AAAS Conference on Developing
Textbooks That Promote Science
Literacy
February 27-March 2,
2001
American Association for the Advancement
of Science
Washington, D.C.
Strategic Approaches
to Achieving Science Learning
Goals
Edward L. Smith
Michigan State University
This is a summary
of the argument for a paper
I have revised for this
conference. This full paper
presents an example "strategic approach" and
explains how the Project
2061 Curriculum Analysis
Procedures contributed
to my thinking about the
spproach.
Well formulated standards
can serve to focus a broad
range of activities and
resources on the achievement
of common goals. Often,
most attention gets paid
to the assessment and accountability
aspects of standards. However,
the setting of standards
and assessment of the extent
to which they are achieved
is not sufficient to bring
about improvement in that
achievement. Teachers need
knowledge and resources
for teaching of the standards
for which they are responsible.
That is, they need to know
how to teach those things.
An important contribution
of standards is to lay out
a research and development
agenda for the development
of a professional knowledge
and resource base to support
teachers.
An important set of issues
has to do with the adequacy
of the standards. Do they
capture what is worth knowing?
Is the total set of standards
feasible to achieve? While
these are critical issues,
I will not address them
in this paper. I simply
argue that the current national
science education standards
(NSES and Benchmarks
for Science Literacy)
are sufficient to move the
enterprise forward in substantial
ways, and that improvements
in the standards themselves
will come from taking them
seriously into account in
research and development
work. Given this assumption,
what can be said about the
knowledge base needed to
support effective teaching
of the standards?
My primary purpose in
this paper is to introduce
the idea of a strategic
approach to teaching a related
set of learning goals and
to illustrate this idea
with an example. By a teaching
approach, I refer to a generally
sequential pattern of activities
in which students become
engaged over a period of
time. A strategic approach
is more than a collection
of activities, all of which
are related to the topic,
interesting and doable.
It is more than a logical
order of presentation of
information and more than
a logical sequence of activities.
An approach becomes strategic
when each activity is selected
and sequenced to serve particular
purposes in moving students
from where they are toward
the intended learning. Of
course, a strategic approach
doesn't necessarily work.
My basic thesis is that
specific approaches can
be developed for teaching
particular sets of specific
learning goals and that
these approaches can be
improved until they work
reliably for a significant
range of teachers and students.
Such approaches are not
mechanical or rigidly linear,
and there is no such thing
as a teacher-proof approach.
Any successful approach
requires a knowledgeable
teacher who understands
and implements it intentionally
and wisely. Providing the
systems to support teachers
in acquiring this knowledge
is an other major challenge.
However, if teachers do
not know effective approaches
for achieving the goals
for which they are responsible,
it is unlikely those goals
will be achieved. I maintain
that curriculum materials
in which effective strategic
approaches are embedded
can be a critical, if not
essential, resource in improving
the achievement of learning
goals on a large scale.
Assuming that effective
strategic approaches are
feasible and desirable,
what makes one effective?
I would argue that the Project
2061 Curriculum Analysis
Procedures (CAP) capture
many important features
of effective strategic approaches.
They can serve as design
criteria or as a way to
evaluate an approach that
has already been devised.
However, another important
function of this framework
is to provide a common way
of describing an approach.
The CAP criteria and the
constructs in terms of which
they are described define
a set of categories of knowledge.
These categories can be
viewed as fleshing out Shulman's "pedagogical
content knowledge." (Shulman,
1987; Wilson, Shulman and
Richert, 1987) The instances
of these categories-representations,
phenomena, naïve conceptions,
etc.-constitute a repertoire
from which a particular
approach can be crafted.
A shared knowledge base
is essential for a professional
community. CAP is based
on theoretical perspectives
with broad support in the
science education research
community. They perform
an important function in
providing a common language
and conceptual categories.
The adequacy of CAP in
defining necessary and sufficient
features of curriculum materials
and the teaching approaches
embedded in them is something
to be determined. Research-based
arguments might be made
for additional or alternative
criteria. Ultimately, empirical
evidence that use of highly
rated materials tends to
result in higher levels
of achievement would be
important evidence. Of course,
adequate professional development
and ongoing support are
essential, and research
will need to sort out the
role of teacher implementation
and other factors in explaining
the results. However, I
maintain that having effective
strategic approaches as
a fundamental component
for a professional knowledge
base and building those
approaches into curriculum
materials is a powerful,
if not essential component
of standards-based science
education reform.
