INTRODUCTION
This book is about science literacy. Science for All Americans
consists of a set of recommendations on what understandings and ways
of thinking are essential for all citizens in a world shaped by science
and technology. Below, we discuss briefly how these came about and
describe their nature and organization. But first we take up the question
of why such recommendations are needed.
THE NEED FOR SCIENCE LITERACY
Education has no higher purpose than preparing people to lead personally
fulfilling and responsible lives. For its part, science educationmeaning
education in science, mathematics, and technologyshould help
students to develop the understandings and habits of mind they need
to become compassionate human beings able to think for themselves
and to face life head on. It should equip them also to participate
thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society
that is open, decent, and vital. America's futureits ability
to create a truly just society, to sustain its economic vitality,
and to remain secure in a world torn by hostilitiesdepends more
than ever on the character and quality of the education that the nation
provides for all of its children.
There is more at stake, however, than individual self-fulfillment
and the immediate national interest of the United States. The most
serious problems that humans now face are global: unchecked population
growth in many parts of the world, acid rain, the shrinking of tropical
rain forests and other great sources of species diversity, the pollution
of the environment, disease, social strife, the extreme inequities
in the distribution of the earth's wealth, the huge investment of
human intellect and scarce resources in preparing for and conducting
war, the ominous shadow of nuclear holocaustthe list is long,
and it is alarming.
What the future holds in store for individual human beings, the nation,
and the world depends largely on the wisdom with which humans use
science and technology. And that, in turn, depends on the character,
distribution, and effectiveness of the education that people receive.
Briefly put, the national council's argument is this:
Science, energetically pursued, can provide humanity with the knowledge
of the biophysical environment and of social behavior needed to
develop effective solutions to its global and local problems; without
that knowledge, progress toward a safe world will be unnecessarily
handicapped.
By emphasizing and explaining the dependency of living things on
each other and on the physical environment, science fosters the
kind of intelligent respect for nature that should inform decisions
on the uses of technology; without that respect, we are in danger
of recklessly destroying our life-support system.
Scientific habits of mind can help people in every walk of life
to deal sensibly with problems that often involve evidence, quantitative
considerations, logical arguments, and uncertainty; without the
ability to think critically and independently, citizens are easy
prey to dogmatists, flimflam artists, and purveyors of simple solutions
to complex problems.
Technological principles relating to such topics as the nature
of systems, the importance of feedback and control, the cost-benefit-risk
relationship, and the inevitability of side effects give people
a sound basis for assessing the use of new technologies and their
implications for the environment and culture; without an understanding
of those principles, people are unlikely to move beyond consideration
of their own immediate self-interest.
Although many pressing global and local problems have technological
origins, technology provides the tools for dealing with such problems,
and the instruments for generating, through science, crucial new
knowledge. Without the continuous development and creative use of
new technologies, society may limit its capacity for survival and
for working toward a world in which the human species is at peace
with itself and its environment.
The life-enhancing potential of science and technology cannot be
realized unless the public in general comes to understand science,
mathematics, and technology and to acquire scientific habits of
mind. Without a science-literate population, the outlook for a better
world is not promising.
Most Americans are not science-literate. One only has to look at
the international studies of educational performance to see that U.S.
students rank near the bottom in science and mathematicshardly
what one would expect if the schools were doing their job well. The
most recent international mathematics study has reported, for instance,
that U.S. students are well below the international level in problem
solving, and the latest study of National Assessment of Educational
Progress has found that despite some small recent gains, the average
performance of 17-year-olds in 1986 remained substantially lower than
it had been in 1969.
The United States should be able to do better. It is, after all,
a prosperous nation that claims to value public education as the foundation
of democracy. And it has deliberately staked its future well-being
on its competenceeven leadershipin science and technology.
Surely it is reasonable, therefore, to expect this commitment to show
up in the form of a modern, well-supported school system staffed by
highly qualified teachers and administrators. And surely the curriculum
in such schools should feature science, mathematics, and technology
for all students. In fact, however, the situation existing in far
too many states and school districts is quite different:
Few elementary school teachers have even a rudimentary education
in science and mathematics, and many junior and senior high school
teachers of science and mathematics do not meet reasonable standards
of preparation in those fields. Unfortunately, such deficiencies
have long been tolerated by the institutions that prepare teachers,
the public bodies that license them, the schools that hire them
and give them their assignments, and even the teaching profession
itself.
Teachers of science and mathematics have crushing teaching loads
that make it nearly impossible for them to perform well, no matter
how excellent their preparation may have been. This burden is made
worse by the almost complete absence of a modern support system
to back them up. As the world approaches the twenty-first century,
the schools of Americawhen it comes to the deployment of people,
time, and technologyseem to be still stuck in the nineteenth
century.
The present science textbooks and methods of instruction, far from
helping, often actually impede progress toward science literacy.
They emphasize the learning of answers more than the exploration
of questions, memory at the expense of critical thought, bits and
pieces of information instead of understandings in context, recitation
over argument, reading in lieu of doing. They fail to encourage
students to work together, to share ideas and information freely
with each other, or to use modern instruments to extend their intellectual
capabilities.
The present curricula in science and mathematics are overstuffed
and undernourished. Over the decades, they have grown with little
restraint, thereby overwhelming teachers and students and making
it difficult for them to keep track of what science, mathematics,
and technology is truly essential. Some topics are taught over and
over again in needless detail; some that are of equal or greater
importance to science literacyoften from the physical and
social sciences and from technologyare absent from the curriculum
or are reserved for only a few students.
To turn this situation around will take determination, resources,
leadership, and time. The world has changed in such a way that science
literacy has become necessary for everyone, not just a privileged
few; science education will have to change to make that possible.
We are all responsible for the current deplorable state of affairs
in education, and it will take all of us to reform it. Project 2061
hopes to contribute to that national effort.
RECOMMENDATIONS
One fundamental premise of Project 2061 is that the schools do not
need to be asked to teach more and more content, but rather to focus
on what is essential to science literacy and to teach it more effectively.
Accordingly, the national council's recommendations for a common core
of learning are limited to the ideas and skills having the greatest
scientific and educational significance for science literacy.
Science for All Americans is based on the belief that the
science-literate person is one who is aware that science, mathematics,
and technology are interdependent human enterprises with strengths
and limitations; understands key concepts and principles of science;
is familiar with the natural world and recognizes both its diversity
and unity; and uses scientific knowledge and scientific ways of thinking
for individual and social purposes. The recommendations are presented
in 12 chapters that thematically cover four major categories:
Chapters 1 through 3 deal with the
nature of science, mathematics, and technologycollectively,
the scientific endeavoras human enterprises.
Chapters 4 through 9 cover basic knowledge
about the world as currently seen from the perspective of science
and mathematics and as shaped by technology.
Chapters 10 and 11 present what people
should understand about some of the great episodes in the history
of the scientific endeavor and about some crosscutting themes that
can serve as tools for thinking about how the world works.
Chapter 12 lays out the habits of mind that are essential for science
literacy.
In considering these recommendations, it is important to keep in
mind some of the special features of the report:
The Recommendations Reflect a Broad Definition of Science Literacy
Science literacywhich encompasses mathematics and technology
as well as the natural and social scienceshas many facets. These
include being familiar with the natural world and respecting its unity;
being aware of some of the important ways in which mathematics, technology,
and the sciences depend upon one another; understanding some of the
key concepts and principles of science; having a capacity for scientific
ways of thinking; knowing that science, mathematics, and technology
are human enterprises, and knowing what that implies about their strengths
and limitations; and being able to use scientific knowledge and ways
of thinking for personal and social purposes.
Some of these facets of science literacy are addressed only in specific
places in the report, whereas others are woven into the text of the
chapters. It is essential, therefore, that the recommendations be
viewed in their entirety as a multifaceted discussion of science literacy.
The Recommendations in This Report Apply to All Students
The set of recommendations constitutes a common core of learning
in science, mathematics, and technology for all young people, regardless
of their social circumstances and career aspirations. In particular,
the recommendations pertain to those who in the past have largely
been bypassed in science and mathematics education: ethnic and language
minorities and girls. The recommendations do not include every interesting
topic that was suggested and do not derive from diluting the traditional
college preparatory curriculum. Nevertheless, the recommendations
are deliberately ambitious, for it would be worse to underestimate
what students can learn than to expect too much. The national council
is convinced thatgiven clear goals, the right resources, and
good teaching throughout 13 years of schoolessentially all students
(operationally meaning 90 percent or more) will be able to reach all
of the recommended learning goals (meaning at least 90 percent) by
the time they graduate from high school.
At the same time, however, no student should be limited to the common
core of learning spelled out in this report. In response to special
interests and skills, some students will want to gain a more sophisticated
understanding of the topics than what is suggested here, and some
will want to pursue topics not included here at all. A well-designed
curriculum will be able to serve those special needs without sacrificing
a commitment to a common core of learning in science, mathematics,
and technology.
The Recommendations Have Been Selected on the Basis of Both Scientific
and Human Significance
The schools do not need to be asked to teach more and more content,
but to teach less in order to teach it better. By concentrating on
few topics, teachers can introduce ideas gradually, in a variety of
contexts, reinforcing and extending them as students mature. Students
will end up with richer insights and deeper understandings than they
could hope to gain from a superficial exposure to more topics than
they can assimilate. The problem for curriculum developers, therefore,
is much less what to add than what to eliminate.
Reversing the accretion of material over scores of years is thus
a major goal of Project 2061. But addressing this goal has meant making
choices. The criteria for identifying a common core of learning in
science, mathematics, and technology were both scientific and educational.
Consideration was given first to the ideas that seemed to be of unusual
scientific importance, because there is simply too much knowledge
for anyone to acquire in a lifetime, let alone 13 years. This meant
favoring content that has had great influence on what is worth knowing
now and what will still be worth knowing decades hence, and ruling
out topics mainly of only passing technical interest or limited scientific
scope. In particular, concepts were chosen that could serve as a lasting
foundation on which to build more knowledge over a lifetime. The choices
then had to meet important criteria having to do with human life and
with the broad goals that justify universal public education in a
free society. The criteria were:
Utility. Will the proposed contentknowledge or skillssignificantly
enhance the graduate's long-term employment prospects? Will it be
useful in making personal decisions?
Social Responsibility. Is the proposed content likely to
help citizens participate intelligently in making social and political
decisions on matters involving science and technology?
The Intrinsic Value of Knowledge. Does the proposed content
present aspects of science, mathematics, and technology that are
so important in human history or so pervasive in our culture that
a general education would be incomplete without them?
Philosophical Value. Does the proposed content contribute
to the ability of people to ponder the enduring questions of human
meaning such as life and death, perception and reality, the individual
good versus the collective welfare, certainty and doubt?
Childhood Enrichment. Will the proposed content enhance
childhood (a time of life that is important in its own right and
not solely for what it may lead to in later life)?
The Recommendations Are Neither All New Nor Intended to Be Fixed
for All Time
In formulating recommendations, no attempt was made to either seek
novelty or avoid it. The task was to identify a minimal core of critical
understandings and skills, whether or not they happen to be part of
current school curricula. The recommendations do not constitute the
only possible ones, and indeed there were differences among the participants
in this project on various topics. The national council does believe,
however, that the recommendations make good sense and that they offer
a sound basis for designing curricula in science, mathematics, and
technology.
But science, mathematics, and technology are continually in fluxholding
onto some ideas and ways of doing things, reshaping or discarding
some, adding others. The time will inevitably comesooner in
some areas than otherswhen the recommendations will need to
be revised to accommodate new knowledge. Furthermore, as educators
and scientists work together in Phase II of Project 2061 to design
curriculum models based on this report, they are likely to reach their
own conclusions on the appropriateness of these recommendations and
to suggest changes. In any case, the recommendations are not presented
to set up a new and unalterable orthodoxy, but rather to provide a
credible resource for the Phase II development, to provoke lively
debate on the question of the content of education, and to catalyze
curriculum reform.
This Report Is Not a Curriculum Document or a Textbook
The reader should not expect to find recommendations in this report
on what should be taught in any particular course or at any grade
level. The report deals only with learning goalswhat students
should remember, understand, and be able to do after they have left
school as a residue of their total school experienceand not
with how to organize the curriculum to achieve them. Neither is the
presentation of recommendations meant to instruct the reader as a
text does. No linear presentation of topics can satisfactorily represent
the connectedness of ideas and experiences that would be essential
in an actual curriculum or textbook.
The Recommendations Are Intended to Convey the Levels of Understanding
Appropriate for All People
For most educational purposes, broad generalizations (such as 'everyone
should know how science and technology are related') are no more useful
than are long lists of specific topics (atoms, cells, planets, graphs,
etc.). Neither approach reveals what is to be learned, and both require
the reader to guess what level of sophistication is intended. Thus,
the specific recommendations in this report are framed in enough detail
to convey the levels of understanding and the contexts of understanding
intended. The recommendations have been formulated under four levels
of generalization:
Chapters. Each chapter deals with a major set of related
topics. Collectively, the chapter titles lay out a conceptual framework
for understanding science that people can use throughout their lives
as they gain new knowledge about the world.
Headings. Within each chapter, headings such as Forces That
Shape the Earth or Interdependence of Life identify the conceptual
categories that all students should be familiar with. A list of
all the headings would provide an approximate answer to the question
of the scope, but not the content, of the specific recommendations.
Paragraphs. Under each heading are paragraphs that express
the residual knowledge, insights, and skills that people should
possess after the details have faded from memory. If high school
graduates were interviewed about a topicInformation Processing,
saythey should be able to come up, in their own words, with
the ideas sketched in the paragraphs under that heading.
Vocabulary. The language of the recommendations is intended
to convey the level of learning advocated. The recommendations are
written for today's educated adults, not studentsbut the technical
vocabulary is limited to what would be desirable for all students
to command, as a minimum, by the time they finish school. This vocabulary
should be viewed as a product of a sound education in science, mathematics,
and technology, but not its main purpose.
In sum, the recommendations areto different degrees of specificityimplicit
in the titles, headings, text, and vocabulary of the 12 chapters that
follow. Yet there is no way, in so short a document, to convey the
quality of knowledge envisaged across the full range of topics. This
qualitythe way in which something is knowndepends largely
on how it is learned. In this regard, the discussion of learning and
teaching in Part III provides a perspective for understanding the
nature of the recommendations themselves.
THE SOURCE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations in Science for All Americans are not those
of a single person, nor are they those of a committee. They emerged,
instead, from a lengthy process designed to capture both the daring
insights of the individual and the critical confrontation of the group.
Briefly, the steps were these:
Scientific panels appointed by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science were charged with coming up with recommendations
in five domains: the biological and health sciences; mathematics;
the physical and information sciences and engineering; the social
and behavioral sciences; and, technology. Each panel met frequently
over a two-year period, often inviting consultants to meet with
them to present ideas and to participate in the discussion of particular
suggestions being put forward by one or more panel members.
To gain consideration, individual panel members had to defend their
propositions in terms of both scientific and educational significance.
As the number that survived this critical test grew, another condition
was added: what should be stricken from the list to make room for
the new candidate? From time to time, the panels had an opportunity
to study and criticize one another's tentative recommendations.
At the conclusion of its deliberations, each panel submitted a report
to the National Council on Science and Technology Education summarizing
its conclusions. The reports were then published by the AAAS.
The national council was also appointed by the AAAS. Its responsibility
was to provide quality control for and guidance to the panels and
the project staff. (This undertaking is part of a larger one called
Project 2061: Education for a Changing Future, which is briefly
described in Chapter 15.) The staff--primarily Rutherford and Ahlgren--met
regularly with the panels and by mutual agreement took on the responsibility
of drafting copy covering the territory common to all of the panels,
such as the nature of the scientific endeavor, history, and cross-cutting
themes. Panel members submitted ideas and criticized successive
drafts.
Then the staff, with the help of many experts, undertook to prepare
a single cogent report drawing on the panel reports and its own
work, but not simply synthesizing them. Drafts were written, submitted
to the national council, debated, and then rewritten. When the national
council was finally satisfied, the draft was reviewed in detail
by 130 highly qualified persons, their comments studied, and a final
draft prepared. The national council recommended Science for
All Americans, as it had finally come to be known, to the AAAS
Board of Directors. Board members read the entire document, listened
to the arguments in its favor by the national council co-chairs,
discussed it at length, then voted unanimously to authorize publication.
So Science for All Americans represents the informed thinking
of the science, mathematics, and technology communities as nearly
as such a thing can be ascertained. It is a consensus, to be sure,
but not a superficial one of the kind that would result from, say,
a survey or a conference. The process cannot be said to have led
to the only plausible set of recommendations on the education in
science, mathematics, and technology for all children, but it certainly
yielded recommendations in which we can have confidence. It is an
ambitious but attainable vision that emphasizes meanings, connections,
and contexts rather than fragmented bits and pieces of information
and favors quality of understanding over quantity of coverage. Is
not that precisely the kind of education that we should want for
all Americans?
|