JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 29, NO. 8, PP. 745-747 (1992)

Overview: Science Curriculum Reform

James A. Shymansky and William C. Kyle, Jr.

Science education in the United States is once again in the midst of reform. As of this writing, numerous publicly funded materials development projects and teacher preparation and enhancement programs, as well as private foundation and business supported initiatives are underway. The reform efforts are bound by a common theme: to ensure a scientifically literate citizenry for the 21st century. But a perceived challenge to our world dominance in technological markets is providing fuel to the fires of reform. Whereas the “need to catch up with the Russians” following the launching of Sputnik stimulated curricular reforms in the 60s and 70s, reports such as A narion at risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and Educating Americans for the 2Zst century (National Science Board, 1983) spurred current reform efforts. The recently published America 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 1991) and Educating America: State strategies for achieving the national education goals (National Governors’ Association Task Force on Education, 1990) continue to fan the flames of reform.

Current reform initiatives beg the basic questions: “Where are we going in this reform?’ “Why are we going there?” and “How will we get there?’ In this Special Issue we have gathered articles that directly or indirectly address one or more of these questions.

The collection begins with an article by us that emerged from a meeting held in conjunction with the NARST and NSTA conventions held in Atlanta in April, 1990. A group of about 35 persons with interests in science curricula and educational reform offered ideas and raised questions about science curriculum reform. The discussions were broad ranging, and critical issues regarding the where, why, and how of science curriculum reform were identified. A consistent theme emerged from discussions at the meeting: that science and school cannot be isolated from the larger societal and cultural context. There seemed to be a further consensus that science curriculum reform involves much more than producing new materials and retraining teachers. In our article, “Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform,” we have attempted to capture that broad theme and the specific issues raised by participants. As you read our report of the Atlanta meeting, you will no doubt see that it echoes many of the issues raised in the report of the 1986 Berkeley conference, “Establishing a research base for science education: Challenges, trends, and recom- mendations” (Linn, 1987). In January 1986, however, reform efforts were only beginning to take form. Projects such as the AAAS “Project 2061” and NSTA’s “Scope, Sequence

0 1992 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/92/080745-03

146 SHYMANSKY AND KYLE

and Coordination (SSSrC)” had not yet emerged. Now, six years later, we must examine where we are in the process of the reform effort. The authors of the articles in this Special Issue address some of the issues en route to reform.

Michael Apple argues that school cumcula have become increasingly dominated by political and economic interests that simultaneously think of an area like science and technology education as both the reason for losing ground in international arenas and the promise for regaining position. His discussion focuses on the tension created when educational goals of student emancipation and empowerment are confounded with political and economic interests. Michael O’Loughlin analyzes the possibilities for developing a truly emancipatory and transformative, learner-centered cumculum that derives from constructivist epistemology and explores the potential of the constructivist assumptions by considering leaming in social, cultural, historical, and political contexts.

Marcia Linn analyzes the opposing views: the belief that students should be taught to “appreciate” the “great ideas” of science versus the need for “integrated understanding” of ideas that students can “apply in their daily lives.” She reviews some efforts to revise the science cumculum and offers recommendations from the research literature that can guide and facilitate cumculum reform. Audrey Champagne addresses the critical link between assessment and reform. She critiques performance and portfolio assessment in light of the focus on student meaning making and understanding, rather than fact memorization in science. She discusses the implications of these alternative assessment strategies for underrepresented student groups.

Ronald Anderson and Gene Hall, in their respective articles, attack the naive notion that cumculum reform can be dealt with piecemeal. They argue that substantive change in what and how science is taught necessarily involves players from the full spectrum of the culture. Both authors offer analyses of various pitfalls in the path of reform and practical suggestions for dealing with the problems. Robert Yager concludes the Special Issue with a look back at the post-Sputnik reform movement. He argues that teachers are central to meaningful and lasting cumculum reform but that we must first be sure that we know and agree on what the problems are before we plunge ahead with major reforms.

Organizing a meeting and preparing a special journal issue around a theme as broad as science curriculum reform are tasks fraught with controversy. Were representatives from all the key groups invited to the Atlanta meeting? Are all sides of the issues covered in the collection of articles presented here? The answer to both questions is “probably not”! What we hope is that the articles in this Special Issue will stimulate comment and debate among the members of the research community. If the issue succeeds in doing this, then our mission will have been accomplished.

References

Linn, M.C. (1987). Establishing a research base for science education: Challenges, trends, and recommendation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 19 1 -2 16.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperativefor educational reform. Washington, DC: U . S. Government Printing Office.

National Governors’ Association Task Force on Education. (1990). Educating America: State strategies for achieving the national education goals. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.

OVERVIEW 741

National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century: A plan of action for improving mathematics, science, and technology education for all American elementary and secondary students so that their achievement is the best in the world by 1995. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.