Chemical Education Today
Commentary Chemistry in the National Science Education Standards by Sylvia A. Ware Some chemistry teachers, on reading the 9–12 National Science Education Standards (1), have concluded that (i) “there is not much chemistry in the Standards,” and (ii) they are already teaching chemistry at a level that far exceeds the National Standards. The first conclusion is inaccurate, the second is probably inaccurate as applied to the majority of chemistry teachers, given the content of the traditional Chemistry 1 course, and the ways in which this material is typically introduced to students. Another confusion resulting from attempts to interpret the Do the Standards National Science Education Standards is voiced through the quesdescribe a ‘floor’ tion, “Do the Standards describe a ‘floor ’ or a ‘ceiling’ for student or a ‘ceiling’ for achievement?” Here, the “floor” is student the lowest level of science knowledge that all students should be achievement? able to understand before high school graduation, and the “ceiling” is the highest level that all students are expected to attain. This is a question that has been asked repeatedly, not just by those reading the Standards for the first time, but also by those—including myself—who were involved in their development. The concern is that if the Standards are describing a “ceiling,” then they represent an attempt to limit the intellectual progress of those students capable of learning science beyond the level of the Standards. One reason for all of this confusion may be found in our separate understandings of what is meant by an educational “standard.” The National Science Education Standards are “criteria to judge progress toward a national vision of learning and teaching science in a system that promotes excellence, providing a banner around which reformers can rally.” The Content Standards do not define a curriculum nor a specific syllabus; they are an “outline [of] what students should know, understand, and be able to do in natural science.” It is possible for teachers to add to this outline and, in fact, the Standards document indicates that the “connections, depth, detail, and selection of topics can be enriched and varied as appropriate for individual students and school science programs.” However, the document adds, “addition of content must not prevent the learning of fundamental concepts by all students.” In the National Science Content Standards, these “fundamental concepts” are identified so that “school science [reflects] the intellectual and cultural traditions that characterize the practice of contemporary science.” Contemporary chemistry is an exciting and challenging discipline. It also covers a more diverse intellectual territory than is conveyed by many traditional Chemistry 1 courses. Since so few students take more than in-
troductory chemistry courses, the burden is on these courses to present an accurate and comprehensive view of our discipline. In the Content Standards, chemistry concepts are found not only in the Another important Physical Science section, but also under the categories of aspect of the Life Science, Earth and Space National Science Science, Science in Personal Education and Social Perspectives, and the History and Nature of SciStandards is the ence. Thus, the chemistry in inclusion of the National Standards includes topics from organic “inquiry” as an chemistry, biochemistry, and integral component industrial and environmental chemistry. This brings the inof content. troductory knowledge base more in line not only with the breadth of modern chemistry, but also with the content of introductory chemistry programs in other industrialized nations. Another important aspect of the National Science Education Standards is the inclusion of “inquiry” as an integral component of content. As defined in the Standards, inquiry-based instruction should permit students to develop a wide range of abilities and understandings related to the processes of scientific investigation. The Inquiry Standards do not prescribe a specific sequence of procedures to conduct investigations (as in “the scientific method”); rather the focus is on the asking of questions, the testing of ideas, and the logic of evidence. Science should not be taught as “received wisdom;” inquirybased instruction should be an integral component of all science courses. Unfortunately, school systems will not be allocating more time to chemistry just because we now have National Science Content Standards. Therefore, we cannot add new topics to the Chemistry 1 course, and take the time to teach in an inquiry mode, as defined in the Standards, unless some topics that are now included in Chemistry 1 are dropped from the syllabus. One reason that some teachers believe they are teaching beyond the National Science Content Standards is because they are teaching more inorganic and physical chemistry than explicitly described in the Content Standards. If they are not also teaching some organic chemistry, biochemistry, and environmental and industrial chemistry then they have not covered the knowledge base of the Content Standards. If teachers do not emphasize inquiry-based instruction and the processes of science in their classes, then again they cannot claim to be “teaching beyond the Standards.” Floor or ceiling? At the risk of being considered trivial, I am proposing that we chemists adopt a “donut”
Vol. 73 No. 12 December 1996 • Journal of Chemical Education
A307
Chemical Education Today
Chemistry 2 content
Chemistry 1 content
Different chemistry topics in Standards
Chemistry 1 content
Context of inquiry Figure 2. Chemistry in the National Science Content Standards.
Figure 1. The traditional high school chemistry program.
Different chemistry topics in Standards
Chemistry 1 content Chemistry 2 content
Context of inquiry
Figure 3. Going beyond the Standards.
or perhaps a “pie” model to attempt to understand the level of chemistry in the Standards. Figure 1 is a representation of the traditional content core of high school chemistry in the United States, which for both Chemistry I and Chemistry 2 emphasizes physical and inorganic chemistry. Figure 2, which is not drawn to scale, represents chemistry in the Standards. Here, some of the traditional content core is replaced by other topics, which illustrate chemistry as a life science, an earth science, an environmental science, a materials science, and, especially, a useful science. All of this material is presented within the context of inquiry. Following through on this model, a second-year chemistry course based on the Standards might correspond to the model of Figure 3. Here, the topics that were dropped from the traditional core represented in Figure 1, are added back to the course, which builds upon the Figure 2 model of chemistry found in the Standards. Again, the chemistry is presented in the context of scientific inquiry. This “donut” model does not represent either an official view from the original framers of the National Content Standards, nor is this an official interpretation from the American Chemical Society. I have found this interpretation useful, in attempting to go beyond the “floor or ceiling” debate. The American Chemical Society, which played an important role in the framing of the National Science Education Standards, will be publishing a National Science Standards “reader” for chemistry teachers, within the
A308
next several months. This reader will contain a series of commissioned papers that address, in very practical terms, exactly how adherence to the Standards could impact upon the teaching of specific topics in the Chemistry 1 classroom. It will include lesson plans from high school teachers familiar with the Standards. We hope that the specifics described in the reader will help demystify the Standards document for chemistry educators, and contribute positively to the national dialog concerning the nature of introductory chemistry courses. Literature Cited 1. National Research Council, “National Science Education Standards”, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996. Available for sale from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Box 285, Washington, DC 20055 or call 800-624-6242.
Sylvia Ware is Director of the Education Division, American Chemical Society, 1155 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036;
[email protected].
Editor’s Note: Those interested in the National Science Education Standards may be interested in a related Commentary that appeared on pages A200–201 of the September 1996 Journal. The title is “Implications of the National Science Education Standards for Higher Education” and Glenn Crosby was the author.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 73 No. 12 December 1996
