Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 289
ELI
Accomplishing Curricular
Changes ~ mplomentabon
OCR for page 290
OCR for page 291
31
Problems and Issues in
Science-Curriculum Reform and
Implementation
PAUL DEHART HURD
There is nothing more difficult to manage, more dubious to accomplish, or more
dangerous to execute than the introduction of a new order of things.
[Machiavelli, 1977 (1513)].
This nation is once again demanding a reform of education with
attention directed especially at deficiencies in the teaching of science and
mathematics (Hurd, 1984, 1985~. The charge implies that young people are
being ill prepared for living in an "information age" and for meeting the
social and economic demands of the twenty-first century (NAS, 1982; NSB,
1983; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983~. In the last
5 years, 1983-1988, over 100 national commission, panel, or committee
reports have been published, in addition to dozens of books by informed
educators all critical of precollege education in the United States. It
should be noted, however, that the vast majority of reports were developed
by citizen groups, government agencies, economic organizations, or business
or industry, and not by schools or educators.
The need for educational reform has been viewed as a national crisis,
and immediate action has been demanded. Leadership for the reform was
assumed for the most part by politicians, particularly state governors (ECS,
Paul DeHart Hurd is professor emeritus of science education at Stanford University. Dr. Hurd,
long a leader in science curriculum developed for the schools, is a member of the human biology
program under development at Stanford.
291
OCR for page 292
292
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
1983; Kirst, 1984), and by business and industrial organizations (CED,
1985~. Currently, a number of private foundations are studying critical
aspects of the overall school-reform effort, such as urban educational
problems and education of teachers (Carnegie, 1986; Ford Foundation,
1984~. Changes in the subject matter to be taught and its context are being
explored by several science-based groups (the National Science Foundation;
ALAl\S, 1987; ACS, 1988; N. ASTS,1987~.
The various science teachers organizations have been cautious about
entering the debate on curriculum reform. A few of the organizations
have used ad hoc committees to refine previous statements of science-
teaching goals. These organizations have been active in forming networks,
alliances, or coalitions among teachers to share ideas about what should
be done to improve the condition of science education, but to what ends
is not clear. A 1988 study of articles in 12 leading science-education
journals-such as The Science Teacher, The Physics Teacher, Journal of
Chemical Education, Science Education, and American Biology Teacher-in
1983-1988 found that only 22 of 4,884 feature articles were responses to
the concerns represented in the national reports on educational reform.
Of the 22 articles, 16 stressed the importance of including technology in
science courses and four recommended including scientific-societal issues.
None of the science-education journals carried an article that systematically
explored the scientific and social issues that underlie demands for a reform
of science education (Hurd, unpublished data).
The 1980s are not the first time in this century that attempts have been
made to redirect the teaching of science. Reform issues arise whenever
a perceived economic or social crisis appears on the American scene,
such as the shift from an agricultural to an industrial economy or, as is
now the case, a shift from a "postindustrial society" to an "information
age." Periods after wars always generate concerns about what should be
the nature of public education. World War II led to renewed attention
on precollege science education with the goal of strengthening the U.S.
technical workforce (Steelman, 1947~. Some education reform movements
are politically inspired, for example, by the successful launching of Sputnik
by the USSR in the 1950s (President's Science Advisory Committee, 1959)
and by the Japanese domination of the global economy in the 1980s.
Politicians take the stance that schools must be doing something wrong, or
the United States would be first or on top of the situation. A persistent
theme in the l981)s reform movement is that the United States has lost its
competitive edge in world markets and therefore should revise the school
science curriculum. Schools are called on to initiate a new social contract
with the nation one that redefines standards of excellence and will serve
to turn the tide in the country's eroding foreign economic competition.
It is frequently suggested in the public press that we should adopt the
OCR for page 293
SCIENCE-CURRICULUM REFORM AND IMPLEMENTATION
293
science curriculum of our chief competitor, Japan. Japan, however, is in
the process of reforming its educational system to ensure that it will not
lose its competitive position in the world (Hurd, unpublished manuscript).
Bringing about a fundamental change in the science curriculum is a
complex process. In fact, it is a process that has yet to be resolved. A
major reason for this situation is a tendency in the United States always
to deal with problems, rather than first identifying and interpreting the
underlying and interacting social, cultural, and scientific developments that
project new educational demands.
A brief look at some current efforts to foster educational changes will
demonstrate why the movement is failing so far. One action has been to
use the public press to deliver the worst bashing that schools have ever had
to endure. Teachers are portrayed as incompetent, students as ignorant of
whatever you may regard as important, school principals as not knowing
how to provide leadership, schools as not being administered in a business-
like fashion, and students' scores on standardized tests as an indicator of
poor teaching. A common means for dealing with these problems is to
reduce financial support until schools do better.
Another policy has been to legislate change. Within the last 5 years,
over 800 laws, mandates, or regulations have been established by states to
influence practices in schools. On the one hand, requirements for teacher
certification are increased for graduates of teacher-education institutions;
on the other hand, there are lower qualifications for any citizen who wishes
to teach and has had little or no training.
The most common recommendation for educational improvement is
for everyone concerned to try harder. This idea is implemented by requiring
more of everything: more schoolhours per day and more schooldays per
year, more rigorous courses (a euphemism for "rugged"), more testing of
both teachers and students, more "time on task" in classes, higher standards
for getting into college, more involvement of business and industry and of
university faculty in school affairs, more laboratory work in science classes,
more use of computers and other electronic technology, more publicity
for "good" or effective schools and more "bad" publicity for ineffective
schools, more in-service training for teachers and principals, and so on.
About the only "less of" recommendation is less opportunity for students
to participate in competitive sports or other extracurricular activities if they
do not meet certain academic standards. There may be merit in some of
these recommendations, but in the aggregate they reinforce the conditions
and circumstances that give rise to the quest for educational reform in the
first place.
What have been the results from these strategies? Teachers are de-
moralized, parents disillusioned with schools, and students "turned off" by
science; and there is a growing attitude that it is probably better to go back
OCR for page 294
294
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
to traditional curricula and modes of instruction and learning. Consider-
able publicity has been given to '`effective schools," schools that appear
to be doing something better than they did in the past. I have searched
the published reports on these schools, and I did not find changes in their
philosophy of science education, a recognition of the impact of modern
science and technology on society, or evidence that student learning was
more productive.
A reform of high-school biology has been under consideration for
nearly a century. At roughly 10-year intervals, a committee is formed
with new perspectives on the teaching of biology (Hurd, 1961; Mayer,
1986~. Conferences are convened, resolutions passed, reports published,
a few workshops given for teachers at regional or national conventions-
and soon all are forgotten. A few years later, the cycle is repeated; but
there is no review of the accumulated history that might lead to a new
conceptual framework for an education in biology. Compare, for example,
the report of the Committee of Ten, Twelve, Fifteen (NEA, 1894) with A
Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983~.
They are similar in their recommendations. Neither of these reports has as
yet stimulated the development of a biology curriculum that recognizes the
issues identified by the reformers. And it can be added that none of the
other national reports on the improvement of science education published
in the 1980s has so far brought about significant change in what is taught
in schools.
A good deal of the ineffectiveness of the national reports is inherent
in the reports. As one reads these reports, one realizes that they tend
to be more critical than creative, more speculative than informed, more
slogans than solutions, more visible than valid, and more problem-directed
than issue-directed. Their positions on education tend to be supported
by passionate rhetoric and uncertain statistics. The educational slogans of
"quality," "excellence," and "scientific literacy" have been around for more
than a century and are still wanting in definition.
The central problem is how to introduce into schools a biology curricu-
lum that represents the ethos of modern biology, ensures more productive
learning by students (Resnick, 1987), considers social changes and cultural
shifts, and is in a context that has educational validity for the foreseeable
future (Cole and Griffin, 1987~. All biology-reform committees over the last
100 years have failed in attempts to implement a curriculum in which the
goals were the proper education of a citizen in the sense of being better in-
formed about life and living, more concerned about biosocial problems, and
more competent and confident in reaching decisions. This is a much more
difficult task than educating scientists and technically trained journeymen
to carry out the practice of science.
There is a plethora of reports indicating quantitative deficiencies of
OCR for page 295
SCIENCE-CURRICULUM REFORM AND IMPLEMENTATION
295
science education, but nowhere is there to be found a unifying theory
of either science or biology education that has a modicum of consensus
(IEA, 1988; Raizen and Jones, 1985; Buccino et al., 1982~. Efforts to
bring about a reform of science education that proceed "ahistorically"
and "aphilosophically" have no anchors in reality and no flag to follow.
The most difficult phase of implementing a reform of science education is
changing the prevailing beliefs of teachers, parents, school administrators,
and school-board members about what an education in science ought to
mean. A lack of such a statement of belief only serves to create more
confusion than insight and neutralizes reform efforts.
A well-recognized principle in social psychology is that effecting change
in an institution requires that all the actors be considered. For schools,
this means not only teachers, but parents, students, principals, top ad-
ministrators, school-board members, politicians, and college and university
faculty members in the sciences and in education. In the science-curriculum
projects of the 1950s and 1960s, only the scientists and a few token teachers
were involved in developing the curriculum rationale and choice of subject
matter. All other teachers were to be trained in various types of institute
programs taught by scientists who were not involved in producing the mate-
rials (Hurd, 1969~. School administrators, parents, and students alike were
left out of the picture. So were the science educators in colleges and uni-
versities, with the result that the next generation of science teachers were
never trained to implement the new curricula. The same situation occurred
in the departments of science in colleges and universities. These depart-
ments are responsible for 85% of the requirements for the certification of
a teacher, but they did not pattern course requirements in ways that will
improve public education in science. A lesson from the science-curriculum
improvement projects of the 1950s and 1960s is that $1 billion for teacher
in-service programs and nearly $150 million for new instructional materials
will not ensure the success of an intended reform. A study by the U. S.
General Accounting Office published in 1984 concluded that the institute
programs of the 1950s and 1960s for the retraining of science teachers were
largely ineffective (GAO, 1984~. Science courses are taught today in the
way they were in the 1940s and with the same goals in mind.
Serious blocks in implementing a new curriculum are the misconcep-
tions that teachers have about the various ways of knowing in the sciences
and what is meant by knowledge and wisdom. Using biology as an example,
when T. H. Huxley, in 1878, developed a biology course for use in high
schools, the prevailing theory of learning was known as formal or mental
discipline. The underlying assumption was that the mind had a number of
distinct and general powers or faculties, such as memory and observation,
and that they could be strengthened and developed by mental exercise.
Because of the extensive terminology and taxonomy much of it ideally
OCR for page 296
296
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
Latinized biology was considered an ideal course for training memory
and observation. One needs only to examine a modern textbook in life
science or biology to find that the theory of formal discipline still pre-
vails in practice. Most textbooks are little more than beautifully illustrated
dictionaries. Note also the number of recommendations In the current
science-reform movement that stress making science courses more rigorous
and academic as a way to improve learning. Throughout the whole history
of biology, teacher-made and standardized tests (Murnane and Raizen,
1988) have reinforced the notion that the memorization of a large technical
vocabulary is equivalent to understanding biology.
There has never been a mechanism or a system developed for chan-
neling the research on learning and cognition into the education of biology
teachers, the textbooks and tests they use, and instructional procedures
for making student learning more productive, in terms of knowing what
it means to understand something and how to make intellectual use of it.
Now that we have reached a phase in history in which there is a need for
all people to be able to renew and extend their knowledge base throughout
their entire life span, what is meant by knowing, understanding, and using
are major components of a curriculum-implementation program.
It has been my purpose here to indicate that there is much more to a
viable implementation of a reform in biology education than restructuring
institutions and reformulating the curriculum, although both these endeav-
ors are essential. As every ecologist knows, there is never an instance in
which only one thing happens at a time. We would do well to think in
terms of the ecology of educational reform.
REFERENCES
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1987. What Science is
Most Worth Knowing? Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
ACS (American Chemical Society). 1988. ChemCom: Chemistry in the Community.
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.
Buccino, A., P. Evans, and G. Vessel. 1982. Science and Engineering Education: Data and
Information. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
Carnegie (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy). 1986. A Nation Prepared:
Teachers for the 21st Century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Cole, M., and P. Griffin. 1987. Contextual Factors in Education, pp. 5~. Madison, Wis.:
Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
CED (Committee for Economic Development). 1985. Investing in Our Children. New
York: CED.
ECS (Education Commission of the States). 1983. Action for Excellence. Denver, Colo.:
ECS.
Ford Foundation. 1984. City High School: A Recognition of Progress. New York: Ford
Foundation.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1984. New Directions in Federal Programs to Aid
Mathematics and Science Teachem. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
Hurd, P. D. 1961. Biological Education in American Secondary Schools 1890-1960. Wash-
ington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences.
OCR for page 297
SCIENCE-CURRICULUM REFORM AND IMPLEMENTATION
297
Hurd, P. D. 1969. New Directions in Teaching Secondary School Science. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Co.
Hurd, P. D. 1984. Reforming Science Education: The Search for a New Vision. Washington,
D.C.: Council for Basic Education.
Hurd, P. D. 1985. Science education for a new age: The reform movement. Nat. Assoc.
Sec. Sch. Princ. Bull. 69:83-92.
IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement). 1988.
Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A Preliminary Report. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Kirst, M. 1984. Who Controls Our Schools? Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Alumni Association.
Machiavelli, N. 19M. The Prince. J. B. Atkinson, leans. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill
Educational Publishing.
Mayer, W. V. 1986. Biology education in the United States during the twentieth century.
Quart. Rev. Biol. 61:481-507.
Murnane, R. J., and S. A. Raizen, Eds. 1988. Improving Indicators of Science and
Mathematics Education in Grades K-12, pp. 40-73. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering). 1982. Science and
Mathematics in the Schools: Report of a Convocation. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
NASTS (National Association for Science, Technology, Society). 1987. Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society. University Park, Pa.: STS Press.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation At Risk: The Imperative
for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NEA (National Education Association). 1894. Report of the Committee of Ten, Twelve,
Fifteen. New York: American Book Company.
NSB (National Science Board, Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science
and Technology). 1983. Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Report to
the American People and the National Science Board. Washington, D.C.: National
Science Foundation.
President's Science Advisory Committee.
Washington, D.C.: The White House.
1959. Education for the Age of Science.
Raizen, S. A., and L. V. Jones, Eds. 1985. Indicators of Precollege Education in Science
and Mathematics: A Preliminary Review. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Resnick, L. D. 1987. Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Steelman, J. R. 1947. Manpower for Research. President's Scientific Research Board,
Science and Public Policy. Vol. 4. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
OCR for page 298
Changing Practice in High Schools:
A Process, Not an Event
GENE E. HALL
The 30-year period 1958-19% has presented fantastic increases in our
understanding in science. A parallel rate of increase can be documented in
terms of our understanding of science education. The strategies now used
to develop curriculum for the teaching of science in high schools mirror our
increased sophistication in science and science education. The occurrence
of a conference, such as this one, and the inclusion of topics that in many
instances were unknown, or at least little understood, in 1958 are additional
indicators of our learning.
In addition to a greatly increased body of knowledge, in terms of sci-
ence, the importance of teacher education is now recognized. The inclusion
of a panel dealing with teacher preparation and, more significantly, asking
two panels to deal with institutional barriers and issues of implementation
reflect major shifts in understanding, as well as significant increases in
research-based knowledge. Each of these has contributed to the develop-
ment of new models and strategies.
In this paper, I will describe a series of factors from studies that have
documented the importance of addressing issues of implementation from
the very beginning of the curriculum-development process. For example,
Gene E. Hall received a Ph.D. in science education in 1968 from Syracuse University. He sensed
for 18 years at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at the University
of Texas. He is currently dean, College of Education, University of Northern Colorado. His
research emphasis is on examination of the change process from the teacher's perspective in
schools and colleges.
298
OCR for page 299
CHANGING PRACTICE IN HIGH SCHOOLS
299
the setting of design specifications for new curricula has direct implications
for teacher training and the steps that will need to be taken to enhance the
rate and ease of use of the resulting product by teachers in real classrooms.
Adding to this discussion will be consideration of the unique characteristics
of American high schools.
The stereotypical image of high schools is that teachers and the insti-
tution are resistant to change. In fact, Ducharme (1982) went as far as to
suggest that "high schools will change when dogs learn to sing." Others
suggest that high schools have not changed since the introduction of the
Carnegie unit near the turn of the century. Clearly, the unique characteris-
tics and conditions of high schools must be considered when one is thinking
about strategies and ways of updating, enhancing, refining science-teaching
practices.
DEVELOPMENT VS. IMPLEMENTATION
Thirty years ago, there was a singular focus on development activities
when it was determined that changes in classroom practice were needed.
Design teams were established that would bring together in curriculum-
development projects scientists, science educators, learning theorists, and
outstanding teachers. The concept of implementation was not addressed.
The result was that the new curricula of the 1960s were not introduced
in most of the nation's classrooms and use did not continue in most of
the classrooms where they were placed. Until the count of nonadoptions
soared, there seemed to be an assumption that truth (i.e., the talent in
science knowledge), beauty (i.e., attractive materials), and being right (i.e.,
discovery approach) would automatically result in a widespread rush of
regular classroom teachers to the new and dramatically different.
When the adoption rates did not increase, attempts to disseminate
information about the new curricula became more systematic. At that time,
the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) was established to
handle the dissemination and adoption of new curriculum. It was not
until the 1970s that there was a widespread recognition that dissemination
did not necessarily lead to trial use and most certainly did not lead to
continuing use of new materials. In fact, institutionalization of the many
nationally developed curricula has now been well documented to be rare.
One outcome of these experiences and early studies (e.g., Rogers and
Shoemaker, 1971; Havelock, 1971) was the identification of a set of phases
in the "knowledge utilization" process.
A major reason for the widespread nonuse of new practice was that
nearly all the time, if not all the time, personnel, resources, and policy-
maker attention were exhausted in the development phase. We now know
that curriculum implementation requires equal time, resources, dollars, and
OCR for page 326
326
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
honored, special interests are served, flexibility is maintained, and, most
important, the claim can be made that curricular change has been effected.
Second, the school may turn to a prefabricated curriculum. This is
often a necessity, if a new approach to classroom delivery is required, such
as the inclusion of laboratory activities. In adopting a new curriculum,
special requirements may be satisfied, but newness does not guarantee
instant achievement of intended goals or instant facility in new teaching
techniques. New content and pedagogic approaches require time to master
and personalize, and the slowness and expense of the process tend to
create frustration in both teachers and administrators. Inexorably, the
prefabricated curriculum gives way to the lure of "newerness," and the
cycle of change is set in motion again.
Stability in Curriculum
In many places, educators have become so enamored of change that
they overlook the value of curricular stability. A curriculum that can be
maintained for a period of years is usually a curriculum that is delivered with
increasing skill, competence, and satisfaction. Quality curriculum delivery
is produced out of long refinement.
It is much easier and less expensive to build a school program around
a stable curriculum than around a curriculum in a state of flux. For
the teacher dealing with 150-180 students a day, under the pressures of
correcting endless stacks of homework and weekly tests, as well as an
extracurricular assignment, curriculum stability makes the job possible. For
the administrator, stability in curriculum is the oil that makes the school
run smoothly.
However, stabilized curricular offerings have problems. Predictably,
many teachers become bored with the same routine, and interaction with
their classes becomes mechanical and uninspired. Students are quick to
note this and respond in kind. In addition to inducing boredom, curriculum
that has been in place without modification for a period of years has a high
probability of becoming out of date in terms of both content and pedagogy.
Crisis, Stability, and Change
Forces for stability and change pull the curriculum in opposite direc-
tions. Both must operate, if we are to achieve and maintain educational
excellence. Commentators tell us that both stabilizing and change factors
should be continually weighed and programs should be monitored inter-
nally and externally to determine whether modification is warranted. At
the school level, mandates from legislative bodies should be carefully ana-
lyzed for their connection with the existing curriculum, and, where possible,
OCR for page 327
CREATING AND NURTURING CURRICULUM CHANGES
327
modification of existing programs should be nondisruptive. The emphasis
of curriculum delivery should be on development of ever-increasing quality.
Major change in curriculum should be undertaken with equal deliberation.
Paining should be given to all parties during the time of implementation
of new curricula, and the goal of implementation should be to reach a state
of dynamic stability as soon as possible.
Politicians choose to move education by declaration of crisis. Educa-
tion and its problems seem to gain prominence in the minds of our national
political leadership once every 15-20 years, at which time a national crisis is
pronounced with great ceremony and the machinery of federal legislation
is put into gear to remedy the newly discovered deficiencies. Once this is
done, the educational establishment is expected to work hand in hand with
new assistance programs generated during this time of focus and, as a good
physician would do, go and heal itself.
State legislatures operate in like manner. Moved by federal concern,
they fall in line, picking up and brokering new federally funded programs
and adding their vision of the solution to the crisis through new curriculum
guides, graduation tests, and mandated program.
Crisis once declared is infectious. Overnight, publishers, entrepreneurs,
universities, and professional and special-interest groups gather round with
their packaged versions of solutions.
The Current Crisis
Let us single out science for a closer study of projected response to
our latest crisis, which in sum calls for increased quantity and quality of
laboratory science and technology education for all students. The change
levers of the federal and state governments, special-interest groups, and
entrepreneurs are now going into place. But what can we expect of the
efforts? What are the forces resisting change?
Teachers and Cumcular Change
Although the actions of government, boards of education, and admin-
istrators are essential in the process of curricular change, it is what happens
in the classroom that determines the success of curricular change. The
real determinant of success is how well the teacher's needs and problems
in delivering the curriculum are understood and accommodated. For the
teacher facing a new curriculum with a laboratory component and a new
pedagogy of cooperative learning or individualization, there are numerous
reasons for resisting change.
A primary problem for teachers facing laboratories for the first time
is management. How does one get equipment out to 10 working groups,
OCR for page 328
328
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
instruct them on certain fine points of operation, monitor equipment use,
and get the equipment back washed and ready for the next class, all in
50 minutes? How does one have students carry out individual projects of
various degrees of complexity while keeping a flow of continuing class work?
Generally, how does one anticipate problems and cope when students are
expected to be self-directed?
Many teachers find laboratory preparations frightening and inconve-
nient. One must know how to dilute concentrated sulfuric acid without a
thermal explosion, know that hot paraffin is not to be poured down a sink
drain, and know that agar slants are to be sterilized before washing.
Handling students in small- and large-group discussion in which the
flow of questions and answers is driven by open-ended laboratory expe-
rience, grading laboratory books that are the reflection of what actually
was observed in the laboratory and not what a text says should occur,
using performance tests instead of paper-and-pencil tests all can create
apprehension and frustrations for the teacher.
For teachers not endowed with fix-it, scrounger, or entrepreneurial
genes, inadequate facilities and equipment become insurmountable hurdles,
and inadequacy is common.
Most teachers, when starting up a new laboratory-based curriculum,
are frightened of questions they cannot answer. It takes long study to gain
a sense of security about new content, and still greater stress is placed on
teachers when new content is quantitative, rather than descriptive.
Gaining and Its Problems
The literature on educational change is clear. The kinds of problems
listed above can be overcome only in intensive training. This point is
sufficiently well accepted that federal agencies funding development and
dissemination of new curriculum, such as the National Science Foundation
(NSEi) and the National Diffusion Network (NDN), now require developers
to make training available to prospective users. But even here there are
problems.
There are serious difficulties with present NSF- and NDN-like training
practices. llaining made available is not training required. A new pack-
age with optional training does not carry the message to administrators
and teachers that successful implementation depends on the understanding
of content, the inquiry style, the mechanics of the laboratory and field
experience, and other subtleties.
Teacher training is normally done over vacations, when schools are
not in operation. As a nonstandard activity of most schools, training is
inconvenient and expensive. Teachers must give up well-deserved vacation
time. School boards and administration must find money to coordinate
OCR for page 329
CREATING AND NURTURING CURRICULUM CHANGES
329
the training, pay personnel and get them to the training site, maintain
the site, etc. Staining goes against the basic instincts of the cost-conscious
administrator and school board.
Even when training is entered into, it is often insufficient in particularity
and intensity. First, the training for curriculum change may be generic,
dealing with a range of new content, teaching strategies, and laboratory
techniques, but never dealing with the details of the curriculum that a
teacher will face in the next term. Second, program-specific training may
be delivered by a person who has no experience in teaching the curriculum
to be used and who is therefore unable to speak to the problems that will
have to be confronted in the classroom.
Seldom understood and even less often supported is the need for
in-service coaching and mentoring after a training workshop is completed.
In the best in-service training, only some of the potential problems of a
curriculum can be touched on, and it will take several years for a teacher
to master sufficiently the delivery of a given new curriculum to feel truly at
home with it. In the early days and years of adjusting to a new curriculum,
the help, counsel, mediation, and problem-solving of a creative mentor
often are the difference between the curriculum's succeeding and failing.
Political Forces Frustrating Change
In their public zeal to establish curricular requirements to reflect some
vision of curricular adequacy and currency and to ensure that those require-
ments are met, state legislatures nationwide have been erecting structures
that work against their own intent to effect change. Such structures in-
clude rigid subject-matter and grade-level syllabi, mandated requirements,
and testing. Stipulation of what must be taught reduces the potential
for change. This is particularly true when requirements are tied in with
paper-and-pencil testing.
Administrative Frustration with Change
Administrators are held accountable by the public for prudent bud-
getary management and the quality of teaching in their schools. For them,
new curricula that make different or greater demands on resources, change
the content and skill preparation of students, or change the definition of
adequacy and excellence for the performance evaluation of teachers can be
a nightmare.
Changes in textbooks are fairly easy to justify with school boards.
Board members know that textbooks wear out and must be replaced.
Changing to a laboratory-intensive program from a text-dominated program
or from one laboratory program to another presents a very different scope
of financial outlay and a very different kind of justification. Resulting
OCR for page 330
330
HIGH-SCH~L BIOLOGY
budgetary requests can be defended only on the grounds that students are
gaining a better understanding of science, and such a defense is very often
hard to make, particularly when the state testing program does not reflect
laboratory experience.
~--o r--o-
Every time there is a substantive change in the content and skill
expectations of a course, external adjustments must be made. When the
direction of the change is toward an inquiry laboratory program, many
students who have done well in the past using texts will evidence early
frustration and antagonism.
The professional skills demanded of a laboratory inquiry teacher are
very different from those demanded of a textbook lecture teacher. For
the administrator who is looking for the first time at a laboratory in
which students are expected to assemble and operate experiments with
minimal teacher input, the scene may appear chaotic. Pattern in activity is
hard to detect, conversation among partners will range from cooperative
and restrained to argumentative and unmodulated, and rates of getting
down to task will vary markedly. Rating teachers' performance in such an
environment is difficult. Most difficult is the situation in which a teacher
rated as excellent as a lecturer is now struggling with a new program.
THE CRDG MODEL
Despite all the mechanisms for change that have been developed,
countervailing forces have tended to reduce educational progress to a
mime walk with great apparent movement and little forward progress.
The same forces that have stymied us in the past exist today. In science,
the problem is exacerbated, because teacher shortages are again bringing
into the classroom teachers who are only marginally prepared for their
assignment. What, then, can be done? Some possible answers come
from the experience of the Curriculum Research and Development Group
(CRDG) of the University of Hawaii, which over the last 22 years has been
developing a series of techniques that deal with the problems outlined here.
CRDG is a semiautonomous unit within the College of Education. It
has been mandated to serve the curricular and other educational needs
of primary and secondary schools of Hawaii and the Pacific Basin. Its
charge is to engage in curriculum research, development, dissemination,
and evaluation.
Resources
Resources of the group include the following:
· The University Laboratory School, which acts as the primary test
site for new programs. The Laboratory School has some 360 students,
OCR for page 331
CREATING AND NURTURING CURRICULUM CHANGES
331
K-12, who are selected from the four public-school districts on the island
of Oahu to represent the socioeconomic, ethnic, and intellectual mix of
students in the state.
· A permanent faculty of some 60 persons, augmented by a temporary
staff of about equal size hired to complete particular projects.
· An annual budget of approximately $2,000,000, with additional
funds generated out of grants and contracts from public and private schools
in the state and Pacific Basin.
· Access to the services of disciplinary faculty members of the uni-
versity who act as consultants, overload staff, or joint appointees.
Research
CRDG has a continuing research function that has three foci:
· Screening. New programs in selected curricular areas and grade
levels are screened as they appear on the national and international scene
and, when found promising, are visited, trial-tested, or otherwise studied.
This activity has several outcomes. It may provide information for later
curriculum design, provide a basis for advising schools on use, or provide
the contacts for a CRDG role in program dissemination.
· Exploratory research. New curricular and administrative ideas gen-
erated by the staff are constantly being explored. For example, at this time,
exploratory research is being done on ways to make all course offerings ac-
cessible to heterogeneously grouped classes; to combine the study of physics
and physiology; to achieve problem-solving mastery in chemistry with com-
puter monitoring and generation of problems; to define more clearly the
learning behavior of students in their acquisition of algebra concepts; to
service the special learning problems of the Pacific Island students making
the transition to Hawaii's schools; to achieve more objective grading of
student school performance; and to conceptualize, organize, and provide
leadership for a program of prevention for students at risk and others.
~ Program effectiveness. There is continuing research accompanying
curricula already in dissemination and those in development. This includes
formative evaluation during the early stages of laboratory school and pilot-
testing and more classical summative evaluation during field-testing.
The University Setting Advantage
Though CRDG is product-oriented, there is expectation that consider-
able time will be spent in doing research. Research results can be weighed
and validated, colleagues can be consulted, whole systems challenged and
reconstructed, and ideas explored, often long before there is a general
expression of need. Most important, there is an opportunity to explore the
frontiers of ideas and a recognition that, of the many ideas explored, only
a few will result in products.
OCR for page 332
332
HIGH-SCH~L BIOLOGY
In contrast, efforts to improve curriculum, such as those driven by
federal funding, work out of expectations of success within the defined
period of the grant. This means that efforts must be very circumscribed
and circumspect. Substantive change requires a free atmosphere to think,
tinker, and test the atmosphere of the universi~and few school systems
can provide such an opportunity.
Situated outside the schools of the state, CRDG has been able to take
on a range of topics with broad innovative content that could not be un-
dertaken within the normal structure of the public or private schools. For
example, in science alone, CRDG has conceptualized, designed, developed,
tested, and disseminated the 3-year middle-school or intermediate-school
integrated science program Foundational Approaches in Science Teaching
(FAST); the K-12 Hawaii Nutrition Education (HNE) program; the na-
tion's only 1-year high-school laboratory-based oceanography curriculum,
the Hawaii Marine Science Studies (HMSS) project; and many others.
Development and Trial Procedures of CRDG
Targets for development may be identified by CRDG staff or by public
or private schools in Hawaii or by schools or educational organizations
in the Pacific Basin. When CRDG initiates a project out of the results
of its own research, it does so only after consultation with the Hawaii
Department of Education, which is its principal client. Once a new project
is started, the following general steps are followed:
· The project is endowed with a staff, usually under the leadership
of a senior faculty member.
· A steering committee is recruited and charged.
· Design is begun, with the steering committee as a sounding board
and the laboratory school as a site for preliminary trial of ideas.
· Development proceeds to a full-scale laboratory school version that
is tested, revised, and retested until deemed ready for pilot-testing.
· Piloting takes place in a selected group of schools with feedback
going to revision of the materials.
· Field-testing and dissemination with in-service coaching and men-
toring follow, along with regular testing and revision.
The Dash Model of Development and Dissemination
Of the dozen programs now in design and development, the K-6
Developmental Approaches in Science and Health (DASH) program has
a structure that potentially offers solutions to some of the problems de-
scribed above. Young children, who best understand concrete, immediate
OCR for page 333
CREATING AND NURTURING CURRICULUM C~4NGES
333
things, need science materials that reflect their home, school, and commu-
nity environments. There is also a need to satisfy special state and local
curricular requirements. Such needs cannot be accommodated in curricu-
lum fabricated from afar. Therefore, a central core of materials is being
developed in Hawaii and then pilot-tested, modified, and complemented by
the staffs of eight collaborating mainland university schools. If successful,
such a model may hold promise for other efforts to adjust prefabricated
curricula to local needs. In addition, once developed, these materials will
be disseminated and serviced by these same local university schools.
The FAST Model of Dissemination
CRDG and its science section in particular have had exceptional
success in getting programs instituted and retained in schools. A specific
example will give insights into our general approach. The FAST project
was first pilot-tested in Hawaii in 1970. From the beginning, Hawaii
teachers using the program were required to undergo an intensive training
workshop, originally 6 weeks and eventually refined to 2 weeks. Teachers are
supported by a field coordinator, who provides a variety of followup mentor
services and sustains a collegiate community among FAST teachers. After
18 years, the training workshop still takes teachers through all activities of
the program while instructing them in classroom management, as well as
the program's philosophy and pedagogy. Where originally instructors were
developers, they are now practicing teachers selected for their exemplary
teaching of FAST and their capacity to communicate with their fellow
teachers. Recent estimates indicate that, of the more than 500 Hawaii
teachers trained in FAST who are still teaching middle-school science,
some 9055 are still using the materials.
National Dissemination
In 1984, CRDG received a grant from the National Diffusion Net-
work (NDN) that enabled it to explore national dissemination of FAST.
A marketing system was set up through the university's nonprofit research
corporation, and a field representative was recruited to act as sales agent.
All parties agreed to the following operational rules:
.
, _, _
No teacher is to be provided FAST materials until he or she has
been trained in a registered FAST workshop. Once trained, a teacher is
given a certification number. Orders for materials must be accompanied
by the certification number or an agreement for training. The certification
number is the property of the teacher.
· Gainers must qualify as University of Hawaii instructors, and uni-
versity credit is given to workshop participants when desired.
OCR for page 334
334
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
· Schools are contracted with to provide an in-service followup con-
tact person and continuing contact with the project.
· Teacher-training costs for individuals are borne out of costs of the
FAST materials starter set.
· All training of trainers and the assignment of trainers are under
the supervision of CRDG.
After 4 years, well over 1,000 FAST teachers have been trained in the
continental United States, and they are teaching some 100,000 students
this year. The teacher retention rate is about 90%, paralleling the Hawaii
experience. The 4-year period has been a time of research for CRDG, and,
although the model works in all its service aspects, there is yet question as
to whether CRDG curricula less well known than FAST can succeed with
the same mechanism of dissemination.
Cost
It is interesting to look at the developmental cost of FAST to get
some notion of what price the state has to pay for tailor-made curriculum
service. Over its 22 years of development and dissemination, the project
has cost the state approximately $800,000. Over that same period, 200,000
of Hawaii's students have used the program at a cost of $4 per student. On
the basis of an average expenditure of $2,400 per year per student, FAST
has cost the state about 0.16% of the yearly outlay per student served.
CRDG Service
In the normal course of school service elsewhere, curricular consul-
tation, conceptualizing and theorizing, exploratory research, design and
development, and dissemination and mentor-coaching are done by differ-
ent entities, if at all. In Hawaii's case, CRDG provides all these services,
thus eliminating most of the confusion that comes when there is a multi-
plicity of service agencies. The net efficiency of this holistic system is much
greater than that of the normal fragmented approach.
CONCLUSIONS ANI) RECOMMENDATIONS
As one draws conclusions about science-curriculum change in America,
six points should be accommodated. First, a great strength of our educa-
tional system is its diversity and responsiveness to local need. Second, there
is a plethora of institutions and agencies involved in curricular change, and
often their methods and motivations for change run at cross purposes and
may conflict with the needs of teachers, who are the ultimate institutors
of change. Third, to accommodate all the changes required by legislatures
OCR for page 335
CREATING AND NURTURING CURRICULUM C~4NGES
335
and boards of education, much curriculum has become an unconnected
patchwork of pieces without integrating logic. Fourth, although there is
emphasis on curricular change, schools generally have no group to turn
to that has continuously monitored the process of change and has inten-
tionally sought answers to the question, "Where should we go from here?"
Fifth, curricular packages have limitations as to how large an educational
region they can serve without modifications. Sixth, at the level of class-
room implementation, today's teachers are the most poorly prepared to
teach science since World War II and have a desperate need for long-term
in-service mentoring and coaching, if they are to provide quality science
education. In sum, one is forced to the conclusion that a huge task of
localizing curriculum and training teachers faces us, if we are to resolve the
crisis of the eighties and provide the next great leap in biology education.
Out of the CRDG model comes a possible way of building on the
strength of diversity and providing consultation, research, planning, lo-
calized curricular materials, and teacher training and coaching. ~ pre-
serve diversity, it is suggested that a group of state or federally supported
university-based educational institutes be created to devise and support
new curricula. ~ achieve needed service levels, these institutions should
be given six tasks:
· Ib monitor and research international and national, as well as local,
science in some defined service area.
1b reflect continuously on and explore new curricular directions.
provide consultative services to legislatures, boards, and schools.
1b design and modify materials as needed within the service area.
· ~ provide in-service training and followup coaching and mentoring
for teachers in their service area.
· ~ make the materials produced available to other service areas.
It has been the CRDG experience that teachers, administrators, and
the various parties to the politics of education need external institutions
commissioned to work on the spectrum of problems they separately and
jointly face. These institutions need to have the independence to create
and explore promising new ideas and to think holistically. Any new biology
initiative will be well served by such a structure.
OCR for page 336
Representative terms from entire chapter:
external facilitators
