 |  |  |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| |
||
| |||
 |
              |
|
|
Paper
State Science Standards: An Appraisal of Science Standards in 36 States
Vermont's Science, Mathematics, and Technology Standards199 takes the form of a relatively brief listing of objectives and associated benchmarks. The integration of the three areas into a single Standards has been carried out well. In particular, the idea that the use of mathematical language is essential to the practice of science is well-presented--as far as it goes:
Illustrate mathematical models of a physical phenomenon.200 It is too bad that these fine generalities were not fleshed out with specifics. The integration of evolution into the life sciences ranks among the best of any state Standards. Beginning at the preK-4 level, the dynamic nature of life forms the center of biological investigations. The intimate linkage among the astronomical, geological, and biological sciences is made very clear, as is the basis of these sciences on physical and chemical laws. Technology is well-integrated with the sciences and mathematics.
Vermont
The Virginia Standards203 is remarkable in its completeness, given its brevity (23 pages). For each grade, K-6, and for each of the three standard middle-school and three standard high-school courses, it lists items that the students are expected to "investigate and understand." The list is complete, competent, and systematic. Each section is preceded by a short one-paragraph description of the emphasis to be found in the list that follows. No benchmarks accompany the standards; that is, there are no examples of how the student might demonstrate mastery of a topic. No attempt is made to sketch broad ideas or theoretical structures. The document is best compared to a cookbook intended for professional chefs who know the territory and need nothing more than brief directions to create unfamiliar dishes. It will thus be of the greatest use to the experienced teacher; novices may not find it very useful. The D grade assigned reflects the lack of detail, as a consequence of which many of the criteria are met only to a limited degree.
Virginia
Science is the subject of pages 67 through 84 in the Washington Manual.204 The overall expectations are outlined in a two-page summary which lists five major goals, each of which has between three and six subdivisions. The arrangement is not unusual except in the way it makes a fundamental distinction between communication in ordinary language and communication in the language of mathematics. The former is expressed clearly in Requirement 4: "The student uses effective communication skills and tools to build and demonstrate understanding of science. To meet this standard, the student will . . . use writing and speaking skills to organize and express science ideas."205 In contrast, mathematics is relegated to a sort of interdisciplinary grab bag in Requirement 5: "The student understands how science knowledge and skills are connected to other subject areas and real-life situations. To meet this standard, the student will use mathematics to enhance scientific understanding."206 The other subdivisions of Requirement 5 say similar things about science and technology, history, society, and the workplace. Leaving aside the invidious distinction made between science and real life, it seems a pity to treat mathematics, the essential language of the sciences, in this manner. Each of the subdivisions is associated with three sets of benchmarks. Except for language skills and mathematics, Washington has reached no decision yet concerning the grade levels at which the benchmarks are to apply. However, "Benchmark 1 can be thought of as related to grades 4-5, and Benchmark 2 as related to grades 7-8. Assessment at Benchmark 3 is tied to the Certificate of Mastery . . . generally the 10th grade."207 The list that constitutes the main body of the Manual is succinct, well-organized, appropriate to the grade levels, and complete. It contains considerably more information than the formally comparable Virginia list. In particular, the theoretical underpinnings of the individual items are made reasonably clear probably as clear as can be expected in the absence of an essay format. Two examples will suffice:208
I am a little concerned, however, by the use, throughout the Standards, of the word "understand" in the context exemplified in the table above. Assessment is much easier if the student is expected to demonstrate some sort of skill. It is difficult to be sure what he "understands." However, the statements above are readily converted into expectations of demonstrations. For example, Benchmark 2 for Standard 2.4 could easily be rewritten as
demonstrate how terms such as "hypothesis," "law," "principle," and "theory" can be used to describe various types of scientific explanation; use an example to show how they are supported by evidence and how they are subject to change if new evidence arises. In my evaluation, I have assumed that the use of "understand" is an unfortunate convention rather than a commitment.
Washington
West Virginia209 presents its science standards grade-by-grade through grade 10. In grades 9 and 10, students take courses named "Coordinated and Thematic Science (CATS) Nine and Ten"; graduation requires one additional course from a list including traditional biology, chemistry, and physics, technical chemistry, environmental earth science, human anatomy and physiology, technical physics, and AP courses. It is not clear how the college-bound student who wishes to take biology, chemistry, and physics--to say nothing of AP courses--is to be accommodated. The form of the standards document is familiar; for each grade, a short description of general expectations is followed by a list of expected achievements. From kindergarten on, students are expected to devote 50% of their science study time to laboratory work--a very desirable requirement if properly implemented. Students are expected to use graphs and calculations in scientific inquiries beginning at 2nd grade.210 There are some oddities and slips. For example, grade 2 students are to study the lives of scientists. The persons suggested are Thomas Edison, Jacques Cousteau, Alexander Graham Bell, and Rachel Carson, none of whom was primarily a scientist.211 Given the importance of clarifying the differences between science and technology, this confusion is not a good start. And if one is to "recognize that science changes over time,"212 it is inappropriate to give such examples as "earth features changed shape, variations of birds appeared, plants of long ago became coal"; these represent quite another sort (or rather several sorts) of change. Beginning at grade 3, items that may be expected on examinations are boldfaced. The intent is a good one in the sense that it clarifies the evaluation process. However, it has the disadvantage of implying that lightfaced items are less important. Every teacher, after all, dreads the question, "What are we responsible for on the test?" The lists of items are extensive and reasonably complete. However, the organization tends to the chaotic. Consider, for example, the following (quite typical) sequence of items at grade 6:
Newton's laws are mangled:
Illustrate qualitatively and quantitatively Newton's Laws of Motion (e.g., F=m x a, D=v x t, p=m x v, simple machines, W=f x d)--models213 Only one of these statements (more properly, F = ma) is one of Newton's three laws--the second. The definition of momentum, p = mv, is closely related to the second law as well. But none of the other statements in this grabbag is one of Newton's laws, and the first and third laws are completely missing. Similarly if less seriously, the ideal gas laws are misrepresented.214 The document is riddled with errors of this sort. And what is to be made of this hodgepodge of an item, which is boldfaced and thus subject to examination?
9.55 review of foundational concepts including refraction, speed, distance, time, Newton's Laws, simple machines tables and graphs, heat absorption, energy transformations, and air pressure--systems Finally, there is an odd dissonance in the treatments of the college-prep biology, chemistry, and physics courses. The standards for the chemistry course are exceedingly detailed, and involve a substantial amount of quite advanced material (e.g., calculating the Gibb's [sic] free energy of a system.) But the standards for biology and physics are very general and sketchy. In particular, all the content of the physics course is condensed into six two-line standards.215
West Virginia
Wisconsin is currently rewriting its standards; this analysis is based on a draft.216 To the extent necessary, the information in the draft Standards is supplemented by reference to the Curriculum Guide.217 Pages 43 through 61 of the Standards are devoted to science. To a great extent, the individual standards are quite general and address the methodology and social context of science. As is true of all states, Wisconsin adopts the view that a major purpose of science education is to prepare students for participation in public life by equipping them with the ability to evaluate and criticize issues having scientific or technological content. One standard puts this particularly well:218 "Students will . . . evaluate popular press, television, internet, scientific journal articles, or technology issues using the criteria of accuracy, degree of error, sampling, treatment of data, among others, in these evaluations." Only about 10 pages are devoted to specific subject matter, and so the standards are somewhat sketchy. This appears to be deliberate, as language in the draft places responsibility for detailed curriculum in the hands of local districts. There is much more detail, however, in the Curriculum Guide. There is room for criticism. As in many other standards, the term energy is used loosely and never properly defined. An 8th-grade standard219 expects students to "Use commonly accepted definitions of energy," but no attempt is ever made to define energy precisely. This is exacerbated by the absence of any direct reference to the laws of motion. There are some technical errors as well. A 4th-grade standard220 expects students to distinguish between "substances that are touched--matter, and substances that cannot be touched--forms of energy, light, heat, electricity, sound, and magnetism." But "substance" is usually reserved for forms of matter, and is not used for energy or fields. Moreover, not all substances can be touched. An 8th-grade standard221 asks students to investigate "light, heat, radio waves, magnetic fields, electrical [sic] fields, and sound waves as they interact in common situations . . . with each other." But the items in this grabbag of items do not in general interact with each other, especially in common situations, except possibly in the presence of matter. Moreover, heat is not a definite entity, and cannot be treated as such. The Curriculum Guide is both more specific and more accurate. Laudably, the idea that "energy can be classified as kinetic or potential" and the assignment to "show how kinetic energy is continually being transformed into potential energy and vice versa as a pendulum swings" are introduced as early as grades 3-6.222 Some of the "Nature-of-Science" items are unique--even offbeat--and very interesting. Here are a few:
Observation and experimentation are stressed. Here are some outstanding activities:
Wisconsin
The Virgin Islands Standards is currently available only as a two-page second-draft outline. A much more detailed document is to be developed during the 1997-98 school year.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
