5.0 out of 5 stars Important Reading for Next Gen Science Standards

B.Z. · September 16, 2012

One of the complicated things about science education is that there are so many reasons to do it. Because time in school is limited, focusing on one outcome often means paying less attention to another. We might want children to like science, we might want them to go deep to understand the structure of a specific scientific discipline, we might want them to get a broad understanding across many areas of science so that they are scientifically literate, we might want them to have a good idea of how science works and how it helps figure things out, or we might want them to focus on socially relevant problem such as climate change. Then, even if we agree on a couple of these objectives, there are different ways of getting there.DeBoer tells the story of how scientists, education theorists, and teachers in the U.S. have negotiated their way between the different goals and different approaches to teaching science over the past 150 years or so. He has distilled a great deal of original source material into a very readable 241 pages. There is great value in being able to survey shifts in science education thinking over such a broad span of time in a relatively short book. The reader comes away with a sense of how this negotiation between scientists and educators works, and of why it sometimes seems that science education revisits the same issues over time.Like others involved in working with science teachers, I am currently thinking about the Next Generation Science Standards that are being developed from the Framework for K-12 Science Education. The historical perspective that DeBoer offers in this book is an essential component to understanding the new Framework and the standards that will emerge from it; knowing where we have come from is important to figuring out where we should be headed.DeBoer is a good at synthesizing a great deal of information that, in less skilled hands, would just be a bunch of disconnected stories. DeBoer ties the small stories together into a bigger story that will be useful to anyone who is trying to sort through all of the claims and counter-claims about science education.

5.0 out of 5 stars Usd

C.K. · February 23, 2019

Good..needed for a class...good shape...& good book

4.0 out of 5 stars Intended Policies; Undescribed Realities

J.R.S. · June 5, 2022

“A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice” by George E. DeBoer; The Teachers College Press; © 1991; 269 pages, softcover.Author George E. DeBoer is now deputy director for Project 2061 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and is author of the more recent “The Role of Public Policy in K-12 Science Education.” And therein lies the irony of this work. The AAAS prior motto of “Less Science, Not More” was interpreted and put into action across the country by Education Schools and local and state school boards to actually decrease the amount of science learned, in complete contradiction to the intent of the AAAS. Yet the intent of the academy and educationist elite, and not the on-the-ground consequences of the policies are what are described here, not just for this recent AAAS policy, but for all of the policies and philosophical arguments described going back to the Committee of Ten in this book.For virtually every “influence” and “requirement” and “contribution” described, DeBoer’s descriptions are very well written. But what actually happened in the classroom as these policies from above were translated down is mostly missing. Another major handicap is the time of publication, only a few years before Educational Schools became obsessed with the “digital revolution” and logical discussion was discarded for blind acceptance of marketing by the Ed-Tech Industrial Complex.The short Chapter 1 poses the early debates on classical education, where science took a back seat to what we would today call the “Great Books.” That was a Western classical education and this argument has arisen anew in an America where Governors and state legislators are moving to dictate a return to dogma. On the other hand, science called for new hands-on experiences with nature, as Huxley would assert. Herbert Spencer also noted the need to provide the growing mind with reality rather than “perpetual telling.”Chapter 2 describes educational thought of the nineteenth century but I dispute its claim to include actual practice. The descriptions by Sizer do reflect some of the realities, but there is an overall non-academic or anti-intellectual attitude in most Americans that is better described by Richard Hofstedter. In America, “common sense” has nearly always been preferred over ‘book-lurnin” with the need to graduate from grade school questioned, then high school as well. And girls had more important duties as well. The influence of Pestalozzi, Cubberley, Herbart, DeGarmo, Charles Eliot and J.M. Rice are briefly discussed although their penetration into classrooms was far more limited than inferred here. In most cases, teachers taught as they had been taught. As we move into the 20th Century, William James and John Dewey would have some influence in a trend to “child-centered education.”The “Committee of Ten” becomes the focus of Chapter 3 and it does have a role in influencing the general curriculum of the high school, as high school graduation now becomes more of a norm for many children. The discussion is broken into conferences and it must be remembered that biology is primarily a study of animals and plants. There is much emphasis on science being laboratory-based, allowing extra time or double periods for direct observation and labwork. Saturday morning labs, or one afternoon per week were recommended for outdoor instruction. DeBoer refers to Sizer in stating there was somewhat more attention paid to this report, although the final report was anything but clear and allowed free election of courses. The curriculum for the college-bound should include 2 years of English, 4 years of language study, two in math, one in history and one in science with electives adding to 16 units. “Guided discovery” was a method for bringing students to understand the science concepts.Chapter 4 addresses the reorganization of science education and describes how some high schools focused on preparing students for future employment, a narrow anti-intellectual capitalistic mindset that still thrives today. The ideologies of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary School circa 1918 are discussed. The cardinal principles of the Committee on Science are described. Relating science to student experiences was likewise important, and not that difficult when students were likely either rural or urban but able to see much of the forces around them. But by now, the time in the laboratory was seen as mostly wasted, not that all schools had followed that model.“Social Relevance and the Organized Disciplines” is Chapter 5 and spans 1917 to 1957, the “progressive era.” The rise of general science courses accompanies a reduction in specialized sciences and is correctly recognized as a trend for those not finishing high school or not pursuing college. Physics was always of low enrolment, as it remains today. This was blamed on its excessive use of mathematics. Here I will move aside to note that in China and India, they start math much earlier and likewise excel in both math and physics as a result. Thus the U.S. tendency to go the wrong direction in curricula. In Chapter 6, “School Science Seeks Its Own Identity,” DeBoer discusses the project method in labwork, demonstrations versus individual labwork, single and double periods, college domination of the secondary curriculum, and standardized testing. There is even discussion of teaching college biology in high schools!In Chapter 7, “World War II and the Beginnings of Change” there are personnel shortages, including a huge jump in science majors going to college after the war, and too few faculty. Here we read various statements proclaiming that the “security and prosperity of the United States depend today, as never before, upon the rapid extension of scientific knowledge.” Sadly, to quote Greta Thunberg, this becomes “blah, blah, blah.” DeBoer provides a good description of James Conant’s view that nonscientists be taught science through its historical development. While this early AAAS committee found that science teacher salaries were too low, professional training was substandard and the shortages were serious.Curriculum reform becomes the topic of Chapter 8 which describes the AIBS formation of the BSCS group in 1959; unfortunately the quality textbooks produced formed a very small portion of the textbooks used across the U.S. The American Chemical Society pursued similar innovations including CHEM Study. Other projects included Time, Space and Matter and the earth Science Curriculum Project. I myself was trained in IPS and PSII and found the logic of drawing questions from sequential experiments to be highly effective. But then we sink into the Jerome Bruner view that “...learning the structure of a discipline was at the heart of the transfer-of-learning issue....” Joseph Schwab then proposes science as “enquiry.” An overview finds the most popular of the new curricula only gained 25 percent use, and I would suggest this is an over-estimate.“Scientific Literacy and the New Progressivism” is Chapter 9 and notes Paul DeHart Hurd is a key proponent. He is one of a few science educators I respect and his perspective shows much understanding of the classroom situation. But here we also find proponents advocating STS to incorporate technology, and humanistic education that pulls in non-science and cultural differences to a subject that is universal. Values education and Environmental education are natural consequences. Nearing 1990, we come to Chapter 10 on “Process and Product in Science Education.” His coverage of the “scientific method” is short, but Education Schools landed on it as a way to reduce science coursework under the mantra that there was now just too much science to learn so “just teach the scientific method” and let students figure out future science for themselves. This omission is the clearest deficiency in this text. Short sections address “concept learning,” “reception learning,” “hierarchical learning,” and the “learning cycle.” “Inquiry teaching” would become a fad after the time of this book. In Chapter 11, DeBoer tries to summarize “What We Have Learned and Where We are Headed.” He advocates a scientific way of thinking which I cannot see as possible without content knowledge about the specific subject. He is correct concerning the changing of social relevance, which is why my syllabus can change when the Fukushima earthquake hits. And he is correct in concluding that real hands-on laboratory experiences will remain critical. However, he does not foresee the dramatic hit that schools will suffer from the soon to arrive digital obsession.

5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars

J.G. · September 12, 2015

Good!

4.0 out of 5 stars Useful but dry

A. · February 16, 2006

DeBoer presents good detail about the history of key ideas in science education. It primarily focuses on the field as it has evolved in the US, but he does bring in information about early influences from Europe. It's very enlightening to think that many of the "reform" movements of the last 30 years are reincarnations of arguments from almost 100 years ago. That being said, the book isn't great. I think DeBoer's writing style is dry and at times clunky. You'll really want to know this information to get through it all.