The Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards; National Research Council - (a very impressive name for an 18-member group) - has laid out a new framework for American science education that is focused primarily on "paring down" the curriculum in order to allow greater depth of study for the topics included. The newly developed framework is now in the hands of Achieve Inc., a nonprofit education group, which will expand it into a set of standards. Those standards will then be presented to the states which will decide individually whether or not to adopt them.
As far as reforms go, it could seem there's not much controversy here. The primary question is whether a curriculum should focus on exposing students to as much as possible, or allow them to fully explore a select group of concepts. Even in my short term as a professional educator, I have struggled mightily with this question. In my own opinion and experience, students benefit most from in-depth study of any concept, but I am concerned that in order to allow time for that in-depth study, I must excise other elements of the state curriculum. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but for many of my students, my US or World history class my be their only experience with the subject. For me, this raises a question: if I didn't have a chance to tell them anything about the world past the introduction of the atom bomb because I wanted to make sure they really understood the Great Depression have I done them a disservice? Is it better for my students to leave class with a cursory knowledge of as much subject material as possible - (as our current curriculum is designed) - or to provide students with opportunities to be experts on a select few concepts? I am not certain, but The Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards; National Research Council seems to believe it has an answer to that question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/science/20curriculum.html?ref=education
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is an interesting debate: do we as teachers try to provide students with a cursory knowledge of a lot of things, or do we make sure that students have a really deep understanding of a few major concepts? I think most educators would ideally say that they would like to find some sort of middle ground; however, with time constraints and amount of emphasis placed on standardized testing, there may be more of an inclination to take on a traditional, standards-based approach. However, having spent the previous year teaching science at the middle school level using a traditional approach, I am deeply relieved to hear that I am not the only one questioning the way science education is being promoted at the city, state, and national level. Speaking solely from personal experience, I found that teaching students numerous "factual nuggets" using the traditional "I do, we do, you do" approach--an approach meant to ensure that students are sufficiently prepared for the state assessment at the end of the year--was entirely uninspiring, both for me and for my students.
Essentially, trying to include all of the "voluntary" state curriculum standards in such small windows of time left much to be desired. There was minimal time for deeper exploration that would allow students to answer their own questions about a subject or come to understand how certain scientific facts and theories came to be. There was almost no time to allow students to problem solve or figure things out on their own because the state curriculum required that they "master" a high volume of concepts written into the standards. Most of the inquiry based activities that I was able to construct were formulaic and made sure that students quickly arrived at the "correct" conclusions in one or two class periods so that we could move on to the next concept straight away. Students didn't have time to stop and question or to problem solve and reflect because we were careening forward with the MSA approaching faster and faster with each passing day.
Though the traditional approach may have allowed my students to achieve proficient or advanced on their state test, it most certainly did not give them the opportunity to develop their problem-solving and critical thinking skills, not in the way that I feel reflects what practicing science is all about. It is nice to know that there are national organizations working towards establishing a curriculum that hopes to ensure that students "have some appreciation for the beauty and wonder of science," because this truly what I would like my students to come away with. I know that this is what I took away from my middle and high school science experiences and that is is the reason why I majored in the sciences and became a science educator. I think that the curricular resources made available by the National Research Council and Achieve Inc. will benefit science teachers nation wide, even if states still have the final say in whether to adopt a "new" approach to teaching science on a grand scale.
Post a Comment