edtted by GRACEFISHERMCGUFFIE Northwestern Hlgh School Hyatffivrlle Maryland 20782
curriculum report A Report on "Science Teaching and Society"
colleges expect. We know what the ACS-NSTA test requires. We know what the Chem. Achievement and Regents' tests
Barbara B. Lewis Champlain Valley Union H.S. Hinesburg. VT 05461 As We Came
Attendance a t a conference a t Phillips Exeter Academy June 15-22, 1980 was such a meaningful experience for me that 1have asked to present this report to you to try to communicate the importance of the conference's conclusions and proposals. The title of the Exeter conference was "Science Teaching and Society." Forty high school teachers were invited from all over the country. The method of selection of teachers remains a mystery to me, but the leaders built up our egos by saying that we came highly recommended. Our task was to assess the current science curricula and sueaest e -- ~. o s s i h l new directions. We were all aware of the historv of the Dresent science velopment of these curricula was heavily government funded as were many NSF summer institutes to train teachers to use them. My school tried CBA and CHEMS in 1968 and we are still using about half of the original CHEMS material. Since then, during the mid-1970's, there have heen several efforts to hecome more relevant, more ecology-oriented, more descriptive, to do more labs, to do fewer labs, use modules, have more fun, become humanistic. use less math. use more math. etc. These ilttetnl~..h:~\.ehad . < m t -u~wz.;.hloit teacllzt.>Iia\.c Ilnprc,their Z ~ I I c ~ ~ m l , i t i ~ iqirht. t i w ~ h ~ s oiench t :IV v i s d xnd 04 proach. But now after Five years of hand-aid treatment of CHEMS. some of us feel that we are in limbo. We have been teaching the same thing for too long. Science has changed, kids have changed, family structure has changed, society has changed, hut we have not. We teach hasically the same course. Although we sense the need for new momentum and new direction, individually we feel inadequate for the task of preparing a well-developed curriculum because of lack of time and lack of resources. We are not even sure what needs changing because we like the material we teach and find it fascinating (after all we majored in chemistry). We know what
'
-
This Daoer . . was oriainaliv. .resented at the 42nd Summer Conference 01 me hew England Assoc alion of Chemstry Teachers a1 Connect c.1 Cat ege on A.gusl 14. 1980 ' Trw conference inas lunocd by the Joseph 61 ngenste n an0 E E. Ford Foundations. Recent political changes have made this prediction a bit of wishful thinking. The report referred to, "Science and Engineering Education for the 1990's and Beyond." was published by NSF and reviewed in several science magazines (3-5). The conclusions mirrored our concerns: lack of emohasis on science and math bv. hioh "~school students. enclineer shorn&. and he current trend toward virtual scientific and -~~ .. techno ogcn steracy. unless rcvcrseo. mevs tnirt mportant nal onal dec sons m a v ng science ano 1ecnno.ogy w 11 oc: maoe mcreasmg y on the basis of ignorance and misunderstanding.' ~~
~
~
'
704
Journal of Chemical Education
~~
~
accusatory statement; "Today's chemistry students think silver chloride is a green gas." So we are in avice. We teach what is expected of us and we keep adding more topics each year to stay up to date or hecome relevant, or have fun, or whatever, and we now have courses that attempt ta teach as much of our field as is possible to first year students in as detailed a way as time allows. We are constantly hurried to cover all the material. We are on a perpetual motion merry-go-round trying to shout, "Stop the world-I want to get off? This. then, was our hackeround as we came to Exeter. Ev~ d r ~ ~the t l ypwaenr tirw is wry p r c ~ p ~ t i w1c.r n U, 111 t l l i n k ~llm~ the t tt.acli:n1: iregr,d!mling mam wi enti,ti rhsn wv In~ericnns.trr: they clu iwf I I ~ V L .uur decl~ne in wirnw 6.nrulltnenr;: nnd I ht.\, IIJW p l ~ n r yd s ~ ~ i ~ t i t ann iils re I I I. Sr, tor rwu rnginrc.rs, u hcnn> wv a n t ~ c ~ i ~nu nhortilyt. diwrgcnr rc,astans h,th t ~ t . I i ~:ml r s p d ~ t i1:4ns , nrv iniert+ltd. I'niitltnt ('arter had nqurstrn 9 slud\. illwut the ilarr 01 ~ c r w and e ~ i r n v te c ~ c h i in ~ tihe ~ l1nitt.d St.irr>I t r I)r i u l l mirted 11y July i , IYfitI (21.'l~h(, \;iti. .m ilnd reared top cs he* onve oprnonls n .I oe niraa~cedan0 errnn.znen wcnnm.er crlt o m " Contr wltom are he come ~rade ~1ssher'McGunle holds a B A , degree from
'
In ad;litionlo teaching at theiecondiry level for 12 years. she ha5 taught courses to undergraduates
tell sense from nonsense'' (6). Two years ago a t the NSTA convention in Washington. D.C., Isaac Asimov and Carl Saean hoth mentioned ~ ~ " D a n i k e n ' sthesis in "Chariots of t h e Gods" as a very profitable nonsense theory. The NRC report cited ". . . declining enrollments, increasing financial strictures, the unsatisfactory performance of many pupils and graduates, pressure for greater accountability, and disagreement over educational policy" (7)as the largest factors accounting for public ignorance of science. They made a five-point recommendation which put the resnonsihilitv for the task on the whole scientific communitv and not just the schools. Their first recommendation was to establish science teachine- resource centers which: (1) . . .~ r o v i d e in-service training; (2) construct, maintain, repair, and distribute euui~ment:and (3)eive exwert advice to teachers w o n to develop science-technology centers that supplement school programs, such as some cities already have. The fourth recommendation was to help increase career opportunity awareness, and the fifth was to oppose a t the local level the current overemwhasis of scores on the standardized achievement tests (7). Another rewort. . . the Rewort of the ACS October 1978 Edncation Conference entitled "Chemistry for the Public" makes recommendations which in essence support the idea that high schools and colleges provide meaningful courses for the general students, eive - recoenition to successful teachers of -eeneral students, and prepare curriculum materials for general use. Jelled Our Thoughts The purpose of the Exeter Conference was to assess the need for change in science curriculum and possibly suggest a direction to implement the desired change. The conference opened with Dr. Paul Hnrd, Professor Emeritus a t Stanford University, as keynote speaker. His message was that he senses a widening gap hetween what is taught in science courses and the evolution of science, tech-
from technological factors. He claims: ". . . we have never had a science curriculum in the United States that was focused upon understanding the nature of a scientific/technological society and its meaning for responsible citizenship" (10).Science courses teach science hut not technology or applied science. Both should he an integral part of science courses. With proper courses and armed with basic and applied scientific knowledge, a student can use his value judgment to decide what ought to he done to try to resolve society's problems. Science courses should not be taught in a value-free context. Idealism and commitment to human ends should be guides. A goal of science teaching should he, then, the development of skills and values that promote the use of knowledge with insight and wisdom (IT). In making a final decision based on the knowledge of pure and applied science and an evaluation of alternatives using a student's value system, some new factors arise. These are probabilities, risks, trade-offs,-all of these must he considered (12). Taken together this process leads to wise and responsible decisions (13). Decision Making After the keynote address, the teachers broke into four discussion groups. Our group spent the first session going around in circles to decide whether or not we really did see a need for a change in curriculum. The gronp dynamics were great, and our group eventually decided that Dr. Hurd was right.
All groups finally reached enthusiastic agreement about the need for a science curriculum chanee a t both hieh " school and college level. Next each gronp worked on implementing the felt need. At this point the groups diverged. One group estahlished goals for science teaching with emphasis on new goals; another spent its time thinking through the design and operation of a science teacher resource center. Our group concentrated on general methodology. We decided that teaching decision-making is an extension of the scientific method (prohlem-solving technique). We already use it in our present courses. This broader interpretation of the process starts with the identification of a societal wrohlem arisine from technoloeical considerations. Background resear& then follows. ilternative methods to deal with the prohlem are outlined and the impact of each alternative is assessed. Finally, relying on present knowledge and values, the students make the wisest decision. All students may not decide similarly. This variety is natural. Science should not he construed as having "right" or "wrong" answers only. Science (when tempered by value judgment) offers choices, each with its inherent consequences (14). I hope yon can understand how important this definition was to our group. It gave us a unifying framework and crystallized our thinking. At this point much of our enthusiasm was tempered with the thoughts, ". . . but, how can I do this? My department chairman, my principal, my colleagues, etc., etc., will not like this. I already teach a "good course. I have been fighting the erosion of science in our school for so long and have maintained high standards and high expectations of students. My students have heen doing well in college and on college tests. How can I teach all that I am teaching now plus decisionmaking in the real world?" Well, I must face the fact that I cannot add material. I must drop material or start a new course. Early in the discussion I decided that in my school a new course would be difficult to oreanize. Our " erouw. felt stronelv " - " that value iudements and decision making skills ahout technological problems belong in a science class not a social studies class. Since I want to reach the greatest possible number of students, I feel that decision-making should he taught in every science course, a t all levels, and to all grades. This includes advanced level as well as the general student. "10 % Infusion" Near the middle of the conference we heard a speaker from England, Mr. John Lewis. He is a master teacher a t Malvern Colleee " in Worcestershire. John had worked on develonine . a curriculum of societal issues and has been running it on a trial basis for three years. He called it a "10% infusion" of societal concerns into existing science courses. Various scientists and exDerts wrote . ~amwhlets in helwine to arenare the curriculum . material. The Prince of Wales was to officially launch this mogram in January, 1981.4 - Ten percent does not sound so threatening. That is one day every two weeks. We could still teach the "hard-core" science that is so important to us as scientists and also have time to treat local, national, or world problems that have their roots in science as do so many of today's societal prohlems. John solved a prohlem for us with a reasonable numher-the 10% solution. A
-
.
Our Responsibility This then is where we left our thinking in the group discussions a t Exeter. We all left with a strong commitment to try something within our present courses, drop material (shudder), and include societal issues. We hope to meet again T w Br 1 sh Sc mce-on-Socrrty Prolrcl s aweloped oy tne AssoScience Eflucmion. Co lege Lane, natf do. rlertforosn~re. -K from .nnonl detal scan ue outalneu a
cat on lor
Volume 58 Number 9 September I981
705
for a review of our efforts and possibly attempt some actual curriculum work. John has invited us to Eneland in two vears and of course we all hope that trip materializes. I wanted to share with vou mv. exuerience over the week. mv . involvement in assessing the need of a new direction in science teachine, and mv commitment to trvinc a "10% infusion." You been doing may hake found this report "oldhat"-you've Science and Society teaching already. Or you may think it's totally unnecessary for science teachers to teach societal issues-that's social studies. I think we should all think about our responsibility to create informed science-knowledgeable citizens and to assess how well we are meeting that need. Dr. Hurd's keynote address jelled my thinking. Our group discussions crystallized the basic framework. John Lewis's "10% solution"opened the door to action. It was also an amazinn relevation to me that so m a w other people are having these-same concerns: our gwernmint, the ACS, the British. How could so many organizations he puhs Despite lack of current governmental funding there is much that individual teachers can do immediately. "Ten per-cent infusion" can occur by use of knowledge gained through current media and school libraries at minimal expense to professionalteachers. 1 particularly thank Arthur Compton of Exeter, Paul Hurd, and John Lewis for their helpful comments in preparing this speech for publication.
706
Journal of Chemical Education
lishing reports, phamphlets, booklets, etc.-while I felt only a slight unease?" N;W that the whole thing seems so clear and urgent to me, I want others to share my. exuerience. 1 do hope that I have . communicated some of my new enthusiasm to you." Literature Cited (11 Compere Efthalia and .John Walch's "Crisis in thz Science Clessroum". Seirner 80, I. (6117 (SeptIOct. 19801. (21 Csrtpr, Luther, "JsScieneand Englncering TrsininpAdequnte,".F~iiiii, 208.36 (4 April80). 15) "General Science Education Rilled Inadequate," Chemical & Engineering News. 56. 58 (November 17. 19801. (4) Walrh. John, "Trouble in Science and Engineering Llucatinn." Scirncs, 210,615 (7 November 19801. (5) "Technicnlllliteracy Threatens 1I.S Science,"Science N e w . LIR [i81,276 (November I., IW", (61 Piol, Gerard. "Tha Sorry State of School Science: A Study in Deeline."Notionol Elrmrntniy Principal. 39 (Jan.1980). 17) Lagowski. .I. I.."The State of Schoul Science" lediturisl), J. CHEM. EDUC., 51.23 (April
