Curriculum Innovation and Teacher Development The Unbalanced Chemical Education Equation Warren F. Beasley Department of Education, University of Queensland, Australia 4072
This paper is predicated on the belief that research and development efforts in chemical education over the last few decades have had disappointingly little influence on chemistry teachers, chemistry teaching, student interest, and learning. Numerous reports continue to describe serious shortcomings in science and mathematics precollege education. Rutherford ( I ) exhorts "By all accounts, America has no more urgent priority than the reform of education in science, mathematics, and technology." Across the Pacific Ocean, the Speedy Report (2) has outlined serious shortcomings in the quality of teacher preparation in mathematics and science and in mathematics and science education within Australian higher education institutions. These 1989 Reports are representative of the continuing international concern about the importance, both on national economic and educational grounds, for the youth of today to be encouraged to undertake study in scientific fields. The symptoms of the disease have been with us for 30 years. Green (3) reports that "freshman interest in fundamental undergraduate science majors has dropped dramatically-by almost half--over the past 23 years". However, is it reasonable to ask whether the current crop of international reports into the status of science education heighten a sense of d6ja vu? Students of history (for example, Jenkins, 1979 in Britain (4);Bybee, 1977, in the U.S.A. ( 5 ) and Fawns, 1987 in Australia (6)) cite evidence that the crisis in science education in the 1960's was certainly not the first. It seems the orchestra may change, hut the music remains the same into the '90's. The proliferation of the alphabet curriculum projects of the late '50's through the '70's gave a new meaning to curriculum development. Models of curriculum and/or materials development in the United States and Britain soon found their way into countries with similar social and cultural values. The professionalization of the development process had come of age. With the financial resources of government and with the advice of the science community and science educators, the "teacher proof" curriculum packages were promoted as the saviours of the science education crisis. A Research-Development-Diffusion model of curriculum innovation has dominated much of the desired reform in chemical education. What has changed over the past 30 years has been the attention paid to societal issues. The Salters Chemistry Project in Britain, Chemistry in the Community in the USA, and the Academy of Science Project in Australia are examples of renewed effortsin improving the "status quo". These resources are quality productions with teachers' guides, laboratory investigations, and student texts. This is further evidence of the continued professionalization of the curriculum process leading to the production of materials consistent with a certain philosophical framework. The position described to this point is one that acknowledges continued innovation in chemical education. Innovation, which is designed to improve the learning of chemistry for a greater proportion of youth, bas
manifested itself in the prbduction of even more materials. The curriculum frameworks emphasize more strongly than before the place of chemistry in society and the usefulness of chemical knowledge for societal decision making. The Lessons of Historv But the lessons of recent history have surely taught curriculum designers that no matter how professional a manner the resources are prepared, the;e never will exist teacher-proof curriculum innovations and materials. Large scale curriculum innovation is usually accompanied by workshops for selected trial teachers. These workshops inculcate teachers with the desim characteristics of the materials, and teachers then practice the skills necessary to undertake the student laboratorv com~onents.There seems to be a fundamental a s s ~ m ~ t i o n ~ a bthe o u tappropriate inservice process for such a select group of trial teachers. This assumption infers that if teachers can perform the roles of the student, then the teaching of the material in the manner intended by the developers will necessarily follow. ~urricuiuminnovation remains dominated by the traditional Researcb-Development-Diffusion model, which so clearly characterizes the alphabet soup of curriculum initiations of the 1960's. We are still placing our faith andlor money in the elixir of materials and an inservice program for trial teachers to brinzabout fundamental change in the science education of a ,Tation's vouth. Many studies over the last 25 years have clearly dcmonstratcd that reachers will modif! or "dome~ticatc' the intcnt~onsof currirulum developer: It is the teacher's implicit beliefs about effective teaching that determines the nature of the teachinglearning setting. It is significant that the most popular teachine resources for senior hieh school chemistrv in the United gtates are discipline-cegtered, conceptual& based textbooks that have gone through many editions. Refocusing Teacher Development Given that teaching is performed by individuals, with their unique set of thoughts, beliefs, aspirations, values, concerns, perceptions and abilities, it is important to recognize that any curriculum innovation will be only as successful as the meaning that the innovation has for the teacher in his or her classroom context. Baird (7) has described this meaning in terms of the "intellectual comoetence" and the "intellectual oerformance" of the teacher.'~ntellectualcompetence is ~ o & ~ o s of e dfour major parts: attitudes (including values and concerns); perceptions (including expectations); wnceptions (including theories and beliefs); and abilities (including perceptiveness, logical thinking, reflections on the needs of others). Intellectual performance includes a number of components such as specific attitudinal states, perceptions, decisions, and tolerances that are associated with the tasks of teaching. Schon's writings (8-9)in this area have aroused a great deal of interest in teacher education. He has argued that a Volume 69 Number 1 January 1992
57
dichotomy exists between a "technical rational" approach and a "reflective" approach to problem solving in a professional practice setting. Schon believes that the knowledgein-action of vractitioners is to be found in the orofessional and their reflection onand in such actions of actions rather than i n a varticular kind of theoretical thinking that he terms "technical rationality". Teachers' professional knowledge is demonstrated i n the problematic, indeterminate zones of classroom actions that are incongruent with predominant models of technical rationality (such a s the R-D-D model of curriculum innovation). Such knowledge is constructed by teachers through reflection-in-action (i.e., a n action is generated and tested through "on-the-spot experimenting"), and reflection-on action (i.e., a n action planned on the basis of post-hoc thinking and deliberation) (10). Through experimentation teachers attempt to create meaningof the problematic aspects of a professional practice situation through "problem setting" and "problem solvine". .Anorher way of looking a t teacher development in accord with the approach outlined above is to examine what happens to bring about significant changes in individuals. Jentz and Woffard (11)have ~rovoseda model of personal learning that incorporates five phases. A
1. Starting points Recognizing dismepancies between beliefs and practices, intentions and practices-beliefs of others and one's awnthat sometimes do not seem to make sense. 2. Examining practice Confronting assumptions about self and others, discrepancy analysis. 3. Making new sense Considering the possibilities of other assumptions. 4. Translating Inventing and learning to use new practices based on the new assumptions. 5. Taldng new action Implementing new practices, trialing, modifying, incorporation. Expertise develops when the teacher tests and refmes propositions, hypotheses, and principle-based expectations in actual practice situations. Experience results when preconceived notions and expectations are challenged, refined, or disconfirmed by the actual situation. Not all of the knowledge embedded in teaching expertise can be captured in theories, or by identifying all the elements that go into the teachers' decisions. However, the ~ractice t can intentions. expectations, meanings of e x.~ e r . be drscribbd, ilnd aspects of.ceucl;cr know-how can 1,c captured by narrative dricnptions of ac~ualpractice. A wealth
of untapped knowledge is embedded in the practices and the "know-how" of expert teachers but this knowledge will not expand or develop unless teachers record what they learn from their experience.
Conclusion This paver has armed that the future of chemical education lies mainly witG the teacher of chemistry, not with curricula. I t is the teachers who are central to the developm e n t of curricula a n d who o r c h e s t r a t e l e a r n i n g experiences that coordinate the development of students affective, cognitive, and perceptual abilities. For this to occur, teachers will also need support to undergo similar affective and cognitive development. The following set of assumptions should underpin future curriculum innovation. Teacher development is more central to the quality of education than curriculum andlor administrative development. Inservice teacher education is viewed as a live set of concepts and strategies that should react positively and appropriately to the skill development level of the teachers. Professional development is a central issue in a satisfying and successful teaching career. A teacher's education is marked by two properties: teachingilearning experiences and a continuously constructed narrative story that makes sense of these experiences. .Supervised reflective practice is the primary method of teacher professional development. For curriculum innovation to be beneficial to all of the stakeholders, the combination of resource development and teacher development must have t h e appropriate balance. I n the future. that balance must shiR toward the professional development of teachers.
Literature Cited Pmject 2061, Science for All Amelicans, S u r n m q , A.A.A.S.. 1989, P 3. 'in#Remiem of Roeher Education in Mathematics and Schnep:
in& &gma-XI New ~ i v e n ,1989:pp 29-45. 4. Jenluns, E . Fmmhmstrong lo Nufieid; Murrov:London, 1979. 5. Bybee, R.Sci. Educ. 1977,61,1,85-97.
6. Fawns. R. A. The Maintenance and hnsformolion ofSchml Schnn, PhD Thesis, Mona* Uniuersity. 1987. 7. Baird, J. R.Teachers i n Science E d u e a t i o n , u l & u e l o p m n l o n d ~ k m m o s i n S ~ h r ~ Educofion, Fensham, P., Ed.:The Faher Re?=: London, 1988;pp 55-72. 8. Sehan, D. A. Tho Reflectiue Pmdionsr: How Professionals Think in Action; Berie =.."be. ...-" N"...""*b .".-,> a m 9. S
