editorially /peaking The Continuing Attempt at Reform in Science Education The 1980's have been a time of major concern about American education as indicated by the more than 100 national reports issued thus far in the decade. Collectively, those reports, whether based on observations or statistical information, have arrived at the same conclusion, viz., the wellbeing of individuals and of the nation is in jeopardy unless immediate changes in schooling occur. Most reports agree that "aualitv . . and excellence" are important, hut there is little agreement on the direction and intellectual substance of the changes necessary to improve the situation. Science has been singled out in most reports as a subject area in serious need of reform. From kindergarten through high school. science education is viewed as deficient in ouroose, scope,'and style of teaching. I t is perceived that students emeree from this svstem of schooling - lacking the knowledge and intellectual skills that are essential fur them to assume their civic resoonsibilities or to realize fully their own adaptive capacities. The need to restructure school science education has been a critical issue since the 1920's. The point of debate has always been how best to prepare citizens to live productively often described in terms of achieve-in - -s - culture ~ ~that ~-~~~~ - is ~ most ~ ~ ~ ments in science and technology. Recommendations for reform are remarkahly consistent whether the commentators are scientists or educators. Over the vears--from one crisis to the n e x t t h e r e has been a contiking refinement of the rationale for improvement in the aualitv of science education. Thus, in 1928, a committee o f t h e AS opined that school science should "function more completely in the lives of people generally" and should emphasize "a sense of moral obligation that will prevent the newly acquired knowledge and methods of science from serving base ends". This committee also recommended that science not he viewed as separate from other subjects but as "essential to a proper balance of general education", reflecting the role that science has played in human history and in our culture. Likewise a 1932 report commissioned by the National Society for the Study of Education recommended science he taught in the context of human affairs, and built around "real problems" that emphasize practical, cultural, and the liberalizing values of science. In 1939, the physicist J. D. Bernal argued in his influential hook on the place of science in society that "the et'fectiveness of any scheme of scientific education is shown by the place science takes in everyday life". The President's Scientific Research the-late uuestioned . - - ~ - - Hoard ~ -in~1940's - ~ ~ ~ the ~ value of school science offerings that "do not provide adeauatelv for the needs of students who do not studv science furthe;". The board recommended that two years of science bevond eeneral science be reauired of all hiah school araduatis. ~ c thinking e behind the science education reform movement during the 1940's is expressed best in the Harvard report entitled "General Education in a Free Society," in which is recommended a science education program .'characterized by broad integrative elements-thecomparison of scientific with other modes of thought, the comparison and contrast of the individual sciences with one another, and the relations of science with its own past and with generalhnman history, or of science with problems of human society". Interest in improving the science curriculum slowed in the early 1950's, but then the Russians launched Sputnik I in ~
~
~
1957. "Excellence" and "quality" again became centerpieces, as reflected in slogans that arose during the postSnutnik era. In the late 1950's and the 1960's. the task of rctorming the science curriculum was placed in the hands of research scientists. who assumed that if studenti could understand science the way scientists "know" science, i t would he inherently "interesting" to them. Accordingly, courses were written to display science in its "then-current form", that is, as a set of research disciplines; the place of science in culture and its relation to human affairs and technological achievement were ignored for the most part. Goals such as "quantative interpretation, thinking like a scientist, and the joy of science for its own sake" were perceived as internal to each discipline. In 1970, the National Science Foundation's Advisory Committee for Science Education recommended a curriculum designed to help science students "appreciate the role of science" and thus develoo the "desire and abilitv to use science in the solution of broader problems of society". This eoal was to be achieved through an "interdisciplinarv and multidisciplinary ~ u r r i c u l u m ~ ~ e n e rprobl&-oriknted all~ rather than discipline-oriented". A broad spectrum of courses of this kind, from environmental and ecological studies through alcohol and drug education, were subsequently introduced in schools. A 1980 national suwey reported a total of 132 different course titles for science offerines in "iunior and senior hieh schools. In 1983 the National commission on Excellence in Education identified science as one of the "new basics". The Commission's report recommended a science program with a balance of physical and biological sciences, emphasizing the "application of scientific knowledge to every day life" and "the social and environmental implications of scientific and technologv .. develooment". The majority of the reports issued over the past 60 years seem to G e e that science in our schools should he reconstituted with the recognition that students in this country live in a modern, highly developed democracy with an economy driven largely by science and technology. In general, the critics view the current curriculum as too narrow in vision, subject matter, and organization as related to human, social, and economic affairs. What has all this to do with chemistry? If chemistry is the central science, as many commentators suggest, it would appear that theessentialelements of the subject should form ~ an important component of such science courses. The National Research Council's 1980 report, Opportunities in Chemistry, represented a consensus view of the chemical community on-the status of chemistry in general and identified the most fertile areas of chemical research. Opportunities in Chemistry was written by chemists for chemists, but i t contains many ideas that could be used to emphasize the "application of scientific knowledge to every day life" and the "social and environmental implications of scientific and technoloav develo~ment".The National Research Council has now
