A national consensus is evolving around what constitutes effective science education. It is reflected in an array of publications, including Science for All Americans (1989), Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (1993), and National Science Education Standards (1994). These documents share two common convictions: (1) all students, and especially underrepresented groups (Oakes 1990), need to learn scientific skills, such as observation and analysis; and (2) these skills should be imparted in a “less is more” curriculum that begins in elementary school before kids form negative attitudes toward science.
As any scientist knows, the best way to learn science is to do science. This is the only way to get beyond dry facts to the real business of science—asking questions, conducting experiments, collecting data, and looking for answers. In elementary school, the best way to accomplish this is to examine natural phenomena that are brought into the classroom and studied over time. Active, hands-on, student-centered inquiry, in which kids learn to apply scientific problem solving, should be at the core of science education.
Elements of Success
- Good teaching materials. These should be research-based, developmentally appropriate, designed by educators and knowledgeable scientists, and thoroughly field-tested. They should enable children to conduct long-term investigations (say, eight weeks), not with a series of single-shot activities, but with activities that build upon one another. The activities should encourage inquiry, address a variety of learning styles, and connect to other parts of the curriculum.Excellent examples of such materials are found in Science and Technology for Children (Carolina Biological), Insights (Optical Data), and the Full Option Science System (Britannica). As for costs, it is often no more expensive to maintain a hands-on science program than a textbook program. Schools should use their resources to buy the best curriculum for their needs, knowing that teachers may develop additions or modifications after some experience with the units.
- A materials support system. Because teachers do not have time to gather the needed materials, a science kit should arrive at a specified time with the materials the entire class needs for several weeks. When the unit ends, the kit can be picked up, refurbished at a central location, and sent to the next scheduled teacher.
- A vigorous and ongoing professional development program. Teachers need to work through the units themselves and learn how to teach them. They need to be able to ask questions—particularly about classroom management—of more experienced teachers. They may also need support to overcome their fear of science and to realize that they, too, can become scientists. Administrators also need to experience what hands-on science is all about in order to support and evaluate an innovative program. Both need to understand that the statement “I don't know, but maybe we can find out” is the starting point for all inquiry.
- New assessment tools. A bad standardized test can cause teachers and administrators to resist a good hands-on program. Performance-based testing and portfolios are preferable. Teachers may need inservices in the new assessment techniques, and parents and school boards will have to be kept abreast of the changes in grading.
To implement and sustain such a program, one needs to build community and administrative support and maintain it.
No New Discovery
The idea of hands-on science is not new. In the 1960s and early '70s, the National Science Foundation supported the development of hands-on teaching materials, such as the kits developed in the Elementary Science Study program and the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Research showed that these materials were better at teaching science concepts and skills than were traditional textbooks. Well-designed materials also allowed all children to experience success in science, including kids who are good artists or communicators or who have superior hand-eye coordination.
Why, then, didn't these programs become the core of instruction? Partly because in most places, these kits were simply turned over to teachers who had little or no idea of how to use them effectively. Because elementary teachers generally have an inadequate science background, they naturally felt uncomfortable with the materials. Student inquiry meant a lot of noise and mess; materials didn't work right or were used up. What's more, teachers feared that if they didn't cover all the material in the textbooks, their school's scores on the standardized tests would go down. And how do you grade kids for hands-on science anyway?
To this day, in school science closets and basements around the country, old science kits can be found with half the stuff broken or missing, or still in the shrink wrap because teachers were too intimidated to open them.
Finally: Breakthroughs
Not everyone shrank from the problems. Many educators found ways to refurbish the kits and buy replacement parts in bulk, to train teachers, and to grade hands-on science. In 1985, Doug Lapp, an elementary science program designer, founded the National Science Resources Center as a joint organization of the National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution. The center, based in Washington, D.C., collected information about schools that had managed to sustain hands-on science programs for years or, sometimes, decades. The center then conveyed that information to other school districts.
About the same time the National Science Foundation began to fund curriculum development for a new generation of kit-based materials. These materials have gone through a rigorous research and development cycle, incorporating the best of earlier programs. They also have benefited from subsequent research in developmental psychology.
Such reforms in science education have been far-reaching. In the many communities that have succeeded in their reform efforts, scientists and engineers, as well as scientific and technical corporations, universities, national laboratories, and science museums have played critical roles. They have generated public awareness and support, and assisted with professional development and fund-raising.
The bottom line is this: We know what works for kids, we have a pretty good idea how to make it work in schools, and the help is out there to make it happen.
