|
Introduction.
Before Sputnik.
The
Sputnik Era
What have we learned?
J. Myron
Atkin
(Rodger W. Bybee)
George
DeBoer
Peter Dow
Marye Anne
Fox
John
Goodlad
Jeremy
Kilpatrick
Glenda
T. Lappan
Thomas T.
Liao
F. James Rutherford
|
 |
The Sputnik Era: Why is this
Educational Reform Different from All Other Reforms?
(continued)
Rodger W. Bybee, Center for
Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National
Research Council
Was Curriculum Reform in the Sputnik Era a
Failure?
Educational reform is not a pass or fail phenomenon.
Every reform effort contributes to the overall
development and continuous improvement of the educational
system. The educational community and the public learn
from the experience. It is also the case that many hold
the misconception that a particular reform will, once and
for all time, fix our educational problems. Reformers of
the Sputnik era, therefore, did not fail. Although the
reformers made mistakes and the programs had weaknesses,
the approaches they used, the groups they formed, and the
programs they developed have all had a positive and
lasting influence on American education. Reports in the
late 1970s indicated that the curriculum programs had
broad impact. The new programs were being used
extensively and commercial textbooks had incorporated
these approaches (Weiss, 1978; Helgeson, Blosser &
Howe, 1978). For example, in the academic year 1976/77
almost 60% of school districts were using one or more of
the federally funded programs in grades 7 through 12; and
30% of school districts reported using at least one
program in elementary schools. Reviews of the effect of
science curricula on student performance indicated that
the programs were successful, (i.e., student achievement
was higher in Sputnik-era programs than with traditional
curriculum) especially the BSCS programs (Shymansky,
Kyle, Alport, 1982; 1983).
Mathematics presented a different situation.
Mathematicians criticized the new programs because the
content was too abstract and neglected significant
applications; teachers criticized the programs because
they were too difficult to teach; and, parents criticized
the new math because they worried that their children
would not develop fundamental computational skills.
Although 30% of districts reported using NSF supported
mathematics programs in the early 1970s, only 9% reported
using NSF programs in 1976/77. Most important,
mathematics teachers supported this change from Sputnik
era programs back to basic curricular.
Another often unrecognized outcome of the Sputnik era was
the birth of educational groups that specialized in
development of instructional materials. Some of the
groups continue today, for example, Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study, Lawrence Hall of Sciences, and
Educational Development Center. Further, new groups that
serve a similar educational function have emerged since
the Sputnik era, for example the National Science
Resources Center (NSRC) and Technical Education Resources
Center (TERC).
The Sputnik era had other indirect, but important effects
on the individuals and the educational system. Over my
years in science education, especially while working at
BSCS, I have had numerous individuals tell about the
influence a particular science program, for example the
BSCS Green Version, had on their life. Some of these
individuals are now scientists, science educators, or
science teachers. Many are not. They are citizens who
have an interest in science. The latter being an
important goal of science and mathematics education.
A not insignificant influence from the Sputnik era is the
many classroom activities and lessons that infuse science
and mathematics education. For example, the ESS program
produced activities on “Batteries and Bulbs”
and “Mystery Powders.” These, and many other
are used in classrooms, undergraduate teacher education,
and professional development workshops. Though not as
nationally prominent as achievement scores, we did affect
some changes in the teaching and learning of science and
mathematics.
I think it is quite significant that senior scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers worked along with teachers
and other educators in this reform. They set a precedent
for current and future reforms of education. It is also
significant that many educators, for example, those
responsible for teacher education, were not directly
involved in the reform and were slow to support it
through revision of programs for certification and
licensure, professional workshops for teachers, and
undergraduate courses for future teachers.
The Sputnik era continued into the early 1970s. If I had
to indicate an end of the era, it would be 1976. Man-A
Course of Study (MACOS) an anthropology program developed
with NSF funds, came under scrutiny and wide spread
attack from conservative critics who objected to the
subject matter (Dow, 1991). The combined forces of House
subcommittee hearings, NSF internal review, and the
Government Accounting Office investigation of the
financial relationships between NSF and the developers,
signaled the end of the MACOS program and symbolized the
end of an era of curriculum reform.
What Have We Learned?
|
