James D. Ellis
Senior Staff Associate
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
The past decade has been an era of reform in science education. In the United States during the 1980s, various groups produced numerous reports denigrating the current state of education and calling for major reforms. Since 1985, educational leaders have initiated many projects to improve curriculum, instruction, and assessment in science (AAAS 1989; BSCS 1989; Bybee et al. 1990; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1990; NCISE 1991; U.S. Department of Education 1991; and NRC 1993).
Educational reform is not new. In the United States, the 1960s also was an era of reform. Past reforms, however, have failed to leave their mark on education. The changes were ephemeral at best. The central question in educational reform is, How is educational change made and sustained? This paper addresses that question as it concerns science education.
Current reform projects are redefining the why, who, what, and how of precollege education in science, technology, and mathematics. Those questions are discussed in the next sections.
The why is the motivating force behind the reform movement. Reports from business, industry, government, and the scientific and engineering communities have decried the failure of schools to educate the Nation's work force, which has contributed to the decline in economic growth (Carnegie Commission 1991; Hurd 1986; NCEE 1983; U.S. Department of Labor 1991; Education Commission of the States 1983). On recent international assessments, the U.S. compared poorly with other countries in student achievement in science and mathematics (Lapointe, Mead, and Phillips 1988; Mullis and Jenkins 1988). Other studies indicate that to be competitive today, business and industry require a work force with improved critical thinking skills and substantial knowledge in science, mathematics, and technology (defined both as knowledge about technology and use of advanced technologies) (OTA 1988). In response, the state governors and President Bush declared war on educational mediocrity, establishing the goal, "By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement" (U.S. Department of Education 1991).
The who of the current reform movement embodies a major shift from past reform efforts. The primary focus during 1960-80 was on expanding the pipeline for the production of scientists and engineers. This focus was in response to a perceived national crisis during the cold war to win the space race and to be the leader in military technology. Science education targeted those students who would pursue science and technology in postsecondary institutions. In contrast, the target of the current educational reform is science for all. Demographics suggest the necessity of expanding the target audience for education in science, technology, and mathematics to meet adequately the projected needs of business and industry to support continued economic growth (Vetter 1988). Recent reform efforts, consequently, emphasize traditionally underrepresented, underserved populations (women, minorities, and the physically disabled) to meet the need for general scientific literacy.
The what also is changing during the current reform. The current reform movement calls for systemic change–reform of all components of the educational system, including curriculum, instruction, assessment, educational technology, teacher education, school organization and administration, instructional support systems, and school culture. As has been said about altering biological systems, "You can't do just one thing" (Hardin 1968). A change in one component may lead to unplanned and undesirable changes in other components. Components (i.e., parents, administrators, and school culture) in a stable, dynamic system resist and reject changes to other components in the system (such as the curriculum). To reform the system, one must address all components of the system simultaneously.
The prevailing educational system is based on the industrial model common in the early 20th century. The teachers are the skilled workers dispensing knowledge, the administrators make and monitor the decisions about curriculum and instruction, and the students are the products. This industrial model is consistent with the view of learning as the acquisition of information. The major goal of an industrial system is to produce a product as efficiently and effectively as possible while resisting changes that challenge the extant system. In contrast, the emergent vision of education, developed initially in business and industry, is based on the metaphor of a learning community in which the students are the workers, the teachers are the facilitators of learning, the administrators are instructional leaders, and the product is the knowledge coconstructed by the learners (Fullan 1993; Marshall 1990). This learning community model is consistent with the view of learning as an active construction of personal and shared knowledge.
The issue of what to change, therefore, rests with the idea that the education system needs to be restructured to fit this new model of a learning community. The learning community, however, must incorporate all stakeholders, not just the students. Teachers as well as students need to become lifelong learners. That is what is meant by calls for the professionalization of teaching. Science teachers first should become expert learners of science; only in that way can they become mentors for students engaged in the activity of learning science. Science teachers second should be active, lifelong students of science teaching. That is what is meant by calls for teachers that are reflective practitioners. The problem of restructuring the educational system initially is how to break through the natural, long-standing impediments to change inherent in the hierarchical, industrial model and to build a new system that fosters a culture of continual change and growth within the structure of a supportive learning community.
A new approach to how to reform science, technology, and mathematics education is underway. Educational leaders recognize two factors as being critical to successful reform: (1) reform requires support, commitment, and participation of all stakeholders such as teachers, administrators, college faculty, parents, business and industry, and students; and (2) reform requires a long-term commitment of material and human resources. Successful reforms are not top-down quick fixes to problems nor are they bottom-up solutions to immediate needs; they are collaborative, local programs of long-term change. National standards, state guidelines, science curricula, educational research, and assessment programs provide road maps and tools for reforming education. Changes to school programs, however, are made by teachers in local classrooms to accommodate the unique mix of students, parents, and teachers.
Educational change takes time. A total rethinking, redesign, and reform of education may take decades. Indeed, educational leaders are beginning to realize that reform is a continuous process. The most productive focus for reform is on the process rather than the product, because the product is constantly changing in response to changes in society and no one static product meets the needs of a dynamic system. Enacting a culture embodying a continual process of change will allow the education system to be proactive and adaptive rather than reactive. Successful reform requires teachers, schools, states, and nations to accept the responsibility to continually assess, adapt, revise, and construct innovative approaches to science, mathematics, and technology education to serve the common good.
Successful reform is systemic; it simultaneously addresses all interdependent components of the educational system–the curriculum, teacher education, the instructional support system, and the school culture. Through analysis of past successes and failures and through study of the reform process and school cultures, educational researchers have uncovered key components of successful systemic reform efforts. Educational leaders can use this knowledge about the reform process to successfully implement changes in science and technology education. Successful educational reforms accomplish the following in concert:
Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are three major components of educational programs. The curriculum defines the course of study, including the goals and objectives, subject matter, and specific learning activities. Instruction –is what teachers dothe specific artful (and perhaps research-based) classroom interactions planned, initiated, and facilitated by the teacher to promote student learning. Assessment is the process by which students, teachers, administrators, and bureaucrats collect information about student learning and program effectiveness. Assessment provides the feedback loop in the educational system for maintaining and improving curriculum and instruction. In theory, these three major components of the school program mesh to achieve society's educational goals and aspirations. In practice, unfortunately, most current science curricula, instructional approaches, and assessment strategies are inadequate to achieve society's aspirations for a universal scientifically and technologically literate citizenry.
To successfully reform science and technology education, educational leaders must coordinate changes in the three major components of the educational program. Revisions to one component (such as changing the curriculum) are ineffective, and perhaps harmful, if concomitant changes are not made to the other components, and educational reformers should ensure that changes to the three components are based on a unifying, consistent philosophy of education. Effective curriculum developers produce materials that embody compatible recommendations for reform in curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Leaders seeking to improve the use of advanced technologies would improve success by coordinating the use of technology with general approaches to curriculum, instruction, and assessment embodied in the contemporary reform movement. Successful educational change agents (university science and education faculty and school administrators) design and conduct reform projects that coordinate improvements to all program components. Effective teachers develop an overriding philosophy that guides their approach to curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Curriculum. Teachers and curriculum developers organize curricula in a variety of ways. Most curricula center on a single science discipline with the emphasis placed on covering the book. This type of curriculum stresses covering the major facts and information of a scientific discipline. Current efforts at science education reform, however, recommend a science-technology-society (STS) theme, an integrated approach, or a thematic approach to organizing science curricula. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC 1993) organize science curricula around four major themes: (1) science subject matter, (2) inquiry, (3) connections to other disciplines, and (4) science and human affairs.
Most science curricula are based on conceptions of what is worth knowing in science developed during the 1960s and earlier. Current curriculum design studies (AAAS 1989; BSCS 1989; Bybee et al. 1990; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1990; NCISE 1991; NRC 1993) call for major changes in science subject matter. The slogans less is more and less breadth and more depth emphasize the need for students who have meaningful understanding of science concepts that can be applied in making decisions as citizens in a global society and in solving problems in an increasingly scientific and technologic work place.
In Science for All Americans (AAAS 1989), AAAS provides an indepth examination of content for precollege education in science, technology, and mathematics. The fundamental premise of AAAS is, "Schools do not need to be asked to teach more and more content, but rather to focus on what is essential to scientific literacy and to teach it more effectively." AAAS brought together leading scientists and science educators to delineate the core content for scientific literacy. The major departures of Science for All Americans from past declarations of appropriate science content are (1) the boundaries between traditional subject matter categories are softened and connections are emphasized, (2) the amount of detail that students are expected to retain is considerably less than in traditional science, mathematics, and technology courses, and (3) the recommendations include topics not typically included in school curricula, such as the nature and history of science and technology.
The NSES suggest several approaches to subject matter, including a thematic approach. In a thematic approach, the curriculum is based on major conceptual themes of science. The National Center for Improving Science Education (Bybee et al. 1990) lists the following major conceptual themes for science: (1) cause and effect, (2) change and conservation, (3) diversity and variation, (4) energy and matter, (5) evolution and equilibrium, and (6) models and theories. For example, a unit on equilibrium might look at dynamic equilibrium in systems, human body systems, and steady-state conditions. The units are designed to help students construct personal understandings of the themes. The activities may engage students in answering a question or solving a problem and often may transcend disciplinary boundaries.
Scientific inquiry will have a prominent place in the NSES. The NSES will propose the incorporation of several perspectives of scientific inquiry in school science programs: inquiry as subject matter, inquiry as learning, and inquiry as teaching. Currently, science teachers conceive and practice inquiry in school science as hands-on activities, experiments, or processes of science. These approaches represent progress in science education because they engage students in data-collection strategies; science teachers, however, are less successful in engaging students in the manipulation and analysis of data to develop explanations for the objects, events, and phenomena investigated.
The NSES will present an expanded notion of inquiry in school science programs. Basically, the view of scientific inquiry that will be presented in the NSES places more emphasis on the management of information and ideas than on the management of materials and equipment to develop skills. More than three decades ago, BSCS pioneered the concept of inquiry-oriented curriculum and instruction in biology. Even though inquiry teaching (as described by the NSES curriculum committee) is not evident in most science programs, for the past 35 years BSCS materials consistently have expanded the vision of what inquiry means for subject matter, teaching, and learning. The expanded notion of inquiry, even though it may seem evident and small, will require educators to modify approaches to science teaching.
The NSES recommends that science curricula include connections with other subject areas. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) developed standards (NCTM 1989) that parallel the reform of science education, including using technology, using relevant applications, and having instruction foster active student involvement. Several reports (Bybee et al. 1990; NCTM 1989; Minnesota Mathematics and Science Teaching Project 1973; AAAS 1989) discuss the need to integrate science and mathematics. Other reports (Bybee et al. 1992) recommend integrating science with social studies. When using a problem-centered approach to studying science, other disciplines become an integral part of the study. For instance, the work done at Vanderbilt University on the Jasper series (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt 1990) is an excellent example of how science, mathematics, and technology are integrated. To solve the overall problem posed on a Jasper optical disk, students must have information and solve mathematics, science, and technology subproblems.
Since the early 1980s, the science-technology-society (STS) theme has emerged as an important part of the contemporary reform of science education (Bybee et al. 1992; Bybee 1986; Harms and Yager 1981; Hurd 1986; Roy 1985; Rubba 1987). The NSES recommendations express this concern by calling for connecting science with human affairs. Such an orientation means the development of curriculum and instruction for the following needs:
Instruction. The change toward approaches to instruction reflecting constructivist views about learning is closely linked with the reform of curriculum standards. Up to now, the design of schooling typically reflected a metaphor of an industrial assembly line. The administrators were managers, the teachers were the workers, and the students were the product. You might imagine students rolling down an assembly line with teachers opening up the heads and pouring in the content and skills. In contrast, constructivist views of learning place the emphasis on the student as worker and teacher as manager/facilitator (like a manager in the information industry). The student is the one who does the learning. Constructivists find it unproductive to think of students as black boxes for which instructional inputs lead to predictable outcomes (performance on achievement tests). Constructivists are interested in what goes on in the student's mind. The emphasis is placed on helping the student construct meaning from educational experiences.
Constructivist learning theory suggests that students learn best when they are allowed to construct their understanding of concepts. We base the phrase constructing their understanding on a description listed in figure 1 from the American Psychological Association (1992, 1-6).
Use of a constructivist approach ensures that children are active in the learning process. In most textbook programs, students are passive learners. They acquire information by reading about science or by participating in experiences for which the answers are given on the next page of the book. Such learning is meaningless because it does not relate to what students have observed, or experienced, or otherwise already know or have judged to be true.
Meaningful learning does take time. If students are truly to understand the world, they cannot simply read, memorize, and recite isolated bits of information and vocabulary words. They must take time to wrestle with new ideas, to discuss their ideas with their classmates and teacher, to collect data and use that data to draw conclusions, and finally to relate what they are learning to the world around them.
Figure 1. Guidelines for learner-centered instruction
Science learning is a communal activity. Students learn science through comparing data from investigations of natural phenomena, comparing results and conclusions, negotiating among themselves meaning of personal explanations, and eventually comparing personal explanations with scientific "textbook" explanations. Teachers should establish a science culture in their classrooms where students internalize the values and norms of science, such as withholding judgment, basing conclusions on data, and respecting others' ideas.
Assessment. All too often efforts to improve science teaching exclude one of the driving forces for science programs–assessment. The national reform effort recognizes that assessment is a critical component of science education reform (AAAS 1989; Raizen et al. 1990; Pelavin Associates 1991; Malcom and Kulm 1991; Lawrenz 1991). Most current assessment tools, however, are designed to measure the educational outcomes of the past, not those of the current reform movement. Leaders in education are concerned that current standardized tests used to assess student and program outcomes are inadequate measures of the most important outcomes of an effective science program. Science education reform currently emphasizes the learning of major conceptual themes rather than factual information. Because nearly all current assessment instruments primarily use multiple choice, true-false, and matching questions, these instruments most effectively measure the lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension, application). Assessment instruments that address the outcomes of higher levels of thinking, understandings of major conceptual themes, and the ability to apply science understandings and approaches to solving real-world problems unfortunately are not very common.
Authentic assessment is the phrase used by those in the forefront of redesigning assessment strategies. According to Frances Lawrenz (1991), authentic assessment involves maximizing the congruence between the desired outcomes of the program and the assessment procedures. Lawrenz suggests that in addition to multiple choice tests, authentic assessment procedures include (1) essay tests, (2) practical assessment, (3) portfolios, (4) observations and interviews, (5) dynamic assessment, and (6) projects.
Parents, taxpayers, and bureaucrats rightfully demand accountability for investments in educational improvement; they want simple, understandable indicators of educational achievement. The current "crisis" in education has been fueled by indicators of poor performance on national and international assessments of educational achievement. Taxpayers and elected officials, therefore, expect educational reforms to directly relate to improved performance on assessments.
The challenge to educational leaders is to produce assessment instruments and procedures compatible with contemporary reforms in curriculum and instruction and that taxpayers will accept as valid indicators of achievement. If we continue to assess the effects of reforms in science and mathematics with instruments and procedures that are designed as valid measures of outdated goals, then we are in danger of promoting public misperception (and lack of support) of the success of the reform effort.
As part of the new guiding metaphor of the education system as a learning community, teachers are viewed as professionals who engage in continuous decision making about how and when to intervene to facilitate student learning. Previous views of teacher education focused on training teachers to perform generic, isolated skills and behaviors (i.e., questioning skills, wait time, direct instruction). Contemporary views of teacher education take a constructivist approach to the development of content-specific knowledge and strategies. The focus is on development rather than training, because the belief is that teaching is an activity in which teachers make specific decisions about what action to take in response to a unique learning situation; it is ineffective for teachers to be trained to respond to a limited set of situations, but teachers can develop the knowledge base to analyze a particular learning situation and to chose from a repertoire of strategies to promote student learning.
Knowledge bases. Teachers regularly make decisions about what and how to teachas often as one decision every two seconds. In making these decisions teachers draw upon a variety of knowledge bases. Figure 2 lists the most important knowledge bases for teaching.
Constructivist approach. The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) believes that a constructivist approach to learning is appropriate not only for elementary students but for their teachers as well. Teacher development rather than teacher training is the appropriate focus of teacher education. We would like the teachers to become reflective practitioners (Clift, Houston, and Pugach 1990; Cruickshank 1990; Grimmett and Erickson 1988; Mohr and MacLean 1987; Schon 1991) who are empowered to study and implement improvements to their instructional practice (content and pedagogy). Professional development programs might use the strategies listed in figure 3 to promote reflective teaching.
For changes in teaching to occur, teachers must learn about and experiment with the new pedagogy, such as a constructivist approach to learning, cooperative learning, and advanced educational technology (Joyce and Showers 1988; Little 1982). Teachers also need to improve their pedagogical content knowledge, that is, how to interpret science content for students (Shulman 1986). Furthermore, because new approaches to teaching and learning rarely occur without the active leadership of district-level administrators and principals, educational leaders should employ a comprehensive approach to staff development that includes not only the development of teachers but also the development of leaders for change.
The professional development program. The professional development of teachers should be a career-long, seamless program with the foundation established in undergraduate liberal arts courses and subject-matter courses interconnected with education courses, applied and elaborated in extensive field-based classroom work, extended through a multi-year internship with mentoring from master teachers, and sustained throughout the teaching career in continual professional growth, culminating for some in programs to prepare master teachers. Schools and universities are collaborating to achieve this vision through what are called professional development schools, where university faculty and school teachers work together to improve teaching, not only of the prospective teachers but also of the teaching staff in the participating schools. The thought is, if first immersed in a school culture where the university faculty and school teachers collaborate on equal footing to study and construct effective educational approaches, prospective teachers will internalize a habit of mind and behavior that will enable them to continue their lifelong pursuit of excellence in teaching.
Figure 2. Knowledge base for teaching
Subject-matter content. The standard for knowledge of subject-matter content traditionally has been that science teachers will complete approximately the same undergraduate courses as science majors. Educational reformers criticize that courses for science majors who are preparing for graduate work in science are not appropriate for teachers who have the task of interpreting science knowledge for students. Beyond the typical science major, science teachers need greater understanding of (1) the history and nature of science and technology, (2) a variety of science and technology disciplines, (3) content specific to the curriculum taught in precollege science and technology, and (4) applications of science and technology to everyday life.
Learning theory. Effective teachers construct their own understanding of how students learn science. They call upon formal theories of learning (i.e., behaviorists and constructivists) and selectively employ instructional techniques based on a personal interpretation of contrasting theories. Effective teachers mediate their interpretation of learning theories with wisdom derived from teaching practice. They understand how students learn and the capabilities and limitations of their students.
Curriculum. Effective teachers have a diverse and deep knowledge of curricula. They have at their fingertips a wide range of effective learning activities from a variety of sources. They can compare and contrast different approaches to curriculum organization (thematic, topical, concepts). They can compare and contrast different philosophies to teaching and learning embodied in different curricula.
Pedagogy. Effective teachers know and can perform a wide range of instructional techniques, including advanced educational technology. They are knowledgeable of and can apply findings from research on teaching (such as questioning skills, wait time, direct teaching, inquiry, and instructional models). They can select the appropriate instructional technique for the particular learning situation (i.e., constructivist approaches to promote conceptual learning).
Pedagogical-content knowledge. Recently, educational researchers have constructed a new term for a critical knowledge base of effective teachers. Shulman (1986) noted that effective teachers apply specific instructional techniques to help students learn particular science content. The expert teacher is aware of typical misconceptions that students might have developed from prior experiences and know activities and explanations that encourage students to improve their understandings.
Figure 3. Types of reflective practice
Reflection on learning: teachers use interviews of students, concept mapping, reflective note taking, analysis of case studies, and small group discussions to reflect on their own learning and students' learning.
Reflection on self: teachers keep a journal, write a personal biography, and develop a metaphor for their own teaching style.
Reflection on action: teachers conduct case study research in their own classrooms and use microteaching, videotapes of their own lessons, observations of expert teachers, study groups, peer coaching, and mentoring.
Reflection on program improvement: teachers interpret results from interviews of students, parents, and other teachers, innovation configuration checklists, and student outcome data.
How does one help science teachers develop? First, science teachers need to have a thorough understanding of the nature of science–the activity of science, the culture of science, the process of science, and the product of science. Science teachers also need to learn how to learn science well and to construct an indepth understanding of the science they are to teach, not just a broad overview of topics and a collection of specific facts. Science content courses for teachers, therefore, need radical revision to emphasize what is most worth knowing in science for a science teacher, to model effective approaches to teaching and learning science, and to engage teachers in doing science.
Second, science teachers need to develop understandings of how to facilitate science learning by children and young adults. Science education courses need to provide concrete cases of how students learn science and ways to help students understand specific scientific concepts. Teacher development programs need to help teachers acquire instructional strategies and become familiar with a diversity of science programs, materials, and learning activities. Science teachers need to see science classrooms where the culture promotes science learning, embodied in the notion of a learning community (Marshall 1990). Finally, science teachers need continued education and mentoring throughout their career to provide new ideas, guidance, encouragement, and support in the pursuit of continuous improvement in their profession.
BSCS, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), is applying these ideas for professional development in a large-scale teacher development projectthe Colorado Science Teacher Enhancement Program (CO-STEP). In CO-STEP, BSCS is establishing six teacher development centers in Colorado. Each center has the responsibility to provide long-term development and support for science teachers in the upper elementary grades. Each teacher commits 3 years to the professional development program, culminating in the opportunity to receive a master's degree in Elementary Science Education. These resulting master teachers design and implement a change project to help fellow teachers improve the elementary science program in their schools.
One of the most difficult problems facing teacher educators today is how to present the emerging vision of effective science teaching and learning. Teachers are hard pressed to find concrete models of the current vision for effective science teaching and learning. Because the vision is in the process of emerging, only a few science classrooms can be found to use as models. In response to this need, BSCS, with support from NSF, recently started a project to develop video cases of teaching that model the new approaches to science teaching and learning embodied in the emerging vision. The resulting product will be teacher development modules, supported by video on laser disk of science classrooms, focusing on effective approaches to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and equitable teaching.
Factors related to educational change. Educational change is a long and complex process that often begins with the decision to adopt a new curriculum or approach to teaching. The decision to change is only the beginning; Hord and Huling-Austin (1986) found that it takes 3 or more years for teachers to make a substantial change in teaching.
Change requires the personal commitment of the teachers. Consequently, a number of researchers (Beall and Harty 1984; Berman and McLaughlin 1977; Fullan 1982; Rogers 1983; Bandura 1977; Smith 1987; Fullan, Miles, and Anderson 1988; Rogers and Shoemaker 1971; Doyle and Ponder 1977) have studied factors related to a teacher's predisposition for change (figure 4).
In addition to the factors influencing a predisposition to change, researchers (Fullan, Miles, and Anderson 1988; Ellis 1989; Ellis and Kuerbis 1987; Kuerbis and Loucks-Horsley 1989; Edmonds 1979; Kelley 1980; Leithwood and Montgomery 1981; Brickell 1963; Emrick and Peterson 1978; Fullan 1982; Loucks and Zacchei 1983; Meister 1984; Sarason 1971; Becker 1986; Yinn and White 1984; Goor, Mehmed, and Farris 1982; Gray 1984; Grady 1983; White and Rampy 1983; Watt and Watt 1986; Winkler and Stasz 1985) also have identified factors that influence successful change (see figure 5).
Figure 4. Factors related to predisposition to change
Self efficacy. The teacher must have confidence that he or she can successfully implement the new materials and teaching practices.
Efficacy of change. The teacher must believe that the change will improve teaching, ease some teaching tasks, and improve student learning.
Practicality ethic. The teacher must believe that the costs of changing his or her teaching behaviors and materials ultimately will be less than the benefits gained from changing.
School culture. The teacher must perceive that the change is simple to master and implement, that he or she can experiment on a limited basis in a low-risk environment, and that he or she will receive positive feedback from others for changing.
Curriculum fit. The teacher must believe that the change will become part of the established curriculum and that it is not a fad.
Figure 5. Factors influencing successful change
Related to Development and Consultation Support
Related to School District Support
BSCS has investigated the factors related to successful change. During the past 8 years, with support from NSF, the BSCS ENLIST Micros program (Ellis 1989) has evolved through feedback from field testing the professional development strategies in 18 school districts with more than 300 teachers and through continually updating the program by applying research findings from other studies. Several studies (Wu 1987; Stecher and Solorzano 1987; Smith 1987; BSCS 1989; Stasz and Shavelson 1985) have confirmed the factors listed in figure 6, which are employed in the ENLIST Micros program, as characteristics of successful professional development programs.
Figure 6. Characteristics of successful programs
Teachers need followup in the classroom (coaching) to change their teaching behaviors. Several researchers point out that peer coaching is a cost-effective way to improve teacher training (Leggett and Hoyle 1987; Joyce and Showers 1987; Showers 1985; Munro and Elliott 1987; Brandt 1987; Neubert and Bratton 1987). Garmston (1987) points out that collegial coaching refines teaching practices, deepens collegiality, increases professional dialog, and helps teachers think more deeply about their work. The coaching should be conducted by pairs of teachers; focus on the priority set by the observed teacher; gather data about the teaching strategy, student behaviors and outcomes, and teacher behavior; and help analyze and interpret the data from the observation. It is important that the teachers practice the new strategies in a series of several followup sessions. Showers (1985) and Leggett and Hoyle (1987) recommend these followup activities that fellow teachers might provide on a weekly basis: observing the teacher practice the behavior in the classroom, followed by a postobservation conference; providing support and encouragement; assisting in planning future lessons; organizing sharing sessions for the teachers to discuss successful and unsuccessful lessons; and helping with the location and production of materials.
Effective reform efforts recognize that the whole educational support system must be designed to support the reforms in curriculum and instruction made by the teachers. All educators who are involved in schooling must participate in generating and supporting the reforms; in that way, they become active members of the educational community with the commitment and responsibility for enacting the reforms. Master teachers are effective as educational leaders in individual buildings to encourage and provide technical assistance to other teachers who are implementing the reforms. In addition, principals, district-level administrators, and science education faculty should understand, guide the construction of a shared vision of, and be supportive of the new curriculum, approaches to pedagogy, and effective strategies for fostering change (Fullan, Bennett, and Rolheiser-Bennett, in press).
The educational support system must be responsive to the challenges of educational change. For any innovation to become integral to a school's instructional program, the school personnel must complete the cycle of change: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization. Each phase is critical to the long-term success of any new program initiative because what happens during one phase influences what happens during subsequent phases. More important, successful change efforts include a plan for the activities of all three phases from the outset.
Initiation. Initiation establishes the impetus for change. The events that occur during initiation have a profound effect on the eventual outcomes of the innovation. During the initiation phase, schools establish a leadership team (including external consultants, the principal, a district administrator, master teachers, and parents) to envision, guide, and support change. The leadership team begins by establishing a culture promotive of change where teachers are encouraged to try out new ideas. Over time, a shared vision of the desired change gradually emerges, and the leadership team delineates its philosophy and features. Once the desired change has been identified, a few master teachers might pilot test the innovation. As a result of the pilot test, the district staff (teachers and administrators) collectively would decide whether or not to adopt part or all of the components of the innovation throughout the school system, and the leadership team would design a plan for supporting the implementation of the proposed change.
Marshalling a broad base of support for the innovation is the critical task of the leadership team during initiation. The school improvement program will have a long-term impact on teaching only if district administrators, master teachers, and principals are central to the planning of the implementation of the innovation from the outset (Berman and McLaughlin 1977; Fullan and Stiegelbauer 1991). During this phase, the leadership team asks questions: How can we build a shared vision? How does this proposed change help us achieve our goals? How can we design and establish a comprehensive program for professional development? How can we establish a school culture fostering continual change? What are our long-range plans for change? How can we ensure that the changes become lasting?
Implementation. Implementation, the phase in which teachers begin to use the new approaches to curriculum and instruction, requires at least 3 to 5 years, during which time the leaders for change take many actions to support teachers. If these actions are not part of a strategic plan for supporting change, the innovations probably will not become integral to a school's instructional program. Essential to this plan are activities for professional development, consultation, support, and monitoring of the program's implementation. These activities should be performed by all members of the district implementation team, composed of the principal, a district administrator, master teachers, and the external consultants. The school-based team (principal and master teachers) provides the ongoing and daily support that teachers need to change. For example, the principal ensures that teachers have the materials they need (i.e., supplies, equipment, and software) and consults with teachers about the program, while the master teachers help their colleagues reflect on teaching and learning, plan instruction, and solve problems. The consultants external to the school–the district administrators and university faculty–provide comprehensive professional development emphasizing the latest trends in science education, appropriate uses of educational technology, and strategies for school change.
Institutionalization. The most significant failure of past attempts at educational reform has been the lack of attention to the institutionalization of the changes. The reform is not complete until the changes are no longer seen as innovations, but are accepted as a routine part of schooling. For institutionalization to occur, the members of the leadership team must consider how they will ensure that changes are widespread. Institutionalization requires no less effort on the part of the leadership team than initiation or implementation, but the activities are qualitatively different. During this final phase of implementation, teachers need support to integrate the reforms into other areas. Furthermore, plans for staff development must include strategies to educate new teachers and to enhance the skills of teachers who have begun using the innovation.
School culture perhaps is the most neglected component of reform. Far too often, educational researchers and reform leaders simplify the process of educational change by identifying a formula for successful reform (Fullan and Miles 1992). They list caveats of successful educational change efforts. These caveats are useful and often are derived from research and the wisdom of practice. Adhering to such narrow admonitions, however, focuses attention away from the bigger picture of educational change. No matter how successful and effective the teacher training program, it is unlikely that the reform will be fully implemented or institutionalized if the school culture is not supportive of the specific reform and of change in general.
Successful schools establish a culture fostering educational reform. They engage teachers, parents, administrators, and students in constructing the vision of the reform. They share the decision-making authority among all stakeholders (parents, students, teachers, administrators). They recognize that even though the specifics of the reform may be delineated at the national, state, and local levels, change is done by teachers in their classrooms.
School culture that is supportive of reform recognizes that systemic change is a group process in which individuals together learn new ways of educating. Change is stressful, challenging, and ultimately rewarding. Teachers need to be encouraged and supported in taking risks; trying out a new approach to teaching the first time may lead to failure, but learning new ways to teach can occur only in a culture that accepts failure as a natural part of learning.
It takes a long time (several years) for reform to progress through the stages of initiation, implementation, and institutionalization. Change does not take place when President Bush pronounces that U.S. students will be number one in the world in science and mathematics by the year 2000. It takes place when teachers negotiate the process of change, learning new approaches to education. Change is a continuous process. Successful educational leaders understand that change is a process of building consensus for a common vision of what good teaching and learning look like. It is useful to think of educational change as a journey rather than an engineering task (Fullan and Miles 1992). Engineers use blueprints to establish detailed specifications for the final product, while journeys follow road maps that have multiple paths to the destination. Throughout the change process, the new ideas about teaching and learning grow and evolve within the unique school culture.
Schools must accept that change consumes resources. Change demands a great deal of time from all school personnel; change also requires a large investment of material resources. A nation seeking to reform schools must be prepared to dedicate a large portion of available resources over a period of several years to institutionalize successfully the new approaches to curriculum and instruction.
The conclusion I reach is that to foster reform in science education the Nation must 1) make a coordinated effort at reforming all aspects of the education system and 2) respect and encourage all stakeholders in actively making the changes. NSF has put into place many pieces that together could achieve a coordinated effort of systemic reform–the State Systemic Initiative and the Urban School Initiatives, the National Clearinghouse for Science Education, and the hundreds of teacher enhancement, teacher preparation, curriculum development, and research projects. Should these projects construct a common vision and a coordinated plan of action, these efforts have the promise of making great strides toward putting the rhetoric (Science for All Americans and the National Science Education Standards) into practice.
The key to reform is to understand and to respect the roles and responsibilities of all of the stakeholders. Scientists and science educators, "the experts," are fond of producing sweeping policy statements and curriculum programs that capture their vision for what ought to be. Educational change, however, takes place in individual classrooms by individual teachers responding to their unique situation of students, parents, community, and school. In successful reforms, teachers construct their own vision and adapt the ideas provided by the "experts." Perhaps the role of the experts ought to be to collaborate with the teachers in the schools in constructing a shared vision and in making local decisions about curriculum, instruction, and assessment, rather than to proscribe an elegant formula, which if teachers would just follow, would lead to improved science education.
The slogan from environmentalists to think globally, act locally applies equally well to reform in science education. It is vitally important to construct a clear, shared vision of needed reforms in the system of science education in response to changes in the global society and economy. To be responsive to our rapidly changing society, however, we need local educational systems that foster a culture of continuous change.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beall, D., and Harty, H. (1984). The effects of computer use in science and mathematics education upon the computer literacy of preservice elementary science and mathematics classes. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 3, 34-38.
Becker, H.J. (1986). Instructional uses of school computers: Reports from the 1985 national survey. Issue no. 3. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M.W. (1977). A model of educational change: Rand change agent study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Berryman, S.E. (1983). Who will do science? Special Report of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). (1989). New designs for elementary school science and health. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Brandt, R. (1987). On teachers coaching teachers: A conversation with Bruce Joyce. Educational Leadership, 12-17.
Brickell, H.M. (1963). State organization for educational means. In Media and educational innovation: A symposium on identifying techniques and principles for gaining acceptance of research results on use of newer media in education. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., and Williams, S.M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix and R. Spiro (eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bybee, R.W., Ellis, J.D., Giese, J.R., Parisi, L.S., and Singleton, L.R. (1992). Teaching about the history and nature of science and technology: a curriculum framework. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Bybee, R.W., Buchwald, C.E., Crissman, S., Heil, D.R., Kuerbis, P.J., Matsumoto, C., and McInerney, J. (1990). Science and technology education for the middle years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: National Center for Improving Science Education.
Bybee, R.W. (1986). The Sisyphean question in science education: What should the scientifically and technologically literate person know, value, and do–As a citizen? In R.W. Bybee (ed.), Science-Technology-Society 1985 NSTA Yearbook. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. (1991). In the national interest: The federal government in the reform of K-12 math and science education. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Clift, R.T., Houston, W.R., and Pugach, M.C.. (1990). Encouraging reflective practice in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 2-10.
Cruickshank, D.R. (1990). Reflective teaching: The preparation of students of teaching. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Doyle, W., and Ponder, G.A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
Education Commission of the States (1983). Action for excellence: A comprehensive plan to improve our nation's schools. Denver, CO: Task Force for Economic Growth, Education Commission of the States.
Ellis, J.D. (1989). An evaluation of a project for preparing science teachers to use microcomputers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 9(1), 51-64.
Ellis, J.D., and Kuerbis, P.J. (1987). Encourage the literacy of science teachers in the use of microcomputers (ENLIST Micros). Final report to the National Science Foundation. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Emrick, J., and Peterson, S. (1978). A synthesis of findings across five recent studies in education dissemination and change. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New York: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M.G., and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M.G., and Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 745-752 .
Fullan, M.G., Bennett, B., and Rolheiser-Bennett. (in press). Linking classrooms and school improvement. Educational Leadership.
Fullan, M.G., Miles, M.B., and Anderson, S.E. (1988). Strategies for implementing microcomputers in schools: The Ontario case. Ontario, Canada: The Ministry of Education.
Garmston, R. J. (1987). How administrators support peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 44(5), 18-26.
Goor, J., Mehmed, A., and Farris, E. (1982). Student uses of computers in schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Grady, M.T. (1983). Long-range planning for computer use. Educational Leadership, 40(8), 16-19.
Gray, P.J. (1984). Policy analysis: A tool for setting district computer use policy. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.
Grimmett, P.P., and Erickson, G.L. (1988). Reflection in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hall, G.E., and Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ham, S., and Sewing, D. (1988). Barriers to environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 19(2), 17-24.
Ham, S., Rellergert-Taylor, M., and Krumpe, E. (1988). Reducing barriers to environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 19(2), 25-33.
Hardin, G. (1968). Human ecology: Subversive and conservative. American Zoology, 25, 469-476.
Harms, N.C., and Yager, R.E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Hopkins, D. A. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hord, S.M., and Huling-Austin, L. (1986). Effective curriculum implementation: Some promising new insights. The Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 97-115.
Huling, L., and Johnson, W. (1983). A strategy for helping teachers integrate research into teaching. The Teacher Educator, 19(02), 11-18.
Hurd, P.D. (1986). Perspectives for the reform of science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(5), 353-358 January.
Joyce, B., and Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.
Joyce, B., and Showers, B. (1987). Low-cost arrangements for peer coaching. Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 22-24.
Kelley, E. (1980). Improving school climate. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kuerbis, P.J., and Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). The promise of staff development for technology and education. In J. Ellis (ed.), 1988 AETS Yearbook: Information Technology and Science Education. ERIC SMEAC at The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.
Lapointe, A.E., Mead, N.A., and Phillips, G.W. (1988). A world of differences: An international assessment of mathematics and science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Lawrenz, F. (1991) Authentic assessment. In NARST Research Matters –o the Science Teacher. No. 26.
Leggett, D., and Hoyle, S. (1987). Peer coaching: One district's experience in using teachers as staff developers. Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 16-20.
Leithwood, K.A., and Montgomery, D.J. (1981). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309-339.
Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
Loucks, S.F., and Zacchei, D.H. (1983). Applying our findings to today's innovations. Educational Leadership, 41, 28-31.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C.K., Arbuckle, M.A., Murray, L.B., Dubea, C., and Williams, M.K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA: The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Kapitan, R., Carlson, M.D., Kuerbis, P.J., Clark, R.C., Melle, G.M., Sachse, T.P., and Walton, E. (1990). Elementary School Science for the '90s. ASCD.
Malcom, S.M., and Kulm, G. (eds.). (1991). Science assessment in the service of reform. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Marshall, H.H. (1990). Beyond the workplace metaphor: The classroom as a learning setting. Theory into Practice, 29(2), 94-101.
Meister, G. (1984). Successful integration of microcomputers in an elementary school (Report No. 84-A13). Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
Minnesota Mathematics and Science Teaching Project. (1973). A final report to the National Science Foundation on fifteen years of effort in development of a coordinated mathematics/science curriculum.
Mohr, M.M., and MacLean, M.S.(1987). Working together: A guide for teacher-researchers. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Mullis, I.V.S., and Jenkins, L.B. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Munro, P., and Elliott, J. (1987). Instructional growth through
peer coaching. Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 25-28.
National Center for Improving Science Education (NCISE). (1991).
The high stakes of high school science. Washington, DC: NCISE 1991.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
National Research Council (NRC). (1993). National science education standards: An enhanced sampler. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
National Science Board Commission of Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Neubert, G., and Bratton, E. (1987). Team coaching: Staff development side by side. Educational Leadership, 29-32.
Pelavin Associates, Inc. (1991). Statewide testing programs. Paper presented to the Secretary's [U.S. Department of Education] Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.
Raizen, S.A., Baron, J.B., Champagne, A.B., Haertel, E., Mullis, I.V.S., and Oaks, J. (1990). Assessment in science education: The middle years. Andover, MA: The National Center for Improving Science Education (NCISE).
Rogers, E.M., and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Roy, R. (1985). The science/technology/society connection. Curriculum Review, 24 (3).
Rubba, P. (1987). Perspectives on science-technology-society instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 87 (3).
Sarason, S.B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Schon, D.A. (1991). The reflective turn. New York: Teachers College Press.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 201-206.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Smith, B. (1987). Factors that influence teacher microcomputer implementation proneness in middle/junior high school science curricula (Doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana).
Stasz, C., and Shavelson, R.J. (1985). Staff development for instructional uses of microcomputers. AEDS Journal, 19(1), 1-19.
Stecher, B.M., and Solorzano, R. (1987). Characteristics of effective computer in-service programs. Pasadena, CA: Educational Testing Service.
Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. (1983). Action for excellence. Denver, CO: Education Commision of the States.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1988). Technology and the American economic transition: Choices for the future (OTA-TET-283). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor. The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vetter, B.M. (1988). Look who's coming to school: Changing demographics–implications for science education. In Curriculum and development for the year 2000. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Watt, M., and Watt, D. (1986). Making a difference with computers: Successfully integrating computer tools in the school curriculum. SIG Bulletin, 21-23.
White, D., and Rampy, L. (1983). Delphi study on policy issues in the introduction and management of computers in the classroom. Research report 90. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology.
Winkler, J.D., and Stasz, C. (1985). A survey of incentives for staff development of computer based instruction. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Wu, P.C. (1987). Teachers as staff developers: Research, opinions, and cautions. The Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 4-6.
Yinn, R.K., and White, J.L. (1984). Microcomputer implementation in schools. Washington, DC: COSMOS Corp.