The battleground: California, vanguard of educational trends, a state with so ... limit, and that even if the commission
Cases in Print CHAPTER 11: APPROACHES TO INSTRUCTION
The Science Wars As we mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, once you have decided what it is you want your students to learn, you need to decide which approaches you will use to help them achieve those objectives. Our use of the term approaches is deliberate. To repeat what we said at the beginning of the chapter, different approaches to instruction are based on different theories of learning and motivation, and given the complexity of the learning process and the diversity of learners in most classrooms, no one theory can be used for all instructional purposes and for all students. Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction; California Rethinks Science Labs VALERIE STRAUSS The Washington Post, 2/3/04 First came the wars over how to teach reading and math to young students. Now the fighting has spilled into science. The battleground: California, vanguard of educational trends, a state with so much clout that its selection of textbooks influences editions sold across the country. The issue: broadly, the best way to teach science. Specifically, whether a state panel is trying to unduly limit "hands-on" instruction (lab experiments and practical projects) in kindergarten through eighth grade as part of a back-to-basics movement. The major players: the California Curriculum Commission, which advises the state Board of Education and has recommended new criteria for K-8 textbooks that allow for a maximum of 20 to 25 percent of hands-on material. In opposition are many classroom teachers and scientists -- including leaders of the National Academy of Sciences and the
California Science Teachers Association -- who say the recommendation makes no sense in a field that is all about discovery. "What is being proposed is beyond idiotic," said Jackie Goldberg, a former teacher who chairs the state Assembly's education committee and recently was appointed to the curriculum commission. "There isn't a scientist who thinks you can do science without hands-on, and then you say, 'We are going to artificially limit the amount of instruction that can be hands-on.' It is unbelievable." Thomas Adams, executive director of the curriculum commission, said critics are misrepresenting the panel's views. He said commission members are trying to balance the need for a comprehensive science curriculum with the limited science background of many K-8 teachers. Twenty to 25 percent of hands-on instruction seemed like "the most reasonable amount of time for someone faced with the challenges of limited facilities and limited time," he said. "What we want are materials that all teachers can use," Adams said. " . . . There are some people who are convinced that the only way that students learn is in a discovery method." Rae Belisle, executive director of the California Board of Education, which will vote on the commission's textbook recommendation next month, also said there was no intent to mandate a maximum amount of hands-on learning. But many science teachers say that there is no research to justify a 20 to 25 percent limit, and that even if the commission isn't trying to restrict hands-on science, the new textbook criteria would have that effect. "If publishers are not allowed to put more than 25 percent hands-on materials into their books, then teachers will have books that, in
effect, don't give them the alternative," said Christine Bertrand, executive director of the California Science Teachers Association. At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement about how students learn best -- a debate also swirling around the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which emphasizes basic math and reading skills and the use of standardized test scores to measure progress. Supporters of a philosophy known as "direct instruction" believe that students are served best in teacher-led classrooms that rely on structure, drilling and textbooks. They say that without the basics, students can't learn more complex scientific theories, and that hands-on-dominated curriculum doesn't offer enough content. Critics of this approach say research shows that students learn best when they are allowed to discover material themselves and that back-to-basics programs leave no room for higher-level thinking. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said the California curriculum commission's recommendation, if approved, would be harmful to students. "They are pushing very hard the dogmatic position of the 'direct instruction' crowd and emphasize what students know, not what they are able to do or understand," he said. "I strongly believe that they will turn even more students off of science and that they will work directly against the vital interests of California business and industry, who need a workforce of high school graduates who are able to solve problems using logic and evidence." For years, the National Science Foundation has funded new hands-on science programs for schools, many of which are opposed by a majority of members of California's curriculum commission.
The commission, for example, has refused to approve a K-8 hands-on science program called Full Option Science System, developed at the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California at Berkeley. The creator, Lawrence Lowery, said it was designed for novice teachers, and some California school districts like it so much that their leaders have found a way to purchase the program. Kim Bess, director of science and educational technology for the San Diego schools, is one of them. "They [commission members] still think that if you do 'hands-on' science, students are playing and it's not real," she said. "They haven't paid any attention to what we've learned about how the brain works. They haven't paid any attention to the literature on how people learn." Several curriculum commission members declined to comment, including Stan Metzenberg, assistant professor of biology at California State University at Northridge, who was heavily involved in creating the state's science curriculum standards. When asked about the debate unfolding in California, teachers and students in the Washington area said they could not understand any attempt to restrict hands-on learning. "I've never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life," said Peter Petrossian, a science teacher at Pyle Middle School in Bethesda. Petrossian, who uses numerous innovative hands-on activities to engage his students, said: "It flies against all the current thought in educational psychology and, well, common sense. I think one of the things science has going for it is the fact that we can use so many modalities to reach our students -- even the old adage of 'tell a man how to fish versus show a man how to fish.' Yikes!"
Justin Bar, 12, a seventh-grader in Petrossian's class, said he has learned to love science -- and remember more of it -- because of all the hands-on work he is assigned. "We learn more that way because it's more fun," he said. Questions and Activities 1. The debate described in this article – the approach to science instruction that should be reflected in California’s science textbooks – appears to be driven by people who believe there is one best way to teach. In this case, the positions are discovery learning versus direct instruction. If you could address the members of the California Curriculum Commission, what would you tell them? 2. Thomas Adams, the executive director of the curriculum commission, said that their decision to look only at textbooks that limited hands-on activities to 20 to 25 percent of instruction was because that figure seemed like “the most reasonable amount of time for someone faced with the challenges of limited facilities and limited time.” How would you respond to Mr. Adams’ comment? 3. The article notes that the California Curriculum Commission refused to approve a K8 hands-on science program. Should such policy-making bodies have the authority to approve or disapprove the type of instructional programs that teachers may use? 4. If someone were to tell the California Curriculum Commission that limiting students’ hands-on science activities to about 25 percent is like telling music students that about 75 percent of their instruction will involve lectures and textbook reading and 25 percent will involve playing whatever instrument they are studying, how would you respond?
