| Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to
investigate the explicit and implicit messages sent to a
reader by the form, function, and meaning of a reform
document in science education. Specifically, we will
examine the proposed National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA) Standards to address this topic.
Many education reform documents
utilize a list as a presentation format for addressing
specific issues. The NSTA Standards followed this pattern
in early drafts by listing the competencies (standards)
science teacher preparation programs should follow.
Although a list may be a very efficient means by which
information is conveyed, it can also send the implicit
message that whatever is listed first is most important
and those elements falling farther down the list descend
in importance.
We advocate the use of
electronic publishing to depict clear connections among
the ten standards. The use of hyperlinked schematics
shows the equal importance of pedagogy and content, and
it emphasizes the interrelatedness of each of the
standards and sends the implicit message that if any one
standard is missing from the schematic, the entire
structure would be adversely affected. See Figure 1. We
feel this is the message that needs to be sent to science
educators when planning, implementing, and assessing
science teacher preparation programs. After examining the
format of the current standards and our proposed format,
some suggestions for further work will be provided.
The argument may be made that a reader utilizes a
linear progression throughout this format when reading,
since the reader will read some part of one of the
standards first, followed by a second part, and so on.
This may look the same as a reader who reads chapter one
of a book, followed by chapter two, and so on. However,
we feel there are important differences between our
format and a traditional linear format such as a book
with chapters or a list.
First, the order in which the content contained in
this figure is read is determined by the reader. The
reader is free to choose which links are followed in
whatever order seems logical. This decision can add a
coherency to the presentation of the content that is
specific to individual readers. Second, the complexity of
preparing science teachers to teach in ways advocated by
the current reform documents is made more evident by this
format. The great number of arrows among the standards,
even though not all of them are included in the figure,
and the potential for a vast number of links among the
text of the ten standards if they were rewritten in a
format similar to this figure, attest to this complexity.
A linear presentation sends the implicit message that one
standard follows another in an orderly fashion. Thus,
this figure is a more accurate representation of the true
complexity of the work of science teacher educators.
|
Figure
1 |
| The
Traditional Presentation Format: A Linear Model Many science education reform documents
utilize a list as a presentation format for addressing
specific issues. Science for All Americans
(American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1990)is an example of a reform document that lists topics
students should come to know and understand in the K-12
setting while the National Science Education Standards
(National Research Council, 1996) list the methods and
approaches by which this should be accomplished. The NSTA
Standards follow this pattern by listing the competencies
(standards) science teacher preparation programs should
employ. While the Standards are generally well-written,
we have concerns about their presentation format.
|
The
National Science Education Standards Project 2061
|
| The list is widely used since
it is such an efficient means for displaying information.
However, this efficiency comes at a cost. A possible
implicit message sent by a list is that whatever is
listed first is most important and those points
(standards) falling farther down the list descend in
importance. It has been shown that if words are presented
in a series so that their order or position in the series
corresponds to a hierarchical conceptual structure,
learning is facilitated (Underwood, 1974; Underwood &
Zimmerman, 1973), and the higher the conceptual
organization of the lists the more rapid is the learning
(Underwood, 1974). Writers have been taking advantage of
these ideas for many years, and even if a list does not
specify that it has been constructed in a hierarchical
manner, since so many other lists a reader comes across
are, the implicit message sent to the reader is that this
list is hierarchical as well. |
|
| In the current form of the NSTA
Standards, content is listed first, thus implying it is
of greatest importance. While it is not directly stated
that the order of the standards is a rank order, it is
problematic that content is placed well ahead of
pedagogy, which is listed fifth. We view this as a
message that should not be sent either explicitly or
implicitly. Although content is important, our argument
is that pedagogy is equally important. Some reform
documents indicate that content has been the primary
emphasis in science teacher preparation programs for too
long (National Research Council, 1996; American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990). We
hope this changes soon, and we realize that one of the
first steps in this transformation is to change the
format in which science education reform documents are
presented. By using a list, the implicit message this
format sends to the reader (there is a rank order for the
importance of the standards) does not match the message
this reform document is extolling (science teaching needs
to change such that all students reach their potential).
|
The
National Science Education Standards Project 2061
|
| A list does not readily allow
the reader to see the connections among the different
standards. It is up to the reader to make these
connections by sifting through the text of each standard
and relating it back to the text of previous standards.
We feel that the interrelatedness of the standards is one
of the key components of the NSTA framework for science
education programs, and this message should be clearly
stated. The National Science Education Standards
(1996) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993)
attempt to make such connections explicit by using notes
in the margins to alert the reader of connections to
other parts of the text. However, the utility of this
method is limited by the print medium of the bound text,
and thus neither of these documents is able to convey the
message of deep interrelatedness among its elements. The
hyperlinked schematic we advocate does have the
capability of showing the interrelatedness among the
elements of the text. |
The
National Science Education Standards Project 2061
|
| Due to the fact that a list is
a linear progression, the reader is at the mercy of the
author to lead the way through the ten standards. The
reader has little control as to which standard is
addressed next. That decision has been made for the
reader by the author. This is particularly true for the
electronic draft where the reader must scroll through the
individual standards since they are not even bookmarked.
Adult learning theory suggests that adults are capable of
making informed decisions about their learning and that
they learn more effectively if they have some control
over their learning (Knowles, 1973; Knowles &
Associates, 1984; Merriam & Caffarella, 1991). This
format does not provide them this important opportunity.
|
|
Finally, each of the standards
in the list format has the same structure and is of
approximately the same length as the others. This sends
the implicit message that each of the standards is
essentially the same. In other words, the format is
sending the messages that:
- the content of each
standard can be portrayed in the same structure;
- each standard has the same
features as all of the other standards;
- the structure of the
document determined the content of the standard,
and not vise versa.
In actuality, each standard is
quite different in what it has to say and how to best say
it. We do not feel a uniform structure of presentation
should dictate the messages sent by each unique standard.
|
|
Figure
1
|
| A
New Format: A Non-Linear Model “It's not A picture is worth a
thousand words, but A picture is different than a
thousand words.”
--David Pimm
We advocate the use of a web
page based schematic depicting clear connections among
the ten standards. Electronic publication offers a way
around the problem of placing one standard above another.
Using hot-linked schematic representations of the
relationship among the standards, the rank order implied
by page order in a printed and bound document can be
eliminated.
|
|
| Figure 1 shows some, though
certainly not all, of the important linkages among the
standards. The construction of these connections is the
key component to structuring a consistent, coherent
science education program. Therefore, we see the need for
this interrelatedness to be explicitly stated. A graphic
representation drives home this point. This format also
sends the implicit message, just as an ecological web
does, that if any one standard is missing from the
schematic, the entire structure would be adversely
affected, and "Science for All" will not become
a reality. We feel this is the message that needs to be
sent to science educators when planning, implementing,
and assessing science teacher preparation programs.
|
Figure 1 |
| The positioning of pedagogy and
content at equal heights at the top of the schematic
sends an implicit message that they are of equal
importance (equal height) and that they are more
important than the other standards (their location at the
top of the schematic). The larger font also conveys the
message that these two elements are of greater importance
than the rest of the standards. Pedagogy and content need
to be intertwined when teaching for understanding is the
goal. A further elaboration of this idea is provided by
Author #2, this issue. "How you teach is what you
teach" (Human Rights Watch, 1998) is a common phrase
that captures this idea. Shulman's work on pedagogical
content knowledge explicates the need for, and the
effectiveness of, combining pedagogy and content. This
combination is represented on our schematic as the
intersection of the two ellipses. |
Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (Author #2) Human
Rights Watch, 1998
|
| Different shapes are used on
the schematic to represent different standards. The
implementation of different shapes sends salient,
implicit messages that are incapable of being sent by
such formats as lists. Since we view pedagogy and content
as having special and equally important roles in the
development of science education programs, each is
represented by the same shape (depicting their equal
status) that is different from the other standards
(showing their significance). The other component with a
unique shape is professional practice. We do not see
professional practice as a separate standard, but instead
the applicable knowledge and valuing of the information
conveyed in each of the other nine standards. Thus, each
standard flows from professional practice, and an arrow
is used to express this flow. |
|
| Color is another aspect available in the use
of a web page schematic that typical representations
rarely employ. "Color can be used as a visual cue to
indicate hot words, type of multimedia activity or link,
flow of information such [as] introductory or summary
sections, or as a navigational aid to highlight menu
choices, content maps, and so on"(Knupfer &
Clark, 1996). Using the same color for different
components of the schematic implies a shared meaning
among those components. For example, all of the arrows
coming from professional practice traveling to other
standards are the same red color. This helps emphasize
the point we want to make about professional practice
being the applicable knowledge and valuing of information
conveyed in each of the other nine standards and not
viewing professional practice as another standard. The
information that flows from professional practice is
different than the information that flows between the
other standards. Therefore, it has a unique color. This
same red color is used for the banners at the top of the
"Schematic of Contents" and for the PCK
ellipse. This shows that the arrows from professional
practice, the banners, and the PCK ellipse are components
of the schematic that deserve special attention. Thus,
they are a bright color. |
Schematic of Contents
is essentially identical to Figure
1 |
| The use of different colors
also helps with the readability of the schematic. It
allows the eye to break up the schematic into sections
which helps with the comprehension of the messages the
schematic puts forth. One of the important messages
depicted in the schematic is represented not only by a
different colored arrow, but also changing the
characteristics of the arrow itself. This significant
connection between four of the standards is depicted by a
dashed, fatter, purple arrow with a descriptor that leads
the reader through the relevant portion of the schematic.
"Pedagogy translates content into science curriculum
designed for teaching all students through inquiry for
understanding and application" is a key connection
between standards and can be explicitly stated using this
format (see figure 2). Color, thickness, and the dashed
characteristic of these arrows call attention to the
importance of this message and allow the reader to make
this explicit connection among these standards very
easily. |
See Figure 2. |
| Another example of the
application of different colors in the schematic is the
use of the blue, two-headed arrows that travel between
certain standards. They are a different color from the
one-headed arrows to note the special relationship
between these standards. For each of the blue arrows, the
relationship between the standards it links is reflexive:
One standard influences the other and the changes made in
the second standard have an influence on the first. Thus,
one standard "drives" the other and vice versa.
|
|
| Since Figure 1 is web based,
the hot-link capability allows the reader to decide the
order of presentation of the standards. The reader does
not have to skim through pages of text to find the
features of interest in the standards. Instead, the
reader can easily choose the appropriate standard, and
then follow the link to the information relevant to the
reader's needs. The freedom to decide the order of
presentation gives control to the reader. The reader
determines the area of greatest need or interest and
proceeds from there. This approach is congruent to
features of effective adult learning that are advocated
in the literature (Cranton, 1989; Merriam &
Caffarella, 1991; Seaman & Fellenz, 1989). |
Figure 1 |
| A representation such as this
provides "A Schematic of Contents" instead of a
"Table of Contents." A table of contents is
also linear and has many of the same deficiencies as a
list. It works well for printed, bound literature. In a
web based environment, however, the inability of a table
of contents to convey the essential messages becomes
obvious. A schematic of contents provides many of the
features inherent to webs of information. With the
interrelatedness of the standards being the central
message needing to be sent, a presentation format capable
of making those connections as explicit as possible is
imperative. |
Schematic of Contents
is essentially identical to Figure
1 |
| Further Steps This
schematic is only the beginning. In the current state,
following any one of the standards in the schematic
through its link to the text of the standard leads the
reader to a linear format. The text of the individual
standards also needs to be reformatted so that hot links
are created between different parts within the standard
and across standards. Science educators need to see the
connections among different parts of the standards in
order to facilitate the development of coherent science
education programs. Positioning, shapes, arrows, and
color need to be utilized to send the explicit messages
the authors of this document are advocating without the
implicit messages that reinforce the status quo in
science teacher preparation.
|
|
| References American Association for the Advancement
of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cranton, P. (1989). Planning
instruction for adult learners. Toronto: Wall &
Emerson.
Human Rights Watch, U. S. A. (1998). "Part II:
The Right to Know Your Rights Methodologies: How You
Teach Is What You Teach", http://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htm
, Amnesty International, Date accessed: January 4, 1999
Knowles, M. S. (1973). The
adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf.
Knowles, M. S., &
Associates. (1984). Andragogy in action. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knupfer, N. N., & Clark, B.
I. (1996). Hypermedia as a separate medium: Challenges
for designers and evaluators. Paper presented at the
National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN.
Merriam, S. B., &
Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Research Council.
(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Seaman, D. F., & Fellenz, R.
A. (1989). Effective strategies for teaching adults.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Underwood, B. J., Shaughnessy,
J. J., & Zimmerman, J. (1974). The locus of the
retention differences associated with degree of
hierarchical conceptual structure. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 102(5), 850-862.
Underwood, B. J., &
Zimmerman, J. (1973). Serial retention as a function of
hierarchical structure. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 99(2), 236-242.
|
|