Introduction
What we have learned
Where are we headed?
Developing Leadership
Conclusion
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
Introduction
What we have learned
Where are we headed?
Developing Leadership
Conclusion
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
Introduction
What we have learned
Where are we headed?
Developing Leadership
Conclusion
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
|  | What we have learned and where we are headed: Lessons from the
Sputnik Era (continued)
George E. DeBoer, Colgate University
Conclusion
The Sputnik era was a distinctive period in the history of science
education in the United States. It is often considered a time of
conservative reform because of its emphasis on rigor and discipline
as opposed to the more progressive child-centered approaches that
both preceded and followed it. It is reminiscent of the science
education reforms of the 1890s that were led by Harvard President
and chemist, Charles Eliot, and which culminated in the report of the
Committee of Ten. It also bears similarity to the spirit of reform of
the early 1980s, particularly the report of the National Commission
on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk. Although we can
easily point to lessons that were learned during the Sputnik era, it is
difficult to say how long those lessons will be remembered. Attitudes
in science education seem to oscillate over time between those that
favor the mastery of content as it is understood and organized by the
adult mind and those that favor adapting the content of the curriculum
to the particular interests of individual students. Without a clearer and
more fundamental sense of what we are trying to accomplish, there is
little reason to think that movement between these two distinctive
ideologies will not continue in the future.
Science, mathematics, and technology educators will not achieve the
success they desire until they can clearly identify the educational
goals and purposes that are suitable within a free democratic society
and successfully communicate that vision to teachers, administrators,
and parents. I have argued here that the personal development of
autonomous individuals should be the goal of educators within a
democratic society. All students should receive a broad general
education that will help them to engage with the world in an intelligent
way and to recognize their responsibilities to each other and to the
maintenance of their physical world. Our goal should be the personal
development of free, rational, and independent individuals in ways
that allow them to live more fully and intelligently in the world they
experience and to engage thoughtfully and critically with the most
important issues facing us.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989).
Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
Bestor, A. (1953). Educational wastelands: The retreat from learning
in our schools. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Brandwein, P. (1955). The gifted student as future scientist. New
York: Harcourt, Brace.
Bunder, W. (1997). Practicing integration in science education:
PING. In W. Graber & C.
Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy, pp. 399-414. Kiel, Germany:
Institute for Science Education.
Bybee, R.. & DeBoer, G. (1994). Research on goals for the science
curriculum. In D. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of research on science
teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: The
University of Chicago.
Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school
classrooms. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in
science education, pp. 83-106. London: Falmer Press.
Hurd, P. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools.
Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16.
Kyle, W. (1997). The imperative to improve undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 547-549.
National Council for the Teaching of Mathematics (1989).
Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston,
VA: NCTM.
National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A report to
the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1996a). National science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1996b). From analysis to action:
Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology: Report of a convocation. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1992). Scope, sequence,
and coordination of secondary school science. Vol. 1. The content
core: A guide for curriculum developers. Washington, DC: NSTA.
National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the future: New
expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology. (A report on its Review of
Undergraduate Education by the Advisory Committee to the
Directorate for Education and Human Resources, NSF Publication
No. 96-139). Arlington, VA: Author.
National Society for the Study of Education (1932). A program for
teaching science: Thirty-first yearbook of the NSSE. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Pella, M. (1967). Science literacy and the high school curriculum.
School Science and Mathematics, 67, 346-356.
President's Scientific Research Board (1947). Science and public
policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Quick, S. (1978). Secondary impacts of the curriculum reform
movement: A longitudinal study of the incorporation of innovations of
the curriculum reform movement into commercially developed
curriculum programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University.
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in
the dark. New York: Ballantine.
Shamos, (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Smith, M. (1949). And madly teach: A layman looks at public school
education. Chicago: Regnery.
Smith, M. (1953). The diminished mind. Chicago: Regnery.
Solomon, J. (1989). The social construction of school science. In R.
Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education,
pp. 126-136. London: Falmer Press.
Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring science: Scientific symbols and
cultural meanings in American life. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
U.S. Office of Education (1953). Education for the talented in
mathematics and science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Wagner, J. (1991). The revolt against reason: Mistaken assumptions
in post-positivist relativism. In W. Oxman-Michelli and M. Weinstein
(Eds.), Critical thinking: Focus on social and cultural inquiry (pp.
61-87). Upper Montclair: Institute for Critical Thinking.
Wagner, J. (1996). Incommensurable differences: Cultural relativism
and anti-rationalism concerning self and other. Philosophy in the
Contemporary World, 3, 18-26.
Westbury, I. (1995). Didaktik and curriculum theory: Are they the
two sides of the same coin? In S. Hopmann and K. Riquarts (Eds.),
Didaktik and/or curriculum (pp. 233-263). Kiel, Germany: Institute
for Science Education.
Yager, R. (1995). Science curriculum by outside experts: A help for
teachers and students in pursuit of learning? In R. Bybee & J.
McInerney (Eds.), Redesigning the science curriculum, pp. 58-60.
Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
|
