve science learning
thus supporting reforms that are targeted toward reducing absenteeism,
increasing science course-taking requirements, and assigning more
homework great care must be taken to also address the quality of that
instructional time.

9 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Science

Achievement in 17 Countries: A Preliminary Report (New York, NY: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1988).
'°Richard J. Murnane and Senta A. Raizen, eds., Improving Indicators of the Qualtiy of
Science and Mathematics Education in Grades K-12 (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1988).

15
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 13

Because educational reforms implemented in the 1980s cannot be

expected to have immediate impact and their full effects may not be
noticeable for some time, the slight progress evidenced in the NAEP
results may portend improvements for the future. It must be recognized,
however, that improvements in average performance seen in the 1986
assessment were largely the result of students' increased knowledge
about science rather than increased skills in scientific reasoning. This
finding, coupled with the disappointing state of science education,
suggests that current reforms tend to be aimed primarily at the symp-
toms rather than the disease." What has traditionally been taught in
science may be neither sufficient nor appropriate for the demands of the
future, necessitating reforms that go beyond increasing students' expo-
sure to science and that center on implementing new goals for improv-
ing curriculum and instruction.

Science Learning in the "Spirit of Science"

Embarking on fundamental reforms of science curriculum and instruc-
tion requires a reexamination of the conceptual underpinnings of
science education. Science educators have maintained that hands-on
and laboratory experiences should be an integral part of science instruc-
tion, explaining that it is appropriate for science teaching and learning
to parallel the methods of investigation used by scientists to understand
the natural world.12

Results from the 1986 science assessment do indicate a positive rela-

tionship between students' use of scientific equipment and their profi-
ciency in the subject, particularly at the eleventh-grade level, but cause-
and-effect relationships cannot be addressed by NAEP data. Schools
with laboratory facilities and other scientific equipment may be the
wealthier schools, populated by advantaged students who tend to
" Paul DeHart Hurd, "Perspectives for the Reform of Science Education," Phi Delta
Kappan (January 1986).

"Wayne Welch, "A Science-based Approach to Science Learning," in Research within

Reach: Science Education, eds. David Holdzkom and Pamela Lutz (Charleston, WV:
Appalachia Regional Laboratory, 1984).

16
14 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

perform better in academic assessments. Disciplined research is needed

to substantiate the impact of hands-on activities on science proficiency,
and the appropriate role of these activities in science instruction.

Findings from the NAEP assessment also suggest positive associations

between participatory classroom activities and science proficiency, and
between attitudes toward science and students' proficiency in the
subject. Again, while the NAEP data are suggestive, they by themselves
do not permit the conclusion that more participatory activities or efforts
to improve students' views of science will necessarily raise achievement
levels for any given student population. Decisions to strengthen science
education that may be suggested by the NAEP data must be firmly based
on relevant research and experience.

Given these caveats, some aspects of science practice can be used to

analyze the nation's science education program and reflect on NAEP
findings. What are the features of the scientific enterprise that our
science education system might emulate?

ACTIVITIES. Procedures of investigation such as observation, measure-

ment, experimentation, and communication allow the scientist to
gain an understanding of natural phenomena. In addition, mental
processes such as hypothesizing, using inductive and deductive reason-
ing, extrapolating, synthesizing, and evaluating information are neces-
sary to scientific investigation, as are the less well defined but no less
important skills of speculation, intuition, and insight. An effective
science learning system would provide students with opportunities to
engage in these activities, and encourage science teachers to model
them in their classrooms.

BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS. Scientists appear to operate in accordance

with a set of beliefs about the natural world that guide their methods of
inquiry and the knowledge yielded by these methods. For example,
scientists believe a real world exists that can be understood; they
assume that nature is not capricious and that events in nature have
causes.
17
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 15

Implementing the methods of scientific inquiry yields knowledge about

the natural world, contained in the form of facts, concepts, hypotheses,
theories, and laws. These structures are characterized in part by scien-
tists' beliefs, making it possible to communicate scientific knowledge,
give it logical coherence, offer explanations, and make predictions. Yet
another key aspect of the knowledge of science is its tentativeness:
Scientists view findings not as final statements but rather as reasonable
assertions about some distant, but seldom reached, truth.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENTISTS. Certain personality traits seem to charac-

terize successful scientists, and these may provide additional guidance
for determining the features of an effective science education pro-
gram.' 3 Among the salient traits of successful scientists are curiosity,
creativity, and dedication. Scientists ask questions about and are
sensitive to the world around them. The critical nature of the profession
requires a strong belief in one's ability to learn, and an ability to distin-
guish between productive and unproductive ideas. The joy of discovery
is a driving force in scientists' professional lives; they are hungry for
knowledge and recognition, and strive to achieve both.

Elements of the Model in Light of

NAEP Findings
The "spirit of science" model suggests that the most effective learners
are those who are actively engaged in the learning process and accept
responsibility for their own learning. In contrast, data from the 1986
NAEP science assessment indicate that by grade 11, almost half of the
students have decided not to take any more science courses, few spend
time on independent science-related hobbies or activities, and only
about half think that what is learned in science class is useful in every-
day life. This portrait is indeed far from the model.

"W.R. Klemm, ed., Discovery Processes in Modern Biology (Huntington, NY: Robert
Krieger Publishing Co, 1977).

18
16 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

The brief analysis of the scientific pursuit of learning also suggests the
value of providing students with greater opportunities for observing
natural phenomena both within and outside the classroom, and engag-
ing them in measuring, experimenting with, and communicating data
from the surrounding world. As active rather than passive participants in
the learning process, students can strengthen their full range of mental
processes, from formulating hypotheses, explaining observations, and
interpreting data to other thinking skills used by scientists in their efforts
to build understanding.

However, the NAEP data show:

Only about one-third of the seventh graders and

slightly more than half of the eleventh graders re-
ported that they were asked to hypothesize or inter-
pret data in their science class at least on a weekly
basis.

Only 35 percent of the seventh graders and 53 percent

of the eleventh graders reported working with other
students on science experiments at least on a weekly
basis.

Over half of the third graders and more than 80

percent of the seventh and eleventh graders reported
never going on field trips with their science class.

Sixty percent of the seventh graders and 41 percent of

the eleventh graders said they never had to write up
the results of science experiments.

Only about 46 percent of the teachers of seventh or

eleventh grade reported access to a general-purpose
laboratory and only 64 percent of the eleventh-grade
teachers reported access to a specialized laboratory
for use in teaching science.

19
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 17

A classroom environment that emulates the "spirit" of science is charac-

terized by collaboration between teachers and students to test knowl-
edge that is gained and a willingness to modify this knowledge in light
of new evidence. This setting encourages students to wonder about the
world around them and actively seek to understand it. It builds their
thirst for knowledge and strengthens their sense of responsibility to
learn. Teachers provide role models for students and stimulate their
curiosity. Yet numerous studies of the last few years for example, John
Good lad's A Place Called School have indicated that most teaching,
including science teaching, is instead dreadfully dull.'4

For the classroom to mirror the real-world practice of science, the

teacher should be an active model, spending less time lecturing and
more time engaging students in hands-on activities and asking open-
ended questions than do teachers in genera1.15 In contrast, students in
the 1986 NAEP science assessment reported few opportunities to
explore natural phenomena directly or engage in discussions about the
limited experiences that they did have. They revealed a preponderance
of class time spent listening to teachers' lectures; in addition, limited
information on school curriculum suggests that scientific content
appears to be largely textbook- and workbook-driven, reflecting little
or not at all the recent technological advances in the domain of
science.

Science Curriculum
To provide curriculum, instruction, and facilities appropriate to the
demands of science teaching and learning, it is clear that a number of
substantial changes are needed. The need for greater availability of
classroom laboratory facilities is undeniable. The 1985-86 Nationaf
Survey of Science and Mathematics Education found that while most

'4John Goodlad, A Place Called School (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984).
"Ronald J. Bonnstetter, John E. Penick, and Robert E. Yager, Teachers in Exemplary
Programs: How Do They Compare? (Washington, DC: National Science Teachers
Association, 1983).
20
18 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

teachers believed that laboratory classes were more effective than non-
laboratory classes, lectures were reported as their primary teaching
technique. However, this paradox may be partially explained by the fact
that a substantial percentage of teachers do not have access to adequate
laboratories, science equipment, supplies, and other resources needed
for teaching science.

Equally or perhaps even more crucial than greater access to laboratory

facilities are the more fundamental, but less obvious, changes associated
with teaching and curriculum. Cross-cultural studies shed some light on
the direction that is needed, revealing significant differences between
science curricula in this country and those in Japan, China, East and
West Germany, and the Soviet Union.16 In these five countries, science
content is more closely linked to the requirements of modern industrial
society, and the instructional approach is to teach an array of disciplines
over a period of years, maintaining continuity across the grades. In
comparison, the prevailing practice for public school students in the
United States is to take one science subject for one academic year and
then move to another discipline the following year sometimes
referred to as the "layer-cake curriculum."

Before sweeping changes in curriculum are adopted, research is needed

to establish the effects of the content, sequence, and amount of science
instruction on students' science learning. Because education is cumula-
tive, perhaps the best way to understand how curriculum and course-
taking affect student knowledge and competence in science is to
conduct longitudinal studies that follow students through at least one
year of science instruction. One difficulty in conducting this type of
research, beyond cost, is to describe in sufficient detail the content and
other attributes of the science curriculum actually presented to students,
beyond the course title and textbook used. By examining impdrtant
aspects of both the intended and implemented curriculum and
relating these "opportunity to learn" data to students' mathematics

16Margrete Klein and F. James Rutherford, eds., Science Education in Global Perspective:
Lessons from Five Countries (American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Selected Symposium Series, No. 100. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. 1985).
 SCIENCE LEARNING MATTERS 19

achievement the Second International Mathematics Study offers a

useful model for research in science learning."

Science Instruction
In the ideal science classroom, students would have abundant opportu-
nities to question data as well as experts, to design and conduct real
experiments, and to carry their thinking beyond the information given.
They would identify their own problems rather than always solving
problems presented by tests, teachers, or other authoritative sources.
Much of their problem-solving might also be in the form of practical
experience. Through these experiences, students would come to realize
that knowledge in science is tentative and human-made, that doing
science involves trial and error as well as systematic approaches to
problems, and that science is something they can do themselves. To
provide such instruction, teachers need to be prepared with a keen
understanding of the nature of science, rather than just its requisite facts.
Like their students, few teachers have had opportunities to conduct real
experiments under real conditions; therefore, as a starting point, teacher
education should provide opportunities for prospective science teachers
to work with students at a variety of grade levels and in a variety of
settings. The traditional one-semester methods course required of
prospective teachers should give way to two or three semesters of
coursework in this area, using video and audio tapes, intense feedback
from professionals, and methods instructors who model the types of
instruction desired.

At the same time, courses in the history, philosophy, sociology, and

applications of science should be required of pre-service science
teachers, enabling them to develop a rationale for teaching science that
integrates their goals for teaching science and what is known about
effective teaching practices, the nature of science, and the ways in

"Curtis C. McKnight et al., The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing U.S. School

Mathematics from an International Perspective (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.,
1987).

22
20 INTERPRETIVE OVERVIEW

which children learn as well as methods of evaluation that are

compatible with all of these. Teachers with such a rationale are
pared to be flexible and can integrate research into classroom practice.
These teachers approach teaching scientifically and provide models of
active inquiry for students. Perhaps teachers with such rationales would
rely less on textbooks and would find them more useful as reference
materials than as curriculum guides. As a result, students may come to
see that science class is a place where the role of student and teacher
alike is to raise questions and investigate possible answers and to
explore new techniques and methodologies.

Teachers with a new rationale for science instruction would not only be
competent and consistent, but also concerned with domains beyond
knowledge including the role of career choice, creativity, attitudes,
thinking, application, and communication in science instruction.
Students successful in these domains would more closely approach the
levels of science literacy called for by virtually all educators concerned
with the current state of science education.

Conclusion
Evidence from NAEP and other sources indicates that both the content
and structure of our school science curricula are generally incongruent
with the ideals of the scientific enterprise. By neglecting the kinds of
instructional activities that make purposeful connections between the
study and practice of science, we fail to help students understand the
true spirit of science, as described in these pages.

In limiting opportunities for true science learning, our nation is produc-

ing a generation of students who lack the intellectual skills necessary to
assess the validity of evidence or the logic of arguments, and who are
misinformed about the nature of scientific endeavors. The NAEP data
support a growing body of literature urging fundamental reforms in
science education reforms in which students learn to use the tools of
science to better understand the world that surrounds them.

2
 /

a :4. i i

00088 U118P10 249541 Printed in U.S.A.

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
ERIC

NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release

(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all
or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,
does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may
be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release
form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

(9/92)