| 
Source:
Cell Biology Education Volume
3 - Spring 2004 |
Meeting the Challenge of Science Literacy: Project 2061 Efforts To Improve
Science Education
Mary Koppal and Ann Caldwell
Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New
York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005
Received for publication October 2, 2003; accepted for publication December
10, 2003
Monitoring Editor: Erin Dolan
A modern understanding of the cell and its functions has been translated
into learning goals for K–12 students by Project 2061’s Benchmarks
for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS],
1993) and by the National Research Council’s National Science Education
Standards (NSES) (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Nearly every state
has used these national documents to develop their own science standards, so
that there is now a fairly broad consensus on what it is that students need
to know and be able to do in science generally and in biology more specifically.
While this consensus represents an important first step toward improving science
education, without curriculum, instruction, and assessments that are well aligned
with these goals, teachers will find it extremely difficult to help their students
achieve them.
Here, we first highlight a few of the key findings regarding cell biology
from Project 2061’s study of high school textbooks and their alignment
with standards. We then describe Project 2061’s current efforts to develop
new knowledge and tools that educators, researchers, and practitioners can use
to help all students become literate in science, mathematics, and technology.
Project 2061 is a long-term K–12 education initiative of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
WHY WORRY ABOUT TEXTBOOKS?
Often cited as the nation’s de facto curriculum, textbooks define what
most U.S. students are taught, particularly in science and mathematics (Tyson,
1997). A recent study of K–12 science and mathematics education in U.S.
classrooms confirms that teachers depend on textbooks for instructional guidance
as well, finding that “textbooks are second only to teachers’ knowledge,
experiences, and beliefs in the frequency of influence on instruction” (Weiss
et al., 2003). Imagine the power, then, of textbooks that are well-aligned with
the content recommended in both Benchmarks and NSES and are designed to provide
support for the instructional strategies that research has shown to be most
effective.
WHAT AND HOW STUDENTS LEARN
Readers of Cell Biology Education will recall that Kimberly Tanner and Deborah
Allen (2002) described the high-school learning goals in Benchmarks and NSES in the following way:
Both documents emphasize that students in grades 9–12 (ages 14–18
yr) should understand that cells have specialized subcellular structures that
underlie their many functions. These older students learn about the molecules
of the cell and the role that these molecules play in cell functions—the
gatekeeper role of the cell membrane, the storage of genetic information
by DNA, and the many facets of proteins.
Tanner and Allen (2002) go on to characterize—quite accurately—a
pedagogical approach found in both documents that emphasizes deep conceptual
understanding rather than mere factual recall:
The overarching functional approach to understanding cells found in the NSES and the Benchmarks moves away from the more traditional anatomic introduction
to cells that is rooted in memorizing names of organelles followed by the requisite
building of a cell model from clay or other materials. In fact, this functional
view taken in the standards is intimately linked to a strong vision of how students
should be learning science.
This new emphasis requires textbooks that incorporate a wide repertoire of
content-specific instructional supports that will effectively promote understanding
among students from diverse backgrounds and with diverse interests, abilities,
and needs. How well are today’s textbooks meeting this challenge? How
well are they helping students to grasp even the most fundamental ideas about
cells and how they work?
Not very well, we discovered, based on Project 2061’s study of both traditional
and more innovative biology textbooks that are being used in most U.S. high schools.
Funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the study was designed to investigate
the extent to which textbooks were likely to help students learn some of the
key biology ideas that are found in both national and state standards documents.
Our study selected a few of these ideas to see how they were treated in the nine
textbooks that were examined. (For a summary of the study, visit www.project2061.org/publications/articles/textbook/hsbio/default.htm.)
As detailed below, an overemphasis on technical terminology, the lack of a meaningful
narrative to weave the key ideas into a coherent story that students can make
sense of, and the absence of support for teaching these ideas all serve to undermine
the best intentions of authors, publishers, and teachers. Most textbooks end
up promoting an outdated paradigm, presenting the cell as a static “bag
of parts” rather than the active and dynamic entity that modern molecular
biology has revealed.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
While most of the textbooks “cover” the key ideas that our study
looked for, the ideas are usually presented as isolated fragments of information.
As a result, the textbooks rarely provide opportunities for students to draw
connections between ideas—a significant cognitive step toward forming
the kind of coherent understanding of a concept that characterizes expertise
(National Research Council, 2000, p. 139).
Another problem is the sheer volume of detail that is included in most textbooks,
usually at the expense of more in-depth coverage of the most important ideas.
The typical textbook presents students with beautifully rendered, full-color
diagrams of cells with every part carefully labeled—centriole, endoplasmic
reticulum, Gogli apparatus, and so on—but rarely devotes as much care
to explaining the central idea that these parts have specific functions that
serve the cell and ultimately the organism. Instead, the texts expound on relatively
trivial aspects of cell structure, using one technical term to define another
until the text becomes a logjam of obscurity that keeps even the most capable
students from understanding anything useful.
Here is a particularly egregious example of how the introduction of new vocabulary
can become a poor substitute for the kinds of carefully constructed explanations,
examples of phenomena, and other instructional supports that can help students
develop a deep understanding of important concepts:
Two major components of the cytoskeleton are microfilaments and microtubules.
Microfilaments are threads made of a protein called actin.
Each microfilament consists of many actin molecules that
are linked together to form a polymer
chain. ([emphasis] added)
The passage above is followed by nearly two more paragraphs on the structure
of microfilaments but only a single sentence on the idea that the cytoskeleton
is essential to cell movement and no mention of how structure and function are
related concepts that would help students understand the cell as a dynamic functioning
system. Our study also found that most biology textbooks rarely take into account
what students may already know about cells (or any other idea) so that teachers
can build on that prior knowledge or help students to clarify their thinking
or correct their misconceptions. Using textbooks that don’t provide adequate
and appropriate instructional supports places an enormous burden on teachers,
many of whom may be teaching outside of their discipline or with limited too
little experience in today’s diverse classrooms. What is more, given the
limited time available for science learning, it becomes even more important
to focus classroom instruction on the concepts and skills that have the greatest
payoff for students.
NEXT STEPS
Addressing these and other concerns identified by our textbook evaluation
studies will require both short- and long-term solutions. As an interim approach,
educators, textbook developers and publishers, and others can turn to Project
2061 tools for advice on how to streamline the science curriculum and focus
it on a coherent set of the most important concepts and skills. To draw attention
to important connections across the curriculum, for example, the Atlas
of Science Literacy (AAAS, 2001a) provides a collection of linked conceptual strand maps
displaying the sequence of ideas that contribute to a sophisticated understanding
of some key science and mathematics topics. By illustrating connections over
time and across topic areas, Atlas maps can help guide the development of a
more coherent and focused curriculum. In addition, Designs for Science
Literacy (AAAS, 2001b) offers suggestions for restructuring time, instructional strategies,
and content that can lead to very different kinds of curricula serving a common
set of learning goals. (More details about these and other Project 2061 tools
are available at www.project2061.org.)
To tackle some of the long-term systemic issues that affect science education,
Project 2061 hosted a series of conferences where a dialogue could begin on
textbook quality and how to improve it. Funded by the National Science Foundation,
the conferences attracted a wide-ranging spectrum of attendees, including classroom
teachers, education researchers and policymakers, and science and mathematics
textbook developers and publishers. That dialogue continues through a recently
established and also NSF-funded Center for Curriculum Materials in Science,
which is in partnership with Michigan State University, Northwestern University,
and the University of Michigan. Over the next 5–10 yr, it is expected
that this Center will conduct significant new research on issues related to
the design, analysis, and use of science materials, while also preparing a new
generation of leadership through innovative graduate and postdoctoral programs.
Other collaborations are active. Project 2061 is leading an Interagency Education
Research Initiative study, working with the University of Delaware and Texas
A&M University, to examine how to coordinate curriculum materials, teaching
practices, and professional development to improve student learning in mathematics.
In related NSF-funded efforts, Project 2061 is studying the role of assessment
as a tool for promoting science literacy, developing conceptual strand maps,
and collecting examples of natural phenomena, representations, sets of questions,
and research summaries that are well aligned to specific learning goals and
can be incorporated into curriculum materials or classroom lessons. To engage
parents and families as allies in promoting science literacy, Project 2061 has
created a public service announcement campaign, a special Web site for parents
(www.ScienceEverywhere.org), and a Family Guide to Science brochure.
In 1989, Science for All Americans (AAAS) challenged the nation to reform
its education system: “There are no valid reasons—intellectual,
social, or economic—why the United States cannot transform its schools
to make scientific literacy possible for all students.” By focusing its
efforts on areas such as curriculum materials, teaching, assessment, higher
education, and families and communities—all key levers in the education
system—Project 2061’s goal is to foster the kinds of changes that
can help the nation meet this challenge.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science
for All Americans. New York: Oxford.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks
for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2001a). Atlas of
Science Literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2001b). Designs
for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Tanner, K., and Allen, D. (2002). Approaches to cell biology teaching: a primer
on standards. Cell Biol. Educ. 1(4). http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/1/4/95.
Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming structural barriers to good textbooks. Paper
presented at the 1997 National Education Goals Panel Meeting. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/tyson.htm.
Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, P., Banilower, E., and Heck, D. (2003). A
Study of K–12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States. Chapel
Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Koppal, M. & Caldwell, A. 2004. Meeting the Challenge of Science
Literacy: Project 2061 Efforts
To Improve Science Education. Cell Biology Education, 3 (Spring).
