|
|  | Applying Historic Lessons to Current Educational Reform
(continued) The most dramatic development signaling a move toward more practical work for students is the creation of an entirely new subject in several countries: technology. The aim of such courses is not primarily or necessarily to introduce students to the use of computers or to make best use of newer technologies in the provision of more effective instruction. Nor is it intended to develop specific skills in connection with programs of vocational education. Rather the new subject teaches all students about technology to help them understand how it works in meeting human needs and wants, and the resulting social implications. To quote from the federal-level framework developed in 1994 by the Australian Education Council, National Statements and Curriculum Profiles, “Technology is…used as a generic term to include all the technologies people develop and use in their lives. It involves the purposeful application of knowledge, experience, and resources to create products and processes to meet human needs.” Central to this conception of technology education is an emphasis on design. Students identify design possibilities, appraise the plans, build models, and evaluate the product. Unlike science instruction, technology does not usually offer only one answer or solution to a problem. There is no one best way to build a bridge, prevent heat loss from a house, or power a vehicle. In technology, thought is directed toward action. The test of practical reasoning is to see how a product or process works and to determine whether or not it is feasible. Feasibility might include an analysis of costs and benefits, risk, and public acceptability. Technology is introduced because it relates unambiguously to altering the human condition, but it also highlights an element of intellectual effort that is dominant in every society but that traditionally is neglected in formal education. In the United States, there was a bold attempt to develop a
secondary school curriculum with some of these purposes. NSF
supported development of a course called (in a less gender-sensitive
era) The Man-Made World. Though it emphasized engineering
concepts (like feedback, optimization, modeling, and systems), it did
not feature design. The program, however, was used in only a small
number of schools, partly because there was little room in high
schools for another subject, partly because such activities were
perceived by some people to be associated with the low-status field
of vocational education, and partly because there were relatively few
scientists and engineers from industry involved in the post-Sputnik
reform movement. A great strength of the post-Sputnik efforts was the intensity of the participation and commitment by the university-based science community. Today the science education policy scene is more pluralistic than it was then, with a greater variety of influential players demanding their place in decision-making and believing that they can make a constructive difference. A challenge 40 years after Sputnik is to re-establish that commitment from the university, but at the same time create the settings where other parties, particularly the country’s best teachers, can work with the scientific community in genuine collaboration. Many recent developments are encouraging. Prominent among them is the fact that the National Research Council’s own National Science Education Standards displays sensitivity and insight into current educational conditions and opportunities by formulating standards not only in science content but also with respect to teaching, professional development of teachers, assessment, and site-level and system-level factors. Furthermore the document deals directly with many of the elements featured in the curriculum trends outlined above, particularly with its attention to the relationship between science and technology and its highlighting the importance of personal and social perspectives in the teaching of science. Not least, teachers were and are involved intimately in the development of guiding documents, not solely as advisors but as conceptualizers and writers. Such collaboration is seen in many states, as well as at the NRC. Thus there seems to be a strong foundation for continuing to develop the consensus that is necessary for making the changes needed by today’s students. Not all the signs are encouraging, and complete agreement is seldom easy. But mechanisms have been established and precedents set for continued productive effort that brings the country’s impressive talents together in the interest of improving the quality of science education received by its children. |
[Home] [Directories] [Publications] [Search] [Site Map] [About] [President's Corner] [Employment] [Browse] [Feedback] |
Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. |