Mr. BROWN. We thank you very much, gentlemen, both of you. I regret we have to adjourn at this point. That's the way things are scheduled around here. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] APPENDIX ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD Last year, NSTA was one of several James V. DeRose The Teacher is the Key: In 1976, in response to congressional criticism of its precollege program, the National Science Foundation undertook to determine the state and needs of science, social studies, and mathematics education in this country. In order to acquire the information it sought, NSF awarded grants for three studies: (1) a survey of school administrators, supervisors, and teachers, conducted by the Center for Educational Research and Evaluation of the Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina, of which Iris Weiss was project director; (2) a literature search by Stanley L. Helgeson, Patricia E. Blosser, and Robert W. Howe of the ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education at the Ohio State deal-briefly with the findings of the The studies bring into focus current University; and (3) a number of in-depth James V. DeRose is a former head of the I. How do teachers teach? What is taught and how it is taught are The material in this report is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Purchase Order No. 5890. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions of recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation curriculum improvement projects presented science content compatible with the practicing scientists' view of science which required a nontraditional teaching approach characterized by openness, flexibility, inquiry, and student involvement in more than just reading about science and watching demonstrations. It is encouraging to report that the study found that there is more use of laboratory and hands-on instruction than was the case before the NSF curricula were developed and implemented. The NSF teacher institutes have also had an impact: 73 percent of the teachers who had attended one or more of the institutes arranged for their students to have handson experiences at least once a week, as contrasted with 42 percent of the teachers who had not attended institutes. There has also been an increase in the use of student-centered classroom activities as a result of the institute program. Despite the influence of the NSFsponsored curricula and institutes, however, classroom observers reported that at all grade levels the predominant method of teaching was recitation (discussion), with the teacher in control, supplementing the lesson with new information (lecturing). The key to the information and the basis for reading assignments was the textbook. Most questions were observed to be concerned with definitions and the acquisition of information, and were mostly taken from the textbook. Classrooms in which individual thought, inquiry, and open discourse took place were noted but not frequently. Still less often did the teacher assume the role of a fellow learner. The next most frequently observed activity was the demonstration, conducted in two out of five classes once a week or more. The number of classes using hands-on experiences once a week or more increases from one-in-three in elementary schools to three-in-four in senior high schools. Student reports and projects are used once a month or more in half of the classes. Other teaching techniques such as field trips, guest speakers, simulations, contracts, programmed instruction, and similar programs are used once a month or more in less than 10 percent of the classes and are never used in 50 percent of the science classes surveyed with the exception of field trips, which are never used in 31 percent of the classes. Time spent in various instructional arrangements does not differ significantly for the various grade levels: Approximately half of the time the entire class is arranged as a group, one-sixth of the time it is divided into small groups, and about one-third of the time students work individually. In all of the schools surveyed, the national trend to make curricula more explicit and leaming more measurable was evident. Schools had prepared or adopted statements of objectives and had developed criterion test items with which to determine student accomplishment of objectives. In general, teachers and administrators reacted favorably to the manageability and clarity of the objectives-based system, but no evidence had been gathered by the schools surveyed to indicate that achievement levels of students had increased as a result. II. What do teachers teach? course. The Dominant Textbook. The secondary school science curriculum is ordinarily organized with a textbook as its core; more than half the science teachers sampled in the survey reported that they used a single text, with approximately one-third indicating that more than one text was required for their courses. Texts are usually selected by individual teachers and teacher committees. Princi- Some states have text-adoption pro- Inquiry and Laboratory Methods. Sur- Curriculum Priorities. Even as scien- subjects throughout the student's high school experience. Curriculum efforts involving teachers from several science disciplines are rare in American high schools, although larger schools often have special elective courses in fields such as oceanography, environmental science, and earth science. In many schools, these courses are designed to motivate students who would not ordinarily continue their study of science beyond 10th-grade biology, and thus represent commendable efforts to break away from more traditional patterns which have not succeeded in reaching many students. One of the major impressions conveyed by the survey is that teachers of science courses for college-bound students have succeeded in preserving the elite characteristics of these courses for the small student populations that they serve. Many schools have tracking systems which have created alternative courses with less demanding requirements for students who are either not capable or are insufficiently motivated to deal with the material presented in traditional biology, chemistry, and physics. Use of Community Resources. Community or other out-of-school curriculum resources are rarely used by science classes. The Case Studies, in particular, make abundantly clear that most schools (and science programs) are insular and removed from the mainstream of community activity. For example, when the schools of Columbus, Ohio, were forced to close during the winter of 1977 because of a fuel shortage, community resources were used only in a perfunctory way to continue the education of children, primarily because of inadequate planning and a lack of experience in coping with the inevitable difficulties encountered in developing a curriculum organized around unfamiliar resources. The Learning Environment. The report suggests that science classrooms in many schools do not provide stimulating surroundings. Of course, many individual teachers have made valiant efforts to deal with problems caused by inappropriate texts, poorly prepared and motivated students, lackluster administrations, and the like. Nevertheless, the broad picture that emerges of the nation's secondary science curriculum is not encouraging, particularly when one considers the large number of students who do not continue in science beyond the 10th grade. Even though the barriers encountered by teachers seeking to develop responsive science programs are high, there appear to be enough successes to encourage others to try. Moreover, the surveys suggest that the decentralized system of American education provides considerable latitude to teachers who wish to modify the curriculum in response to the special needs of their students and communities. When one views the constrictive character of ministerial control of education in some other countries and the inhibiting effect which this control has on their systems, one has reason to be grateful once again for the vision of our founding fathers. Junior High Science. Even though life science has become a standard course in many schools, general science is still the only course taught in more than half of the junior high schools surveyed. However, physical and earth science programs are not uncommon. The survey suggests that the process of socialization constitutes an important educational objective in the junior high. Laboratory handouts, for example, sometimes list guidelines for appropriate classroom and laboratory behavior in addition to instructions for carrying out a laboratory activity. To some extent, the socializa tion objective may (but need not) inhibit inquiry and investigative approaches to learning; many may view it as unfortunate that schools have turned away from inquiry approaches in favor of text-dominated courses which stress knowledge acquisition, often by rote methods. Elementary School Science. On the basis of the survey data, elementary school science must still be regarded as a significant problem area. Much of the difficulty stems from the fact that science in the elementary schools, not regarded as basic, is given a low priority in comparison to reading, mathematics, social studies, and health. Most elementary school teachers and, presumably, their school administrators see little relationship between science and other areas of the curriculum, a perception that existed even before the recent emphasis upon basic education. Elementary school science, like that in junior and senior high schools, is taught primarily by lecture and recitation based on one textbook. Elementary schools invest only a very small proportion of their budgets in curriculum materials; science, perceived as of low Jerome). Berkowitz photo priority, usually fares badly in the competition for scarce funds. As a result, inost of the nation's elementary schools are inadequately equipped to provide a significant investigative laboratory experience to children. One of the more pessimistic findings of the surveys was that "fewer than half of the nation's elemen tary school children are likely to have even a single school year in which their teachers will give science a significant share of the curriculum and do a good job of teaching it." Subjective Comments. A reader of these studies may conclude that the science curriculum is responding ponderously, at best, to changing social conditions, individual needs, developmental patterns of students, and perceptions of community and political realities. The curriculum cannot be considered in isolation from the setting in which education takes place, but it may be useful to make some brief subjective comments on the curriculum, considered in a somewhat more limited sense: on the materials, practices, and perceptions described in the studies. It appears that many science courses include material which is inappropriate for most of the students studying at that level. For example, high school biology courses often contain substantial amounts of biochemistry and molecular biology, even though the majority of biology students have not yet studied chemistry. It is true that these portions of the text are not studied by all students, but one is left with the impression, nevertheless, that many students are asked to spend a significant amount of time memorizing complex details of biochemistry and molecular processes even though most have neither the necessary access to experimental evidence nor the reasoning skills needed to follow the intricate conceptual arguments. In a similar manner, chemistry courses are likely to be replete with rote presentations of quantum mechanical models of atoms and molecules. One can speculate that many school science programs may be strongly influenced by unrealistic perceptions of what colleges expect high school graduates to know, with the result that students are required to study material which they cannot understand in any significant way and which is unrelated to their current interests, on the grounds that the material will be needed later. By now, it is painfully obvious that for most "later" never arrives. In summary, some readers will conclude that one of the major inferences that can be drawn from these reports and case studies is that much of the secondary school science curriculum is mismatched to the interests and needs of the majority of students in our schools who will not pursue scientific or technological careers. In the current political setting of American education, characterized by declining enrollments, resource shortages, and unrealistic social expectations of schools, the inappropriateness of the curriculum may contribute heavily to the frustration of teachers, the malaise of students, and the dissatisfaction of parents. Those whose interpretaat such a conclusion may well expect tion of these reports leads them to arrive policy makers, teachers, and citizen groups to re-examine the content of the school science curriculum to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of contemporary America. Of course, readers' impressions derived from the reports of site visitors and the results of questionnaires are inevitably influenced by their subjective views of the schools, science, and the way in which children learn. Citizens, science teachers, and policy makers at all levels need to know more about what is being taught, and whether the curriculum is, in the main, appropriate for the students to whom it is presented, taking into account their previous preparation and motivation. How well is science being taught? Do the methods convey something of the spirit of science? Is "The lack of articulation in science curricula between grades, within schools, and between different schools at the same level is a significant finding.” the tentative nature of science made clear? Do our science classes foster inquiry and scholarship? Quality assessment is always a sensitive matter, but these are the issues which we must engage, whether individually as teachers or collectively as faculties. III. How are teachers educated? The studies contain information on the background and education of the teachers in the sample populations that suggests some reason for concern. While each state sets minimum requirements for science teachers, state certification criteria still do not reflect those proposed by professional associations which call, particularly, for more science content. This is especially crucial in the elementary and junior high schools, where most of the science instruction occurs. It is at these levels that teachers have the least adequate science content preparation and the poorest physical facilities, while at the same time the fewest certification programs available to them. Secondary school teachers fare better: Only slightly more than one-tenth of them are currently teaching one or more science courses for which they feel inadequately qualified. On the other hand, 16 percent of the elementary teachers surveyed feel "not well qualified" to teach science, and less than a quarter of them feel "well qualified" to do so. This feeling of inadequacy by elementary teachers to handle science instruction permeates all three studies and indicates a need for some serious work by all those who can help alleviate this problem. Reactions to the adequacy of preservice education for science teachers were mixed. The Case Studies indicated some low estimates of the quality of education courses and a concern by observers that many science teachers leave college with so little command of the substantive content of the NSF-initiated curricula that they are in need of remediation the instant they graduate. In addition, teachers feel threatened by the pressure for accountability and the "back-to basics' movement for which they were not prepared in preservice training. It is discouraging to note, too, that knowledge of science is rarely consid ered basic by the state boards of education, and science education is rarely included in state needs statements. This in itself may be indicative of a low interest by the general public in supporting high-quality science instruction. Improved science teacher education, both pre- and inservice, is an important need. While continuing research in science teaching/learning is vitally needed, the results of that research need to be better communicated and applied in both the preservice and inservice programs. One of the studies' observations is that there is a critical need for preservice and inservice science education to be viewed and dealt with as a continuous program rather than as discrete entities handled by two different sets of people. This presents a challenge to the teacher-training institutions not only to do appropriate follow-up studies on their graduates but to work even more closely with the school districts that employ them. Although the studies seem to indicate that today's secondary school science teachers are better educated than were those of the 1950s, both the teachers' perceptions and the findings of research indicate that there is still a critical need for inservice education. Approximately half of the elementary science teachers and more than 41 percent of the secondary science teachers took a course for college credit in 1976-77. Sizable numbers of teachers have earned one or more degrees beyond the bachelor's: more than half of the secondary school science teachers and just over a quarter of the elementary science teachers. However, since little of this graduate study by elementary teachers is done in academic science courses, there is a pressing need for both preservice and inservice training to overcome their fear of teaching science, so that they may teach it well and with enthusiasm. A consistent theme throughout the documents was the high value ascribed to NSF-sponsored activities in the education of science teachers. The most frequently attended programs were the NSF Summer Institutes: Approximately two-thirds of the state science supervisors and almost 40 percent of the 7-12th grade science teachers surveyed had participated in one or more of these. Unfor tunately, less than a fifth of the elementary science teachers had done so. The second most often attended activity reported was the In-Service Institute, with participation by 18 percent of the grade 7-12 science teachers and 10 percent of the elementary teachers. While the evidence is overwhelming that these government-supported programs were considered to be of major help to science teachers, the majority of teachers currently teaching have not participated in them. This fact should be carefully noted and appropriate action taken. It is absolutely essential that elementary teachers be given continuous inservice and supervisory consultant help in science and in the teaching of science since their education does not include any significant study in these two areas. IV. Who helps the teacher? Most school districts have coordinated sequences of courses in print. But teachers at each grade level who were critical of their students' previous learning deviated from the syllabus as they saw fit. The lack of articulation in science curricula between grades, within schools, and between different schools at the same level is a significant finding. Individual teachers-within broad limits-select the content and methods which they believe appropriate, but the study found that teachers were more on their own than they wanted to be. The need for leadership in coordinating and directing individual teachers' efforts and initiatives toward common goals was apparent but unfulfilled. Federal and state offices and legislation which have increased administrative duties, plus local opposition to increasing school costs, have fostered the trend both to decrease the number of central administrative offices and to redirect their efforts from "pedagogical to management matters." Decentralization of authority has moved some of the management problems to building principals, leaving them less time to work with teachers in developing and implementing the educational program. The study found that only one in five of the districts surveyed employed full-time science supervisors/coordinators and that two in five school districts had none. In the schools, instructional help and leadership for teachers can come from the school principal and/or supervisory |