Standards for the Education of Science Teachers: Curriculum

The program prepares candidates to develop and apply a coherent, focused science curriculum that is consistent with state and national standards for science education and appropriate for addressing the needs, abilities and interests of students. Science curriculum refers to:

• An extended framework of goals, plans, materials, and resources for instruction.
• The instructional context, both in and out of school, within which pedagogy is embedded.

6.1 Examples of Indicators
 

6.2 Rationale and Discussion

The National Science Education Standards defines curriculum as "the way content is delivered . . . the structure, organization, balance, and presentation of the content in the classroom." (NRC, 1996, p. 2). The Third International Study of Mathematics and Science identifies three major dimensions: the intended curriculum (goals and plans), the implemented curriculum (practices, activities, and institutional arrangements) and the attained curriculum (what students actually achieve through their educational experiences) (Schmidt, et al., 1996a, p. 16). Well-prepared science teachers can plan, implement and evaluate a quality, standards-based science curriculum that includes long-term expectations, learning goals and objectives, plans, activities, materials, and assessments.

To be able to do this effectively, a teacher must be familiar with the professionally-developed national, state, and local standards for science education. State and local curriculum frameworks often provide the most specific guidelines for the structure and sequencing of content. Published instructional materials, such as textbooks, also may give teachers a scope and sequence for content, along with a model for practice and suggestions for instruction and assessments.

However, a good curriculum requires more than a textbook or curriculum guide. Published instructional materials are not always aligned with contemporary standards and frameworks. Many textbooks, for example, are concerned primarily with content, and contain more information than is practical for students to learn in the time available. They tend, along with U.S. mathematics textbooks, to be "a mile wide and an inch deep" (Schmidt, et al, 1996b, p. 62). U.S. science textbooks include many more topics than are typical in other countries and address the same topics for more years. As a result, no topic receives the kind of in-depth treatment that would allow students to develop meaningful and lasting understanding.

Textbooks cannot, as a practical matter, relate science to local concerns or recent events. Some may omit or de-emphasize key concepts, especially if they are controversial, or fail to differentiate more important from ancillary concepts. They may lack key curricular components (e.g., inquiry activities, assessment activities, educational technologies, connections with other subjects, suggestions for adaptations to special student needs). Texts by their nature also deliver the message that science is "stuff in books" and not the dynamic process of learning and inquiry that is at the heart of constructivism. Because of these limitations, the textbook, which is the past has served as a concise, de facto curriculum for many teachers, is being increasingly de-emphasized in many of the best science classrooms.

In its place, many teachers, and schools, have chosen to work with colleagues, parents, and the community to construct a coherent, appropriate and relevant science curriculum based on contemporary standards and the assessed needs of students. The TIMSS report points out that "teachers serve as the final arbiters of curriculum intentions and they are the 'brokers' or 'midwives' of students' content-related learning experiences." (Schmidt, et al., 1996a, p. 18). Teachers plan, implement, and evaluate the curriculum for their classroom and may collaborate with administrators and peers to create the science curriculum for their school, district or state. To do so, they must review and adopt instructional materials, argue for their use, adapt materials to specific situations, adjust sequencing and duration of learning activities, assess student learning, and use various data to assess their practices. The traditional curriculum based on textbook readings and lecture assessed almost exclusively by written examinations, is no longer adequate for meeting science education goals.

The TIMSS has raised critical issues regarding science and mathematics education in the United States. The analysis of science achievement results for the middle years found that the United States falls below the median in comparison with other countries. Although the results were better for the primary grades, areas of science education in the United States clearly need strengthening. One explanation for the poor results from the United States is a lack of coherency and focus in the science education curriculum at the national level. The TIMSS authors write that "No single coherent vision of how to educate today's children dominates U.S. educational practice in either science or mathematics . . . " and "The visions that shape U.S. mathematics and science education are splintered" (Schmidt et al., 1996b, p. 1). The curriculum in the country with the best science achievement is presented in a way that links topics and concepts into a story. The need for more coherence is one reason that the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1995) includes thematic strands.

Another change that has gained momentum over the last decade is the integration of science, mathematics and technology (Hamm, 1992). Ault (1993) has suggested a number of ways to integrate science with technology ranging from instructional technology to design and engineering. The desire to include technology is a reflection of perceptions that science is too often taught as an end to itself, rather than as a means to an end. In that vein, criticism has been directed toward colleges and universities for "decontextualizing" science, i.e., removing it from any specific context (Hull, 1993). The loss of context makes it difficult for students to understand why a particular concept is important or how it relates to their personal world.

Gilbert (1997) proposed a framework for sequencing science in a way that is consistent with the developmental needs of students, focusing on the development of personal science in the lower grades and progressing to diversified, contextualized science in high school. Since most university science courses are taught in a decontextualized format, infusion of workplace experiences and applications must generally be intentional, through supplemental instruction, internships or applied course work. Contextualization does not appear to be a major concern of science teacher preparation programs at present, but recent concern in many states with "school-to-work" transitions may have important ramifications for science teaching and teacher preparation.

6.3 Recommendations of the National Science Teachers Association

Science teacher candidates at all levels should be able design and implement curricula that are consistent with professionally developed state and national standards and the National Science Education Standards. Not only should these standards be familiar to science and education faculty, but the overall teacher preparation curriculum should be designed to ensure that new teachers have the conceptual knowledge, skills and understanding needed to implement them.

Prospective teachers should be able to evaluate curricula and curriculum materials against appropriate standards and make judgements about whether to accept, modify or reject such materials based on the results. They must be able to collect, organize and use materials from a variety of sources, including community resources, in the curriculum. They should have strong planning skills enabling them to arrange and align appropriate goals, methods and assessments in their plans.

Because research shows a strong link between the perceived relevance of a subject and achievement in that subject, students should be familiar with applications of science in the community and science-related fields, such as nursing, agriculture, engineering. Programs should collaborate with persons or institutions in the community to develop opportunities for students to understand their science(s) in the workplace and everyday life.

Students must have the opportunity to demonstrate competency in designing long-term plans for instruction that achieves state and national goals and relating science to the instructional context of the school and community. These plans should reflect the importance of technology in science instruction and identify points at which technology is appropriately integrated into the curriculum.

The best teacher preparation programs provide opportunities for its students to engage in science and science-related learning experiences in contexts extending beyond the classroom. Candidates can develop thematic curriculum materials integrated with other school subjects and community resources. Prospective teachers in these programs are familiar with state and national professional standards and can develop appropriate short- and long-range instructional plans based on these standards. They can find and evaluate the suitability of a range of teaching materials from many sources, including the World Wide Web. They are technologically literate and can adopt and adapt methods, materials and technology to achieve the goals of instruction.

6.4 References:

Ault, C., Jr. (1993). Technology as method-of-inquiry and six other (less valuable) ways to think about integrating technology and science in elementary education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(2), 58-63.

Gilbert, S. (1997). Integrating Tech Prep into science teacher preparation. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 97(4), 206-211.

Hamm, M. (1992). Achieving science literacy through a curriculum connected with mathematics and technology. School Science and Mathematics, 92(1), 6-9.

Hull, D. (1993). Opening minds, opening doors. Waco TX: CORD Communications.

National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Schmidt, W., Jorde, D., Cogan, L., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U., Shimizu, K., Sawada, T., Valverde, G., McKnight, C., Prawat, R., Wiley, D., Raizen, S., Britton, E. & Wolfe, R. (1996a). Characterizing pedagogical flow. Boston MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C. & Raizen, S. A. (1996b). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematic. Boston MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.