 |  |  |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| |
||
| |||
 |
              |
|
|
Paper
State Science Standards: An Appraisal of Science Standards in 36 States
In the course of the detailed study, I found that several shortcomings were evident in a substantial number of Standards. It is worth discussing them here, so as to avoid unnecessary repetition. Use of Themes The sciences are linked by several different classes of unifying factors. Unifying factors are essential not only in doing science but also in learning and teaching science. The most obvious class of such factors is universal laws; the principle of momentum conservation, for example, applies across all sciences. A second class is methodological; while there is no such thing as "the scientific method," scientists of all kinds share a strategy of attack on problems that involves the same general principles. A third, more flexible set of links, dubbed "themes of science," has proved useful in science education in particular, because these links are quite general and help students gain insight into the nature of science in a general way. What are these themes? I can do no better than to quote from the California Science Framework:7
[Themes] could also be called big ideas, overarching concepts, unifying constructs, or underlying assumptions. They are distinct from facts and concepts. A fact is a statement based on confirmed observation and inference, such as the number of electrons in an atom of iron, the date of the discovery of helium, or the descent of birds from dinosaurs. A concept often involves several facts; for example, the concept of continental drift, the need for repeatable observations in constructing science, or how magnets work. Themes are larger ideas; they link the theoretical structures of the various scientific disciplines and show how they are logically parallel and cohesive. Scientific literacy lies not only in knowing facts and concepts but also in understanding the connections that make such information manageable and useful. . . . [The themes] presented here should be regarded as only one way to integrate the overarching concepts of science into a curriculum that spans scientific disciplines. . . . No doubt there are alternative arrangements that would work equally well. The important point is that at least some thematic structure will improve the recitation of disunited scientific facts that has come to pass for science in many current curricula and instructional materials. Unfortunately, too many state Standards have chosen a set of themes and then presented them as "the themes of science." This having been done, the writers find the themes a Procrustean bed into which to force scientific concepts rather than an aid in showing students how helpful conceptual methodological links can be. Energy Energy is surely one of the most popular concepts in all science Standards, and the word ranks among the most frequently used in them. Unfortunately, too many Standards never bother to define the term. Clearly, one cannot be overrigorous in a definition intended for the primary grades. Nevertheless, one can be careful, and sooner or later a rigorous definition must be provided. Georgia, Texas, and the Wisconsin Curriculum Guide do a fine job in this area. Georgia, in particular, introduces a limited but correct conceptualization of kinetic energy as early as grade 1. In some Standards, unfortunately, the term is not merely never defined but is badly misused. Evolution In his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,8 the philosopher of science T. S. Kuhn makes a distinction between pre- and post-paradigm sciences. Prior to its first scientific revolution, a science has no central organizing theory. Work in the science consists of data gathering, and there is endless dispute among various schools as to which parts of the available data should be regarded as most significant. Progress is slow. The first scientific revolution brings resolution to these problems by providing a universally accepted paradigm; disputing groups characterized by names ending in "-ists" disappear and progress is rapid. This happened to physics in the 17th century, with the advent of Newtonian mechanics; to chemistry in the 18th, with the advent of Lavoisier's quantitative chemistry; to biology in the 19th century, with the advent of evolutionary theory; and to geology in the 20th, with the advent of plate tectonics. In biology, a distinction can be made between natural history, the pre-paradigm science, and biology, the post-paradigm science. Unless a curriculum is built around a core of evolutionary theory, the subject is natural history and not biology. Needless to say, younger students are more adept at accumulating facts than at grasping large abstractions, and it makes sense to introduce the overarching theory of any science in a gradual way. Nevertheless, students should understand the underlying structure of the sciences by the time they are in middle school, and should have reasonably deep insight into the fundamental theories of the sciences by the time they graduate. Most Standards do a good or satisfactory job of setting forth this basic requirement of science teaching. In most Standards, a long initial section is devoted to the methodology of the sciences. Unfortunately, in some states political rather than pedagogical reasons have interdicted this sound approach as far as the life sciences are concerned. Human evolution, in particular, is ignored. The result has been serious damage to the teaching of both the life sciences--one-third of the total curriculum--and of all the sciences as structured, interconnected fields. Various states have responded to this political pressure in different ways. Mississippi and Tennessee ignore evolution completely. Arizona, Florida, and South Carolina treat the subject lightly, as if it were peripheral to the science, and studiously avoid use of the "E-word." Georgia and Kentucky use euphemisms--"organic variation" in the former and "change" in the latter. Human evolution is nowhere to be seen, even under the mask of euphemism. Alabama's approach is the most curious. The front matter of the Alabama Course of Study contains, among other unrelated statements, a formula evidently dictated from on high by persons who know little of science: "Explanations of the origin of life and major groups of plants and animals, including humans, shall be treated as theory and not as fact." This misuse of the terms "theory" and "fact" in their nonscientific senses has been commented on extensively elsewhere. Interestingly, however, the Alabama document proceeds to deal with evolution in a light but almost satisfactory fashion, always using euphemisms for the term "evolution." The result is reminiscent of the quantum mechanics texts written in the USSR during the Stalin era, when quantum theory was officially regarded as anti-Marxist. A text would typically begin with a disclaimer, and then treat quantum mechanics in an entirely satisfactory way. The success of this approach depended on the fact that the apparatchiks who imposed the disclaimer did not know enough physics to read the body of the text. It is a pity that science teachers in an American state should have to take a similar approach. Thankfully, the areas of astronomy and geology seem not to have fallen prey to antievolutionary pressures. Even the word "evolution" is freely used in the earth/space science sections of the same curricula that short-change biology. Given the importance of biology, a set of science standards that ignores the spectacular progress of the past century and a half in this science cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Astronomy Astronomical knowledge has been exploding over the past few decades. In contrast, K-12 astronomy Standards almost unanimously concentrate 90% or more of their attention to the astronomy of the 17th and 18th centuries. One cannot fault the argument that younger students should be introduced to the solar system first. But too many Standards dismiss almost everything else with a few brief sentences at the grade 9-12 level. And even solar-system astronomy is too often restricted to the seasons, the motions of the planets, and similar subjects. The spectacular discoveries of the past few years--the geology of Mars, the oceans on Titan, the collision of a comet with Jupiter, to name just a few examples--are ignored. There is a need to devote much more time to cosmic background radiation, the life cycles of stars and the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, the properties of pulsars, quasars, black holes and gravitational lenses, the recent discovery of planetary systems other than our own, and to many other modern topics. And, in light of these discoveries, the history of the universe deserves more than the typical "Debate the current theories on the origin of the universe." The Nature of Scientific Revolutions Almost all the standards documents make much of the history and philosophy of science. Much is also made of the importance of leading the student to grasp the underlying methodologies of the sciences, the cumulativeness of scientific knowledge, and the significance of some of the great contributors to that knowledge. Unfortunately, the historical view taken is largely that of a chronicle with minimal interpretation. Most scientists today accept an interpretive picture of the history of science that is more or less consistent with the views set forth by Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.9 At the very least, the concept of the paradigm--the unstated but universally accepted modus operandi of the scientist--is widely accepted. Fortunately, the essentials of the Kuhnian view are readily presented to students at the high-school, or even the middle-school, level, and they provide a basis for understanding why and how scientific work goes the way it does. It would be well for Standards to present the history and philosophy of science in the light of this or some other organizing principle.
Documents were obtained from or for 38 states and the Virgin Islands. Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming leave standards and related matters to school districts and similar local authorities. Pennsylvania is currently writing standards and does not have a document available for study. The North Carolina document, though it was ordered, did not arrive in time to be evaluated. Many states do not have hard-copy Standards available for distribution (most commonly explained by budgetary restrictions) but their documents could be downloaded from the Internet. I was simply unable to obtain materials from the remaining ten states and the District of Columbia. The results are summarized in Table 1 and displayed in Figure 1. A perfect score is 75. Eight states scored 70 or higher, 10 scored 60-6-9, eight scored 50-59, four scored 40- 49, five scored 30-39, and one below 30 (Figure 1). Alaska and the Virgin Islands have Standards too short to evaluate. The Idaho Standards are deliberately very sketchy, as the details are left to local school districts. As a result, the Idaho document is not comparable to the others discussed here, and was not evaluated.
The raw scores were converted into percentages of the perfect score, 75. The results are displayed in Figure 2. Finally, letter grades were assigned as detailed in Section IV. The grade distribution was as follows:
A: 6 (17%) AZ, CA, HI, IN, NJ, RI The "grade-point average" of the distribution is an unspectacular 1.8--that is, a C-minus, not far from the equally unspectacular minimum grade-point average the NCAA requires of its athletes. A detailed discussion is the subject of Section VII.
How the States Fare in Categories A, B, C, D, and E Criterion A1: Expectations of scientific literacy. Twenty-seven of the 36 states (75%) scored 3 on this criterion. Their Standards not only state at the outset that scientific literacy is expected but also outline a clear pathway toward that goal. Five states scored 2 and one 1; here the goal was either unstated or unclear, or there was little or no strategy to attain it. Criterion A2: A basis for assessments. Eighteen states (50%) scored 3. In some cases, the Standards themselves were a model for assessment; in others, the organization was sufficiently tight and clear to facilitate the development of assessment instruments. The seven state Standards (19%) that scored 2 were generally less clear. New York, for instance, had reasonably well-organized standards, but the examples (which might easily be turned into test items) were often confused or irrelevant to the standards. The six state standards that scored 1 (17%) were vague or disorganized. West Virginia (0) presents a paradoxical case. Although the Standards boldface the items that may appear on tests, they are so chaotically organized as to make genuine assessment of scientific achievement impossible. Criterion A3: Clarity, completeness, and comprehensibility. Eighteen states (50%) scored 3. Lower scores (five 2's, eight 1's, and five 0's) reflect varying degrees of vagueness, use of jargon, and failure to define (or misdefinition of) important terms. Criterion A4: Expectation of well-presented written and oral work. Eight states (22%) scored 3. Lower scores were mainly due to two factors: lack of proper emphasis on mathematics and failure to expect written work. Seventeen states (47%) scored 2, seven (19%) scored 1, and three (8%) scored 0. It was sometimes difficult to assess this item, especially for the states scoring 3 or 2, because the expectation was expressed in a variety of ways. Sometimes it appeared in a clear, firm statement in the introductory material and sometimes as a repeated expectation throughout the document. It may well be that some states take written expression for granted because it appears in the English standard. This, however, is inadvisable; written work must be required throughout a quality educational experience. Criterion B1: Presentation of standards in clusters of four or fewer grade levels. All but two states (94%) did this. Washington's Standards are written with a view to three examinations rather than by grade level. However, the grades at which the exams will be administered have not yet been fixed. New Hampshire makes only two divisions. Criterion B2: Categories are consistent with the theoretical bases of the sciences. Nineteen states (53%) scored 3, seven (19%) scored 2, nine (25%) scored 1, and three (8%) scored 0. The states that shortchanged evolution theory were at a disadvantage here because they experienced varying incapacities in presenting the life sciences as structured scientific disciplines. Some states, however, simply did not organize the material very systematically. Criterion B3: The importance of observation, data gathering, and design of experiment on a sound theoretical basis. Eighteen states (50%) scored 3, eight (25%) scored 2, seven (19%) scored 1, and two (6%) scored 0. There was a fairly close correlation between scores on this criterion and the preceding one. Some states simply did not place sufficient stress on experimentation and its interpretation. Criterion C1: Importance of experimentation and observation; primacy of evidence; replication of classical experiments. Twelve states (33%) scored 3, fifteen (42%) scored 2, and nine (25%) scored 1. There was very little encouragement to repeat classical experiments, though some classical experiments were often mentioned in a general way. There is considerable room for improvement in this. All states had something positive to say about experimentation and observation, but in too many cases the emphasis was spotty. Texas specifies that 40% of science study time be devoted to laboratory work, and clearly describes the need for interpretation. West Virginia laudably specifies 50%, but has nothing to say about the role of experimentation in science. Criterion C2: Clear use of terminology and rigorous definition. Only ten states (28%) scored 3; ten scored 2, ten scored 1, and six (17%) scored 0. Clearly, there is room for improvement here. I have already discussed the widespread poor treatment of energy, but many other technical terms are too often misused or poorly defined as well. The use of euphemisms for evolution put a number of states at a disadvantage here; the euphemisms used, though sometimes clever, are unfortunately not scientifically precise. Criterion C3: The importance of error analysis and evaluation of data reliability, and the stringent criteria for acceptance of data. Ten states (28%) scored 3, fourteen (39%) scored 2, ten (28%) scored 1, and two (6%) scored 0. This result is perhaps not surprising. Students and teachers alike often find data analysis tedious, and it can easily be slighted. Computers, and even handheld scientific calculators, can ease the task tremendously. I looked for proper treatment particularly at the upper grade levels, where the issue really must be addressed. Criterion C4: Expectation of progressive mastery of graphical and tabular presentation and interpretation techniques. Fifteen states (42%) scored 3, twelve (33%) scored 2, eight (22%) scored 1, and one (3%) scored 0. Only one state neglected this important skill completely, but it was given short shrift more often than one would wish. Most states dealt with the matter well or not at all. It may be that some states take for granted that the matter is adequately handled under the rubric of the mathematics standard. As most teachers know, however, the translation of techniques from pure mathematics to science is often difficult for students. Criterion C5: The importance of interplay between theory and experiment, and the nature of scientific revolutions. Twelve states (33%) handled this matter consistently and well, and scored 3. Eight (22%) scored 2, twelve (33%) scored 1, and four (12%) scored 0. Because scientific theory does not fit well into terse statements, a good score usually required either a set of short introductory essays or a narrative format or a strong organization of the lists of standards. Lists fared poorly unless their organization was strong. There was almost no mention of the role of scientific revolutions in the history of science, though most Standards treated the history of science with more or less completeness in a narrative if not an interpretive mode. More attention needs to be devoted to this matter. Criterion C6: The basic principles of all the sciences are stressed. Fifteen states (42%) scored 3, ten (28%) scored 2, eight (22%) scored 1, and three (8%) scored 0. I was impressed by the number of states that introduce Newton's laws, at least in a basic conceptual form, quite early. Arizona, Hawaii, and Texas are exemplary. Unfortunately, some states, including Delaware, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and West Virginia, either neglect these vital laws completely or garble them. Here again the neglect of evolution hamstrings a number of states. Far too often, conservation principles are either garbled or poorly defined; momentum is mentioned only rarely. Criterion C7: Recognition of the growing ability of students to grasp abstractions. Twenty-three states (64%) scored 3, eight (22%) scored 2, and five (14%) scored 1. This ability of growing youngsters is generally recognized, and most Standards are written consistently with students' ability. Criterion C8: Proper treatment of scientific methodology. Eighteen states (50%) scored 3, ten (28%) scored 2, six (17%) scored 1, and two (6%) scored 0. A few Standards still seemed steeped in the tradition that scientists follow a rigid program in doing research, but the great majority understand the flexibility of scientific methodology. A few states with scores of 2 or 1 did not present the matter clearly or neglected it. Criterion C9: Relation between science and technology; universal appeal of science. Twenty-one states (58%) scored 3, eleven (31%) scored 2, and four (11%) scored 1. Only a few Standards confused science and technology, usually not consistently. Almost all Standards made much of the universal appeal of science, often referring to the fact that the paucity of certain groups of people in scientific work in the past was a social handicap to be overcome and not an indication of the talents of those people. Criterion D1: Standards are unambiguous and appropriate. Nineteen states (53%) scored 3, six (17%) scored 2, six scored 1, and five (14%) scored 0. Low scores resulted from poor organization, ill-chosen examples, erroneous science, and just plain sloppiness. In several cases, the expectations at the grade 9-12 level were too low. Criterion D2: Standards are specific but flexible. A good score on this item appeared to hinge largely on the degree to which the writers understood what they were writing about. Twenty-five states (6-9%) scored 3, five (14%) scored 2, four (11%) scored 1, and two (6%) scored 0. Low scores resulted from vagueness, excessive use of jargon, and high error frequencies. Criterion D3: Standards are comprehensive but not encyclopedic. Nineteen states (52%) scored 3, ten (28%) scored 2, five (14%) scored 1, and two (6%) scored 0. It is difficult to be precise about when comprehensiveness becomes encyclopedic; I looked for complete coverage without exhaustive or pedantic qualities. Low scores were often associated with errors, particularly in physics, and absence of proper treatment of biological principles. In a few cases, astronomy was treated too loosely (see discussion above). Criterion D4a: Standards are demanding, and expect cumulative mastery. Twenty-one states (58%) scored 3, twelve (33%) scored 2, two (6%) scored 1, and one (3%) scored 0. Low scores here were associated with poor organization, serious lack of theoretical grounding, or sketchiness. Criterion D4b: Standards are demanding, and ensure that the statewide common core comprises understanding of the basic principles of all the sciences, and their methodologies. Nineteen states (53%) scored 3, ten (28%) scored 2, five (14%) scored 1, and two (6%) scored 0. Low scores were associated with poor organization, scientific errors (particularly in physics and chemistry), serious omissions, treatment of individual standards as "factoids," and general neglect of systematic methodology. It is gratifying to note that, on this crucial and summative criterion, 81% of the Standards scored well. Criterion E1: Standards must not accept as scientific, or encourage, pseudoscientific or scientifically discredited constructs. The only pseudoscience that presents a problem is creationism, peddled by implication in eight state Standards. Because the courts have repeatedly held that creationism is an expression of religion rather than science, these states have adopted the various strategies discussed in Section V. Although creationism is not explicitly discussed, damage is done to the teaching of the life sciences (and to a lesser degree to the earth and space sciences) by those strategies. Wisconsin and Rhode Island are unique in dealing directly with pseudoscience in a positive way. Several items in the Wisconsin Curriculum Guide expect the student to consider the reasons why a variety of pseudosciences fail to meet the criteria of scientific enterprises. A few are quoted under "Rhode Island" and "Wisconsin" in Section VIII. Criterion E2: Standards must not imply that scientific principles are race- ethnic-, or gender-specific, or distort the histor y of science to accord with such a view. Only one Standard makes such implications, and that most likely by inadvertence. Most Standards are quite explicit about the universality of the sciences. Criterion E3: Standards must not confuse science with technology. Only one Standard possesses this fault, naming a number of technologists as scientists. Most Standards are quite explicit as to the distinction, usually devoting an entire section to the science-technology interaction. Criterion E4: Standards must not encourage an antiscientific or antitechnological point of view. All the Standards take quite a positive view of science and technology in general. Two Standards contradict this principle in excessive efforts to appear "green." As a group, the Standards take a reasonably balanced view towards the environmental implications of technological systems; this is surprising in light of the "ecopiety" that permeates many textbooks and other instructional materials.
There is good news and bad, as the popular saying goes. The good news is that more than one-third of the state Standards scored very good (A) or good (B). The overall averages, though mediocre, are higher than those determined for four other subject areas in companion studies.6,10 The bad news is that, for all that, the science standards on average are very mediocre indeed. Behind the thirteen leaders is a long procession of successively poorer material, trailing off into uselessness and worse. Many of the trailers demonstrate poor organization and, sad to say, innocence of both the central concepts and details of the sciences. To what can we attribute the relatively good showings of a significant proportion of the Standards? As one of our expert consultants, Dr. Elizabeth Ambos, has pointed out, a kind of consensus has developed around four models (see note 1) that have been in circulation for some years. Although these models have been the subject of considerable controversy, that controversy has never reached the level of intensity engendered by the rival models in mathematics.11 The consensus is evident in the degree to which most of the state Standards have drawn on the models, as to both form and content. In the cases where this has been done with skill and care, the results have been generally good. In some other cases (notably Florida's and West Virginia's Standards) the writers have merely demonstrated a lack of understanding of what they were reading. There is a parallel in the experience of upper-elementary (say, 5th grade) teachers who assign a book report. The submissions are usually not reviews but précis of the assigned book. The better reports approach what one might expect to read in the Reader's Digest; the worst demonstrate lack of reading comprehension. It is interesting to note that the scores cluster tightly for the one-third of the Standards to achieve grades of A or B; they range from 74 to 68, corresponding to 99%-91%. In contrast, the poor performers range widely, from 67 to 21 (89%-28%.) The spread is made evident in Figure 3, which casts a finer net than Figure 2. This clustering of scores suggests again that there is a consensus as to what students should learn (and to some extent, perhaps, how they should learn it) at least among those Standards writers (and the teachers and experts whom they represent) who are in a position to understand what science and science teaching are about.
It is important to note that Standards set a floor, not a ceiling, on what students are expected to learn. This is dramatically evident in the observation that New York students typically win about half of the annual Westinghouse Science Talent Search awards and honorable mentions; more than half of them usually come from two New York City high schools. And yet the New York Standards are very middling in quality,12 while California, with a very good Framework and twice the population, hardly ever fields a Science Talent Search finalist. It is the student without special scientific talents and interests that concerns us here, however. Study after study shows the abysmal condition of scientific literacy among Americans, and quality Standards are the first step--if only the first of many--toward ameliorating that condition. No state lacks the resources in wealth, talent, and experience that are required to write a set of excellent standards. What is more, there are good models available to facilitate the writing. Given the current national interest in assessment, and in the writing of Standards in particular, there is strong motivation to write better Standards as well. It is my hope that, should I revisit my present task a few years hence, I will have better news to report. Good standards are not a magic solution to the problem of improving science teaching and learning in our schools. In the primary grades, in particular, there is a crying need to improve the science knowledge of the teachers. In our high schools, only a small fraction of all those who teach physics majored in the subject in college. With a few notable exceptions, science textbooks range from mediocrities to execrable, error-filled horrors. Nevertheless, improved standards are essential to progress, and we may hope that this analysis will help to call attention to the areas where improvement is needed. Study after study shows the abysmal condition of scientific literacy among Americans, and quality Standards are the first step--if only the first of many--toward ameliorating that condition.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
