Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Direct Instruction for K-8 Science in California - PART 1



PART 1
If you reply to this LONG (24KB) post please DON'T HIT THE REPLY
BUTTON (the bane of discussion lists) and thereby inflict it yet
again on suffering subscribers.

The California Curriculum Commission Science Committee (CCCSC)
recently unveiled a new draft version [CCCSC (2003a)] of "Criteria
For Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional Materials In Preparation for
the 2006 Adoption." It repeats the thrust towards replacing hands-on
activities with "direct instruction" [Carnine (2000)] that
characterized the earlier draft [CCCSC (2003a)].

Key sections of the new draft are (my CAPS) -

LINES 97-103:
A table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the
California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the
submitted materials with HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES COMPOSING NO MORE THAN
20 TO 25 PERCENT OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME [as specified in the
California Science Framework . . .(see "California Science Framework"
at <http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/downloads.html>. Part 1 contains
the restriction on fractional time spent on hands-on activities.)]
Additional hands-on activities may be included, but must not be
essential for complete coverage of the California Science Standards
for the intended grade level(s), must be clearly marked as optional,
and must meet all other evaluation criteria.

LINES 104-108:
Evidence in the teacher edition that each hands-on activity (whether
part of the intended program or included as an additional activity)
directly covers one or more California Science Standards,
demonstrates scientific concepts, principles, and theories outlined
in the California Science Framework, and produces scientifically
meaningful data in practice.

LINES 140-141:
A PROGRAM ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPORTS *PRE-TEACHING* OF THE SCIENCE
CONTENT EMBEDDED IN ANY HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES.

LINES 254-256
A checklist of program lessons in the teacher edition, with
cross-references to the standards covered, and details regarding the
instructional time necessary for overall instruction and hands-on
activities.

LINES 271-273
EACH HANDS-ON ACTIVITY PROVIDED, MUST INCLUDE SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO
ADAPT THE ACTIVITY TO *DIRECT INSTRUCTION* METHODS OF TEACHING.

According to a post by the independent watch-dog California Science
Education Advisory Committee (CSEAC):

"The Curriculum Commission will discuss and probably act on this
draft at its next meeting, which is January 14-16 in Sacramento. The
Criteria passed by the Curriculum Commission then goes to the State
Board of Education for final action. The K-8 Science Adoption
Criteria are very important because they inform publishers about what
kinds of instructional materials to
produce, and because these criteria are then used by the state to
adopt or reject instructional materials. The Criteria do not apply to
high school instructional materials. However, they impact high school
teaching because they strongly influence students' science education
prior to high school."

CSEAC might have added that for K-12 textbooks: as California and
Texas go, so goes the U.S., since textbook publishers don't like to
print books that can't be adopted in their two largest markets.
Therefore the actions of the California Curriculum Commission Science
Committee (CCCSC) are of vital importance to all those concerned with
K-12 science education in the U.S.

For the outlook of the "back-to-basics" group whose lobbying was at
least partially responsible for the present California Math and
Science Standards see "Mathematically Correct" (2003). For commentary
on the California Math Wars see Becker & Jacob (2000) and Sowder
(2000). For the Fordham Foundation's approving view of California
science standards see Finn & Petrilli (2001).

In addition to the retrograde nature of CCCSC (2003a,b), the
California Science Framework (CSF) is rather naive, evidently having
been written by people who are unfamiliar with science, scientific
methods, and effective pedagogy, as is made clear by:

(a) Larry Woolf's (2003) four excerpts from the Introduction to the CSF
on Phys-L and the ensuing thread, which can be followed by clicking
on the right lightbulb arrow at the top of the archive page.

(b) The Larry Woolf's (1999) "Science Education Petition": [the
California Science Standards]: "are based on neither the spirit nor
the letter of the National Science Education Standards developed by
the National Academy of Sciences . . .[NRC (1996)]. . . or the
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. . .[ AAAS 1993). . . . developed by
the American Association for the Advancement of Science; are often
incorrect, misleading, ambiguous, and age-inappropriate." The
petition further states that "California Academic Standards
Commission has approved a policy that effectively prohibits the
adoption of scientifically accurate, thoroughly tested, and highly
regarded kit-based science curricula,. . . .(and) . . . has approved
a policy that allows the adoption of materials that have never been
thoroughly tested in classrooms."

The restriction on the fractional time devoted to hands-on
instruction in the California Science Framework and CCCSC (2003a,b)
and the new proposals CCCSC (2003a,b) that advocate (a) "PRE-TEACHING
of the science content embedded in any hands-on activities" and (b)
that "each hands-on activity provided must include suggestions for
how to ADAPT THE ACTIVITY TO DIRECT INSTRUCTION methods of teaching"
are, of course, amtithetical to the:

(1) Results of research on the promotion of higher-order thinking in
physics-education [McDermott & Redish (1999)] and cognitive science
[Bransford et al. (1999)],

(2) History of U.S. K-8 science intruction recounted by Lopez and
Schultz (2002): "Some of the best research on issues in teaching and
learning has, in fact, been done by physicists (in physics
departments) who study how students learn physics. . . . . One common
conclusion of these investigations is that ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TRADITIONAL, MORE DIDACTIC
APPROACHES TO TEACHING SCIENCE." (My CAPS.)

(3) Demonstration that "interactive engagement" methods designed "to
promote conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of
students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which
yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or
instructors" can be about two standard deviations more effective in
enhancing the conceptual understanding of introductory science
students than are traditional "direct instruction" methods (Hake 2002
and references therein to the many physics-education reserch groups
whose work is consistent with the above interpretation).

(4) APS (1999) position paper on K-12 education ". . . . research
indicates that effective pre-service teacher education involves
hands-on, laboratory-based learning. Good science and mathematics
education will help create a scientifically literate public, capable
of making informed decisions on public policy involving scientific
matters. A strong K-12 physics education is also the first step in
producing the next generation of researchers, innovators, and
technical workers."

(5) NSTA position statements [NSTA (1990, 1998, 2002)]

(6) National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996) as indicated in
Woolf (1999).

(7) American Association for the Advancement of Science "Benchmarks
for Science Literacy [AAAS (1993)] as indicated in Woolf (1999).

(8) Insights of discerning teachers such as the late Arnold Arons
[see Hake (2003) for a review].

Biologist Stan Metzenberg, a CCCSC member, appears to be spearheading
the effort to essentially eliminate hands-on science activities from
K-8 in California (and hence the U.S) in favor of "direct
instruction" [see e.g., Carnine (2000)]. Metzenberg's testimony
before the U.S. House of Representatives can be seen at
Mathematically Correct <http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/>:
scroll down to and click on "Science Corner" under "Site Index" and
then click on:

a. Stan Metzenberg at the House Science Committee

b. Follow-Up Questions for Dr. Stan Metzenberg

Metzenberg's website
<http://www.csun.edu/~hfbio002/grad/faculty/smetzenberg.htm>, as well
has his testimony before the House Science Committee yields little
evidence of any serious concern with K-8 education.

It would seem important for the future of K-12 science education in
the U.S. to mobilize forces in opposition to CCCSC (2003a) as soon as
possible.
The upcoming AAPT meeting in Miami Beach [AAPT Announcer 33(4),
Winter, 2003] might be a good place to get a belated start. Perhaps
the organizers could arrange for a last minute cracker barrel session
on this important topic.

Unless some positive action is taken soon it seems unlikely that the
victory for the teaching for the teaching of evolution in Texas
[Dawson (2003)] will be repeated for minds- and hands-on teaching of
science in California (and hence the U.S).

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>

REFERENCES are in PART 2