Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 149
PART IV
instructional Procedures
ant! Materials
OCR for page 150
OCR for page 151
17
To Weed or to Cullivate Which?
MARY BUDD ROWE
lb weed or to cultivate-which? That is the question we must ask
of all that we do in biology education at whatever level it takes place.
In fact, it appears that 'leveed," rather than "cultivate," is the dominant
strategy at virtually all levels of biology instruction, at least to the end of
the sophomore year in college. Biology is host to the most exciting ideas
and could have more impact on the quality of student life than any other
curricular offering but you could not guess that from current textbooks
or from curricular outlines or from standardized tests or from much of
the observable instruction. The weeding approach appears in some places
as early as the middle-school life-science course, becomes more vigorous
in the high-school biology program, and goes on with a vengeance in the
beginning university courses.
What would we do differently if we shifted from weeding to cultivating?
For one thing, we would put story lines, or themes, or some articulated pat-
terns of ideas back into the texts, i.e., provide some meaningful frameworks
for the budding and attachment of new shoots of information. Most of
the current biology texts read like glossaries. Denuded of story lines, these
products of massive agglutinations of facts were induced in response to an
epidemic of testing, which currently plagues the educational countryside.
Mary Budd Rowe is professor of education at the University of Florida, a former president of the
National Science leachers Association, and author of numerous papers on high-school biology
education.
151
OCR for page 152
152
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
That means, of course, that in order to change texts we need to change tests
to conform to the images, ideas, attitudes, and patterns of relationships
among these that we want to characterize a program focused on cultivating
a rich biological perspective in all students given into our care for roughly
150 hours in a typical academic year. One hundred fifty hours is all we
have to start a mental mutation in our students.
Aside from changing the tools- i.e., texts and tests we have to con-
sider faculty susceptibility to the ideas of a biology with a much broader
perspective than they feel free to take in the currently prevalent "weed 'em
out" ideology. Under the philosophy of cultivation, we do more to help
more students to achieve and maintain an interest in biology for the rest of
their lives. We know something of what it would take to make that happen,
but we are like the county agent who has a "new" method that will increase
productivity, but can't find anyone willing to risk a change. What must we
do?
Consider first some of the major questions in the minds of adolescents.
What can a biology program contribute to their search for solutions?
Certainly, we cannot ignore the questions. They tell you what the agenda
is from the students' perspective.
· What kind of country is this?
What values control activities?
Where do I fit in?
Do they expect me to succeed or fail?
How much effort do I need to make?
Is success worth the effort?
· Can I get help?
Do I have the energy and endurance?
What happens if I do not make the effort?
What am I up against? What is the competition?
What difference can I make?
Do I care? Does anybody care?
Instructors and program developers also have an agenda. The agendas
must be effectively meshed.
We must attend to both the content and the process by which students
become engaged with the ideas of biology. The cycle of relationships can
serve as a useful template for planning purposes (Figure 1~. It depicts
fundamental elements that ought to be addressed in a biology program.
With the template as a guide, examine the texts, tests, curriculum-
instruction as it actually takes place. Ask how often in the 150 hours
an opportunity to go completely around the cycle (starting at any place)
occurs. In the weeding paradigm, which is largely turf-bounded, it rarely
happens. Participation in such a cycle, however, is essential to the growth
OCR for page 153
TO WEED OR TO CULTIVATE WHICH?
ACTIONS/APPLICATIONS
/
WAYS OF KNOWING
What Do I Know?
Why Do I Believe It?
What Is the Evidence?
153
What Do I Infer?
What Must I Do With What I Know?
What Are the Options?
Do I Know How to Take Action?
Do I Know When to Take Action?
VALUES/WHO CARES?
Do I Care?
Do I Value the Outcome?
Who Cares?
\
CONSEQUENCES
Do I Know What
Would Happen?
FIGURE 1 Guide for examining curriculum: fundamental elements in a program (Rowe,
1983~.
Of the biological perspective that we want to cultivate in students, who will
be spending the larger part of their lives in the next century. The cycle
carries in it the theme of connectedness, instead of the aura of chaos.
Of all the scientific and technological ideas confronting us today,
possibly the most important is the recognition that humankind is a single
world-wide, interdependent species. Survival, therefore, may depend on
our ability to speed up the process of cooperation. That, in turn, depends
on whether we can develop ways of thinking and feeling that support
the process. Attitudes, beliefs, emotions, tastes, and ideologies can either
motivate us to engage in productive problem-solving or turn us into fearful,
turf-ridden, withdrawn people. They can energize us or enervate us. They
can give license to our curiosity and fuel our persistence in the face of
difficulties, or they can turn us into frenzied fanatics. They can be the
source of public venturesomeness or public apathy. Our world of divergent
communities is kept separate by the firmness of differing beliefs, aspirations,
trusts and distrusts, convictions, and habits of resolving conflicts. These are
the gatekeepers of our future, for they are the framework within which we
interpret our experiences, make decisions, and take actions. Presumably,
OCR for page 154
154
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
education can make a difference as to the direction In which they develop.
If we regard attitudes, beliefs, feelings, tastes, and curiosity as untapped
sources of national power to be cultivated In part by what we do In biology
programs, then we may see our purpose well expressed by Gwen Frostic,
Michigan naturalist, poet, and artist:
We must create a great change
in human direction
an understanding
of the interdependency
by which the universe evolves.
Know
that knowing-
is the underlying foundation
for the life we must develop . . .
We cannot leave it to the scientists
nor any form of government-
each individual
must fuse a philosophy
with a plan of action.
REFERENCES
Frostic, G. 1970. Beyond Time. Benzonia, Mich.: Presscraft Papers.
Rowe, M. B. 1983. Science education: A framework for decision makers. Daedalus
112~2~:123 142.
OCR for page 155
18
Biology Learning Based on Illustrations
ROBERT V. BLYSTONE
Illustrations have become an essential part of the biology learning
experience. Encompassing graphs, charts, flowcharts, diagrams, line draw-
ings, photographs, and symbols, illustrations are found in biology textbooks,
computer programs, instructional audiovisual media, and even classroom
wall coverings. In a world where 85% of all the messages we receive are vi-
sual (Doblin, 1980), illustrations are too often poorly used in both teaching
and learning strategies. Proper development and use of illustrations can
appreciably aid in the understanding and advancement of biology learning.
IMPORTANCE OF ILLUSTRATIONS TO TEXTBOOKS
Virtually every high-school biology course uses textbooks. Goldstein
(1978) has estimated that 75% of the classroom time and 90% of homework
time involve textbook use. The examination of biology textbooks provides
a good starting point for the evaluation of the impact of illustrations on
biology learning.
From the tiger on the front of HO Biology (Goodman et al., 1986)
to the lurking black panther of Johnson's Biology (1987), the covers of
Robert V. Blystone, professor of biology at llinity University in San Antonio, received a B.S.
in 1965 from the University of Texas, El Paso, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in 1968 and 1971 from
the University of Texas, Austin. He has taught at llinity University since 1971 and sewed as
chairman of biology in 1984-1986. Dr. Blystone's research interests include science textbooks
and electron microscopy of developing lungs.
155
OCR for page 156
devices.
156
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
today's high-school and college biology textbooks symbolize the importance
of illustrations. Frequently, biology teachers identify textbooks by the illus-
tration on the cover: '`the red-blood-cell book," Heath Biology (McLaren
and Rotundo, 1989~; "the owl book," Holt's Modern Biology Ale, 1989~;
or "the parrot book," Mader's Biology (1987~. Although the pictures are
purely decorative, publishers willingly spend upwards of $10,000 for the
perfect textbook cover picture. Many consider the colorful artwork in to-
day's textbooks as frivolous and there primarily to sell the books (Davies,
1986~. From half to three-quarters of the cost of the development of a
new high-school textbook is invested in artwork and graphic design (John
McClements, Addison-Wesley Publishers, personal communication). But is
this emphasis on colorful covers and on the artwork on the pages in both
high-school and college textbooks frivolous?
Comparison of textbook editions reveals evolutionary changes in con-
tent and format. The first edition of Keeton's Biological Science appeared
in 1967, and the fourth edition in 1986 (Keeton and Gould, 1986~. With
more and larger pages, the fourth edition has over 75% more page space;
however, the number of words has increased a scant 10%. The majority of
the additional space has been used for additional illustrations.
Similar increases in textbook size, primarily for illustrations dealing
with new concepts, may be seen in other college and high-school book
editions. Three reasons contribute to this change:
· Good artwork does sell textbooks.
· Research has shown that illustrations are effective cognitive
Illustrations keep the length of a textbook down by presenting
concepts in less space than text alone.
The first reason should come as no surprise. The second reason has
recently come to light. Until about 20 years ago, the conclusion of most
research concerning illustrations as learning devices was that they were
neutral or negative in effect. With the work of Dwyer (1972), Wyman
(1985), Holliday (1975), and others, a large body of evidence has been
collected that properly designed illustrations do work (Levie, 1987~. The
third reason is not generally recognized. Blystone and Barnard (1988)
showed that the average major texts will reach 1,450 pages by the year 2000
at the present rate of increase.
Publishers fully recognize that few people want a 1,450-page college
introductory textbook; yet academe wants nothing left out of the book.
An illustration takes less space to present complex information than does
verbal text; remember that a picture is worth 1,000 words. By using more
illustrations, a publisher is increasing the attractiveness of the book, in-
creasing understandability, and saving precious space. These three reasons
OCR for page 157
BIOLOGY LEARNING BASED ON ILLUSTRATIONS
~, ,
157
have contributed to illustrations' becoming more important to the message
and selling of the textbook.
Textbooks for college biology majors in the 1950s averaged over 600
pages and in the 1980s over 1,100 pages long. Blystone and Barnard
(19881 reported a decline in the proportion of pages in college biology
textbooks with no illustrations from 52% to 22% during this period. The
use of photographs increased nearly threefold during the same interval. In
contrast with today's textbooks, no color was used in the college biology
books of the 1950s. The changes reported for college biology textbooks are
mirrored in the high-school texts. The 1987 edition of BSCS (the green
edition) is over 1,000 pages long. The emphasis on more illustration in
high-school textbooks has also carried over from the college field. The
1989 edition of Modem Biology (Towle, 1989) has nearly all color artwork,
and even many of the scanning and electron micrographs are colorized.
INCREASED COMPLEXITY OF ILLUSTRATIONS
The subject and content of college textbook illustrations have changed
considerably over the last 30 years. Figure 1 describes the changes in
illustration subject emphasis in college textbooks. On the basis of five
levels of biological organization for subject identification, illustrations with
molecular and cellular content have appreciably increased. Illustrations
concerning whole organisms have also increased. However, the frequency
of illustrations with organ- and tissue-level subjects has remained nearly
the same (Blystone and Barnard, unpublished). The increase in cellular
and molecular illustrations is predictable, given the prominence of today's
genetic and biochemical information. The data on the other three levels
are difficult to explain.
The range of complexity of illustrations can be demonstrated by com-
paring the first and fourth editions of Keeton's Biological Science. On page
291 of the first edition, a two-dimensional, black-and-white rendering of a
grasshopper is seen. The drawing occupies a quarter of a page, in contrast
with an eighth-of-a-page, three-dimensional, color version of a grasshopper
seen on page 366 in the fourth edition. The latter illustration is far more
realistic than the original, and it uses space more economically. This is a
common strategy in textbook revisions.
Comparisons of fluid mosaic membrane models from Merrill's Biology:
Living Systems (Oram, 1983, p. 75), HBJ Biology (Goodman et al., 1986,
p. 102), and Heath Biology (McLaren and Rotundo, 1985, p. 71) reveal
great variation in complexity of the representation. In terms of content,
the Heath Biology high-school textbook illustration would rival Johnson's
Biology (1987, p. 57), a college rendering of the same topic.
Variation in complexity of illustrations is apparent in cell models. Four
OCR for page 158
158
4
In
llJ
C,
CL
z
Or
~ 2
tar
llJ
~ 1
At
1952
FIGURE 1 Subjects of textbook illustration.
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
~ Whole Organism
__
Organ Level
Tissue Level
~ Cell Level
_O Molecular
Level
1957
YEAR
1 985
examples would be HA Biology (Goodman et al., 1986, p. 83), Addison-
Wesley's Biology (Kormondy and Essenfeld, 1988, p. ill), Holt's Modern
Biology (Otto and joule, 1985, p. 60), and BSCS Biological Science: A
Molecular Approach (1985, p. 25). The simplest is the HBJ diagram,
which reiterates the classic cell diagram in the Scientific American (1961)
special issue on the cell. The most complex would be the Addison-Wesley
illustration. All four texts are oriented toward the same market; yet, the
illustrations vary dramatically in complexity. Which model would best suit
the cognitive level of the audience? The answer is left wanting.
Diagrams in textbooks today at both high-school and college levels are
more complex. They show much more motion, events at different times
within the same illustration, spatial relationships, and process. But an
evenness of presentation in terms of this complexity does not exist between
textbooks and even within the same textbook In a period when verbal
text complexity is constrained by reading level and interest formulas, the
illustration levels can suing like the moods of a manic-depressive.
SUBTLETIES OF ILLUSTRATION DESIGN
Analysis of illustrations can reveal many subtleties. For example, com-
pare the endoplasmic-reticulum (ER) illustration in the 1985 Heath Biology
(McLaren and Rotundo, 1985, p. 73) and Addison-Wesley's Biology (Kor-
mondy and Essenfeld, 1988, p. 106~. The Heath version shows ribosomes
OCR for page 159
BIOLOGY LEARNING BASED ON ILLUSTMTIONS
~-
3-A
FIGURE 2 Different presentations of sarcomere concept.
159
3-B
in random array on the ER surface, whereas Addison-Wesley depicts ribo-
somes beaded on messenger RNA and attached to the ER.
A more subtle problem can be found when comparing the sarcomere
illustrations of Keeton and Gould's Biological Science (1986, p. 541) and
Raven and Johnson's Biology (1986, p. 132) with that of Curtis's Biology
(1983, p. 810) and Mader's Biology (1987, p. 548~. Figure 2 is a recreation
of these diagrams. The first two texts are represented on the left side of
Figure 2, and the latter two on the right side. Obviously, the left side
shows one sarcomere, and the right side one sarcomere and portions of
two adjacent sarcomeres.
On a recent biology advanced-placement examination, where muscle
contraction was explored in a question, most students using illustrations
like the left side of Figure 2 would present sarcomere structure as did
their text- exactly one sarcomere. In the essay component of the answer,
many of these students did not indicate that many sarcomeres operate
together. These students viewed muscle contraction in terms of exactly one
sarcomere- just as the illustration presented sarcomere structure. Students
who learned with sarcomere textbook illustrations like the right side of
Figure 2 more frequently recognized that many sarcomeres operate together
during contraction. All diagrams are correct in this case, but the students
received a better perspective of muscle contractions with the two-sarcomere
illustration.
These subtle distinctions in illustrations can affect how a student learns.
Recall again the model cell diagram from the September 1961 Scientific
American. This cell model, now known to be incorrect, still influences
learning today. Illustrations often outlive the corresponding text. Illus-
trations frequently make a more lasting impression on learning than does
the verbal text. Subtle design features, such as beaded ER ribosomes and
two-sarcomere models, have lasting effects to an extent greater than many
people are generally aware.
CURRENT DIRECTION OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Textbook graphic designers are taking advantage of new computer
technology. High-school biology books are pioneering the use of colored
l
OCR for page 184
21
Messing About in Science:
Participation, Not Memorization
CANDACE L. JULYAN
INTRODUCTION
Consider how you first became interested in science. For many people,
that interest grew from a cunosi~ about a particular phenomenon or
organism. Satisfying the curiosity, or what David Hawkins (1978) calls
"messing about," often resulted in some type of relatively unstructured
exploration led by one's own questions, rather than the questions of others.
Unfortunately, messing about is not a common practice in many science
classrooms today. Students are more likely to be introduced to organisms
and phenomena through text-based lectures than by making sense of their
own observations. The result of our current science curricula is not only
a lack of interest in science as a profession, but also a lack of scientific
understanding.
The purpose of this paper is to encourage a consideration of the pos-
sibilities of instructional materials that allow students to explore science
through projects, rather than texts. While this approach to biology ed-
ucation may differ dramatically from the current practice, I believe that
it moves students closer to the experience of science and potentially may
offer a deeper understanding of the topics of study. This belief is based
Candace L. Julyan is the manager of curriculum and training for the National Geographic Kids
Network, a National Science Foundation-funded science curriculum developed at Technical Ed-
ucation Research Centers, Cambridge, Massachusetts. She received a doctorate from Harvard
University, and her research has focused on high-school students' understanding of leaves chang-
ing color.
184
OCR for page 185
MESSING ABOUT IN SCIENCE
185
on both research and practice: research about how students make sense of
science topics and practice as seen in field tests of a new set of instructional
materials under development. Although Audrey Champagne has already
addressed this area of research, I would like to return to that topic briefly
to connect our growing knowledge of students' understanding of science
topics with appropriate design for instructional materials.
RESEARCH ON STUDENT LEARNING
In the last decade, educational researchers have introduced new data
about how students explain science topics to themselves. Studies based on
interviews and teaching situations, rather than tests, encompass a range of
topics, such as weight and density (Smith, 1985; Duckworth, 1986), heat and
temperature (Smith, 1985), gravity (Stead and Osborne, 1981; Gunstone
and White, 1981), light (Stead and Osborne, 1980; Anderson and Smith,
1983), energy (Brook and Driver, 1984), complex systems (Duckworth et
al., 1985), and plants (Bell and Brook, 1984; Julyan, 1988~. These studies
present surprising information about students' preconceptions about how
the world works. Although the methods differ, the data suggest that these
ideas, referred to by some as "misconceptions," form a basic structure
of knowledge that either helps or hinders an individual's ability to make
sense of the material presented in the classroom. In addition, these studies
suggest that a student's initial beliefs are remarkably resilient and are not
erased when a teacher presents new information that might challenge those
beliefs. This is an important point to keep in mind: Students do not learn
simply by being told.
If correct, how might this supposition affect the work of a science
classroom? Osborne and Gilbert (1980) contend that many students merge
their erroneous thoughts with the words presented in science class, resulting
in continued misconceptions that are now misidentified with a scientific
term. These authors believe that by ignoring the ideas that students have
before science instruction the teacher may inadvertently continue to support
these incorrect notions.
A second concern that is raised by this supposition Is that the work
of the science classroom cannot rely on lecture- and text-based activities
if students are to understand the subject matter. Futhermore, data from
several of these studies (Bell and Brook, 1984; Duckworth, 1986; Julyan,
1988) suggest that knowing correct terms does not help students to make
sense of their observations. In fact, in many cases, scientific terms may be
used to mask confusion. Knowing words does not constitute understanding.
While I am certainly not suggesting a classroom ban on scientific terms,
I do suggest that we reconsider their importance. The difference between
memorizing vocabulary words related to science topics and understanding
OCR for page 186
186
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
various phenomena is considerable. Certainly those of us involved in
science and science education realize the difference and are striving for the
latter. Science-as-vocabulary requires less effort on the part of both the
teacher and the student, but it also provides fewer rewards.
Students, I believe, are also aware of the difference; and if given the
choice, they too would strive for understanding. This point was highlighted
for me several years ago by a high-school student who was participating
in a research study on how students make sense of a complex system
(Duckworth et al., 1985~. ~ examine this question, my colleagues and I
had devised a number of experiments featuring helium balloons weighted
with enough strands of string so that the string dragged on the floor. The
students' task was to explain why the balloon's position in the air changed
as they did various tasks such as tying knots in the string, cutting the string,
putting the balloon on a table, etc.
After several weeks of experimenting, the balloons continued to sur-
prise one student whose frustration with her lack of understanding was
often visible. One day, she turned to me demanding to know whether I
intended to tell her `'the answer." When I asked her to state the question,
she seemed momentarily stumped, but then stated that she wanted to know
why the balloon behaved in the way that it did in all the various experiments
that she had conducted. While certainly willing to answer her question,
I stated that I wanted to be clear about what she wanted. Did she want
words that explained the phenomenon or did she want to understand it
herself. There was a long and poignant silence in the room. Finally, she
turned and quietly said that the words were not what she wanted; she really
wanted to understand.
While most students might not articulate the dilemma as clearly as
this student, many share her desire to understand, not just to know the
correct words. One way to promote both understanding and the value of
scientific terms is to give students an opportunity to mess about in their
science classes, to become participants in constructing their knowledge.
Inquiry-based activities are certainly not the fastest way to approach science
learning. A faster and more "efficient" approach is text-based, lecture-based
classes. This approach, which is certainly the predominant approach in
science classes today, is not terribly effective, as indicated in the numerous
reports about science education and the low enrollment in science classes.
Change is definitely needed. Let me turn now to a curriculum that offers
this type of change.
A NEW lYPE OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM
While the importance of inquiry in the science classroom is certainly
not a new idea, my colleagues and I at Technical Education Research
OCR for page 187
MESSING ABOUT IN SCIENCE
187
Centers (TERC) are developing a curriculum that has a new commitment
to the notion of inquiry. Because its operating premise about what is
possible in a science classroom is unusual, I offer it as an example of an
unconventional approach to instructional materials worth noting. The basic
premise of this curriculum, the National Geographic Kids Network, is that
students can and should be scientists, that they can and should converse
with real scientists about their work and that computers can enhance this
enterprise. Students, therefore, conduct experiments, analyze data, and
share their results with student colleagues using a simple computer-based
telecommunication network. This collection and making sense of data gives
these students an opportunity to experience the excitement of science that
scientists feel.
We are just beginning the third of 4 years of this National Science
Foundation-funded project, which represents a partnership between TERC
and the National Geographic Society (NGS). TERC is developing the
curriculum and software for the project; NGS will publish and distribute
the final product. The full curriculum, designed for upper elementary
school, grades 4 through 6, will consist of a number of 6-week units, which
are intended to supplement the regular curriculum.
Each unit focuses on an environmentally oriented topic, such as acid
rain, land use, or water quality. Students begin their study by examining
the topic in the context of their local community and then exploring it
within the larger national picture. Each unit involves the collection of
some type of data (survey or measurement), sharing those data through
a telecommunication network with other classes collecting the same data,
and finally making sense of those data. These data are examined by both
student colleagues and a unit scientist, a professional with expertise in the
unit topic.
The computer gives students a number of tools to help with the data
collection and analysis: a word processor, a record-keeping data section, a
graphing utility, a complete telecommunication package, and map software
with data overlay. This software component of the project is both simple
and powerful.
The Kids Network is more, however, than powerful software; it is a
careful weaving of classroom activities and software tools. The following
outline of the acid-rain unit illustrates the connection that exists between
these two components of the project.
Students begin this unit by learning how to use pH paper and how to
build a rain collector. With this knowledge and equipment, they record the
pH reading for each rainfall for the next several weeks. While waiting for
the rain, they continue to explore pH through experiments that look at the
effect of solutions of different pH on the growth of seeds and on a variety of
nonliving objects. They also keep a weekly log of odometer readings from
OCR for page 188
188
HIGH-SCH~L BIOLOGY
the family car and roughly calculate the amount of nitrogen oxide that they
have introduced into the atmosphere as a family and as a class. Through
letters, classes can share the findings from all these activities with others
in the network These letters are sent, not to the thousands of schools in
the network, but to their "cluster," a small group of 10-12 geographically
dispersed classrooms.
After several weeks, during which time one hopes there has been some
rain, classes send their rain data to the network using the data-entry feature
of the software. Those data are collected and sent back within a week.
Students receive the network data, as well as a letter from the unit
scientist. The data may come back as a data-entry form or as a map file
with color-coded data from each site displayed. The letter from the unit
scientist, in this case John Miller of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), helps students to put their data into the context
of other data collected on acid rain. Next, students are asked to compare
their readings with those of their fellow cluster classes and to examine
patterns in the network data. Again, a flurry of letters to fellow scientists
takes place, asking for clarification about surprises or validation of theories.
The unit ends with a look at the social significance of the data. Students
examine two very different positions on what to do with the information
gathered. Each position, seemingly written by a student-colleague on the
network, addresses the impact of decisions about acid rain-e.g., a loss of
jobs for factory-working parents or serious reduction of fish in a local pond.
Students are encouraged to discuss these positions, take a class vote for no
action without further research or for both immediate action and further
research, and send the results to the network.
WHAT MIGHT THIS CURRICULUM DESIGN SUGGEST?
The Kids Network has generated an enthusiastic response on the part
of both teachers and students. As one teacher explained, it "is an awesome
concept, a truly revolutionary idea for education at a time when it is so
badly needed." We have completed the design of two units and have tested
these preliminary materials in 200 classrooms across the United States and
in a handful of foreign sites, including Canada, Argentina, Hong Kong, and
Israel. Data from our formal evaluation, which included both observations
and questionnaires, and the flood of unsolicited narratives received from
teachers through phone calls and letters suggest that teachers and students
found this curriculum to be a lively and appealing way to approach science.
Despite the elementary focus of these materials, there are a number of
ideas or issues that are applicable to the high-school curriculum. I propose
these ideas in the form of questions. While all the questions represent ideas
around which the Kids Network has been designed, they also provide a
OCR for page 189
MESSING ABOUT IN SCIENCE
189
framework for examining aspects of this project that may provide new ideas
for those interested in high-school biology curricula. After briefly noting
examples of the ways in which our curriculum addresses each question, I will
suggest areas of consideration that these questions raise for instructional
materials.
Can Data Collection and Analysis Provide an Effective Backbone
Around Which to Study Science?
Teachers and evaluators reported numerous examples of scientific
thinking generated by the simple act of collecting and making sense of
data. For example, in the "hello" unit, students were collecting data about
the kinds of pets that each student cared for. Many classes found that
defining their terms, in this case what constituted a pet, was quite compli-
cated. In one class, the discussion revolved around a debate as to whether
an ant farm should be considered a pet. The class finally decided that a
pet had to share the same environment with its owner. Therefore, they
decided that an ant farm was not a pet, as it was in a sealed container;
but fish were pets, as they lived in water from a faucet. Although you may
argue with their decisions, I think that you can see that the students did
exhibit scientific thinking as they tried to resolve their question.
Another example of the type of scientific understanding that data col-
lection generated came from a fourth-grade class. These students realized
that, although their data and those of their cluster school were both about
pets, they could not compare data. One class had recorded the number of
students who owned each kind of pet; the other had recorded the number
of each kind of pet. The class learned a great deal about the importance
of comparable data, a concept that many high-school students might find
difficult.
Can Inqu~ Based Instruction Help a Larger Proportion of Students to
Feel Confident About Their Ability to Understand Science?
This question was addressed in several ways. Many teachers reported
that students were motivated and eager to participate in the curriculum
activities, even, or perhaps especially, students who rarely participated in
science class. One teacher told the story of a "low-ability" student who
gained enormous credibility in class when he proposed his idea about the
wide discrepancy between the over 120 pets owned by his Auburn, Maine,
class and the fewer than 25 pets owned by a cluster class in New Orleans.
While other students had explained the difference as something related
to the weather or the availability of pets in Louisiana stores, this student
thought that perhaps the school was located in an area surrounded by
OCR for page 190
190
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
government housing. He explained that pets were not allowed in this type
of housing. This simple piece of information from a fellow student, not
the teacher or a textbook, helped students to make sense of the data and
generated a letter to find out whether this student's theory was correct. As
you might imagine, his idea also increased the student's credibility with his
peers, his teacher, and perhaps himself.
We received other reports of student self-esteem that are of a very dif-
ferent nature. Teachers reported that students felt a real sense of ownership
about their work. The most extreme examples came frown two teachers who
reported that their classes, both filled with "average" and "below-average"
students, protested on learning that their teacher was planning to present
the Kids Network curriculum at professional conferences. The students
argued that it was their work and that they should be the ones presenting.
In one case, the teacher took the students with him; in the other, the
students made an acetate filmstrip and accompanying audio tape that the
teacher used in her presentation.
Can Technology Enhance Inquiry in the Science Classroom?
Bob Tinker (1988), the project's director, contends that "technology
can bridge the gap between the conduct of science and the teaching of
science." The Kids Network provides this bridge in several ways. First,
by using microcomputers for computation, students are able to manipulate
their findings in more sophisticated ways than their computational skills
might have permitted otherwise. Second, with the power of telecommu-
nication, students are able to share data and ideas with others from all
over the country. This extension of the classroom provides a powerful
motivation for many students. Lastly, telecommunication offers a unique
and manageable opportunity for scientists to communicate with science
classrooms. The technology expands these classrooms by eliminating the
limitations of both time and distance that would otherwise restrict this type
of communication.
Can the Work of a Science Classroom Generate Community Interest?
Kids Network classrooms were filled with visitors interested in the stu-
dents' work. The list included principals, other teachers, superintendents,
school-board members, parents, university professors and their students,
and reporters from newspapers and television. These visitors were inter-
ested in what the students were doing, in terms of both the telecommunica-
tion activities with other schools and the data they were collecting. Adults
were as interested in the data results as the students, particularly when the
data were about a larger environmental concern, such as acid rain. This
OCR for page 191
MESSING ABOUT IN SCIENCE
191
type of interest provided a motivation for both teachers and students, who
appreciated having an audience for their work.
Can the Work of a Science Classroom be of Interest to the
Scientific Community?
A portion of my work on the curriculum component of this project is
to find experiments appropriate for elementary-school students and useful
to research scientists. This search has been one of the most challenging
and delightful aspects of my job. The scientific community has been both
supportive and enthusiastic. Many scientists have given hours of their time
exploring the types of research that students might do that would offer
valuable data to existing studies.
John Miller, the deputy director of the acid-deposition unit of NOAA
and our unit scientist for the acid-rain unit, is an excellent example of
the type of support and enthusiasm that we have found. Dr. Miller corre-
sponded throughout the unit with his elementary-school "colleagues" and
has proposed that the Kids Network data be included as an appendix to the
NOAA 1988 report on acid rain. In addition, he regularly discussed this
project with his colleagues around the world. Perhaps the most surprising
example of the serious interest that scientists have in student-collected data
took place at the annual meeting of a United Nations steering committee
concerned with the long-range transmission of air pollutants. As the United
States representative to this group, Dr. Miller presented an overview of
the various networks in North America that are concerned with acid rain.
Within this context, he introduced his colleagues to the Kids Network
project and was surprised to find that they expressed considerable interest
in this network, wanting to know how students made the measurements
and whether the data would be available for comparison with NOAA data.
We have found that this level of interest has not been unusual. Scientists
are interested in student measurements, particularly when the data cover a
wide geographic area.
CONCLUSION
The first reports about the effectiveness of the Kids Network indicate
that it generates considerable enthusiasm in both students and teachers
and enlivens the science classroom. In times filled with grim reports about
science education, this curriculum has sparked considerable hope. Our
experience with elementary-school students has shown that the approach
has great promise to change students' perception of science and of their
abilities in the subject. It offers them a collective opportunity for messing
about in science.
OCR for page 192
192
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
This same type of exploration is certainly possible for high-school
classrooms and is worthy of further consideration. Instructional materials
that center around the collection of data not only give students a more
accurate picture of the scientific enterprise, but they also give students an
opportunity to examine their personal ideas about the topic under study.
In addition, if this type of investigation is linked to real environmental
concerns, the students' work yields valuable community information and is
not just an empty school assignment.
Telecommunication is a new and exciting tool for the science class-
room. It provides an easy way to connect the work of various classrooms
and to help students to understand the larger scientific picture into which
their experiments fit. One difficulty that many existing telecommunication
networks report is that these connections die if there is no reason to com-
municate (Carl Berger, University of Michigan, personal communication).
Creating a network that revolves around the collection and analysis of data
provides an important and engaging topic for conversation.
While the telecommunication activities of the Kids Network curriculum
are seemingly elaborate, classroom exchanges can be fairly simple and do
not require either fancy software or equipment. All that is required is
a worthwhile set of data to collect and an interest in sharing those data
among classes as close together as the same town or as far apart as different
coasts. Science teachers and curriculum developers may be surprised to
discover the number of groups that would welcome this sort of low-cost
data collection and would help with the necessary logistics.
Finally, I would like to note that, while the technology of this curricu-
lum suggests an exciting new resource for the classroom, the Kids Network
suggests a very simple change for classrooms. This change, while enhanced
by technology, does not require it. Messing about in science does not
require fancy equipment, just an appreciation of the value in making sense
of the many mysteries of life. Certainly that should be an important value
for biology education. One high-school student involved in examining trees
was pondering the difference between his biology class and his work in
an inquiry-based study. "I don't know why we read about trees in science
class. It seems stupid not to come outside and really study 'em. Don't ya
think?" (Julyan, 1988~.
I obviously agree, but hope that I have provoked the consideration
of new possibilities that might exist in future high-school biology curricula.
These possibilities could include materials that center around students
collecting original data, students sharing those data with interested student
colleagues, and teachers and scientists working together to help students to
make sense of their findings. Materials that have these various foci would
certainly differ from those in classrooms today~ifferences that might alter
both biology education and perhaps biology itself. I am hopeful about the
OCR for page 193
MESSING ~0= IN SCIENCE
193
future of biology education, particularly if it encompasses these simple
ideas. I believe that students and teachers are ready for a change.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. W., and E. L. Smith. 1983. Childrens' Conception of light and Color
Developing the Concept of Unseen Rays. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Bell, B. F., and A. Brook. 1984. Aspects of Secondary Students' Understanding of Plant
Nutrition. Leeds, England: Center for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education,
University of Leeds.
Brook, As, and R. Driver. 1984. Aspects of Secondary Students' Understanding of Energy.
Leeds, England: Center for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University
of Leeds.
Duckworth, E. 1986. Inventing Density. Grand Forks, N.D.: University of North Dakota
Press.
Duckworth, E., C. Julyan, and T. Rowe. 1985. A Study on Equilibrium: A Anal Report.
Cambridge, Mass.: Educational Technology Center.
Gunstone, R. F., and A. White. 1981. Understanding of gravity. Sci. Educ. 65~3~:291-299.
Hawkins, D. 1978. Critical barriers to science learning. Outlook 29:3-23.
Julyan, C. 1988. Understanding llees: Five Case Studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Harvard University.
Osborne, R., and J. K. Gilbert. 1980. A method for investigation of concept understanding
in science. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 2:311-321.
Smith, C. 1985. Student Conceptions of Heat and Temperature. Cambridge, Mass.:
Educational Technology Center.
Stead, K E., and R. Osborne. 1980. Exploring science students' concepts of light. Austral.
Sci. Teach. J. 26~3~:51-57.
Stead, K E., and R. Osborne. 1981. What is gravity? Some children's ideas. New Zealand
Sci. Teach. 30:5-12.
Tinker, R. F. 1988. Telecommunication and Science Education. Talk delivered at the AAAS
conference, February 1988.
OCR for page 194
Representative terms from entire chapter:
biology education
