DOES SCIENCE FIT THE MOLD ?

The authors are also correct to point out that no administrator can be a specialist in every discipline. Neither can a teacher or university professor. If the authors were not science specialists, they would recognize that their litany of science goals are the contemporary goals for all disciplines. Substitute the word "history," "economics," "art," "music," or any other content area for "science" and you will have a list of what most sophisticated educators believe to be the goals of schooling. The authors, however, state that, "specific content objectives are elusive." Not to a skilled science teacher !

If I were to take one of the authors' maxims, "Work with things before reading about them," out of context, then I could accuse them of suggesting that students should handle science equipment and chemicals before reading the appropriate directions and warning labels. I could even suggest that the authors were against having students learn about space exploration, the structure of a molecule, or climatic conditions in other parts of the world because they would be unable to experience them directly before reading about them. I know better, however, than to make such ridiculous extrapolation from their writings.

I also agree that only a scientist can know what content will retain the essence of science while transferring beyond the content to creative problem-solving and responsible decision-making. I would further contend that only a person who knows and understands cause and effect relation- ships between teaching and learning can observe instruction in any subject to determine if what the teacher is doing has high probability of enhancing students' learning, wasting precious time and energy, or albeit unintentionally, interfering with effective learning. If we are to accept that there is a basis that pervades all sciences, then there must also exist a basis of brain functioning that pervades all learning and is not content- specific.

A recent study indicates that statistically significant gains in four of six content areas were made by students using the Hunter Lesson design.

Where the critics and I often diverge is on the point of the "lesson design." Berg and Clough recommend that "science teachers educate their administrators where and when lesson design is appropriate in science teaching," but fail to provide the circumstances under which it would not be valuable. Correctly interpreted as a planning guide, I do not know of any.

No knowledgeable person has ever said that every element of a lesson design must be used in every lesson.

The fact that my model is a teacher decision-making model that has no absolutes is evidently very difficult for some to accept. Of all educators, science teachers should surely be willing to base their decisions on over a century of research in human learning. The fact that some uninformed administrator used a checklist to gauge a teacher's success with an instructional model should impeach that administrator, not the model.

"Science demands evidence." What evidence is there that teachers who choose not to use the "teacher decision making model" produce more learning ? If there is no study that says the Hunter model is effective in science," where are the studies that say it is not ? The psychological research some label "faddism" has survived and flourished for more than a quarter of a century. Where is their "alternate scheme that facilitates accountability ?"

A recent study indicates that statistically significant gains in four of six content areas were made by students using the Hunter lesson design. Other articles have also been published that address criticisms of this system, including my own rebuttal published in the Elementary School Journal. Scientists should stay current.

I teach educational psychology, curriculum, and instruction to secondary teachers at UCLA as well as instructional analysis to doctoral candidates in administration and supervision. Berg, Clough and certainly agree that content decisions of each discipline should be made with someone who is well-versed in that discipline. We differ in acknowledging that there also exists a science of psychology that undergirds and makes possible the art of teaching that is not content and learner specific. A "scientist" knows that human brains function in ways that are more similar to one another than different.

In closing, I think that it would be difficult for someone to come up with a successful science learning opportunity where I cannot label and identify the research-based elements of our teaching model.

We recommend that science teachers assume the responsibility for educating their administration where and when lesson design plans are appropriate in science teaching. Few administrators have experience teaching science, and expecting your administration to be current in science education research is unrealistic ( and perhaps unfair ) given their many responsibilities. Consequently, science teachers ( whose daily demands rival that of administrators ) must bear some of the responsibility for educating their administrators in the attributes of exemplary science teaching. ( You may, however, have to continue with your "shows" uniil you have convinced your administration ! )

Our recommendation assumes that science teachers accept the following two propositions.
First,
if science teachers wish to be treated as professionals, then they must be held accountable in some way.
Second,
with accountability comes evaluation in some form. Accepting these propositions will negate the counter-argument that science teachers do not want to be held accountable, and presents an opportunity for them to suggest an alternate, more appropriate form of evaluation.

By emulating a distinguishing characteristic bf their discipline, science teachers are in a unique position to change teacher evaluation. Scientists demand evidence for ideas concerning the natural world, and science teachers communicate this evidence-based discipline to their students daily. Science teachers should take this cue and demand evidence that would justify the use of mandated instructional models ! After an exhaustive review of the literature, we have concluded that the Hunter lesson design model is contrary to research pertaining to effective science content instruction and many other goals of science education. Moreover, we asked whether strong evidence supports the notion that children learn more, faster having been instructed via this model. In addition to the often referred to, but never cited dissertations and lab school studies, proponents cite three studies in support of the model.
The first, the Napa, California study, is a surprising choice because the Hunter group did not achieve higher scores than the control group during the four years that the study was conducted. When this study is cited, the comparison is conveniently left out.
In response to the second study, conducted in South Carolina, one researcher writes: "Even with the problems that people cite, if there had been big effects, researchers would have found something, but even in South Carolina, where 15,000 teachers were trained in the Hunter method, researchers found nothing at all."
Finally, the study conducted in West Orange, New jersey ( where both proponents and detractors claim the inservice training was well done ), produced results that researchers admit were "not conclusive" and no significant gains occurred in secondary subjects tested.

Overall, we were unable to find any study that showed that these "horoscopes for instructional lesson design" were effective for teaching secondary science content.

Researchers outside of science education also present arguments against the Hunter model. One finding deserves wide attention because it accurately portrays an acute problem in education-faddism. The popularity of the modular systems seems to come from their generic nature and common language --- not from empirical evidence.

What are some attributes of a suitable, alternative accountability scheme ? A research-based rationale for teaching science begins with a clearly defined list of student goals outlining student growth that should result from a K through 12 science program. Although specific content objectives are elusive, science teachers and science teacher educators quickly reach a consensus concerning general goals. Science teachers want science students to:

Set goals, make decisions, and self-evaluate, and Demonstrate logical and critical thinking.

• Have a variety of activities to choose from and pursue whatÕs interesting and compatible with their cognitive abilities;
• Actively construct knowledge from what they observe and experience during science activities:
• Ask questions, test ideas, interpret data, gather information, challenge ideas, physically and mentally manipulate objects and experiences;
• Work with things before reading about them; Actively do science; identify problems as well as solve problems;
• Make decisions relating to their science study and their science activities;
• Not view classroom walls as a boundary; View science as having intricate connections to their daily lives;
• Develop communication skills and an understanding of the nature of science; and
• Use their scientific knowledge.

• Start with the students' prior knowledge. conceptual development
• and cognitive development;
• Use instructional practices that indicate the above differences play a central role in pedagogical decisions;
• Expect different students to achieve differently;
• Expect learning to occur over a period of time as opposed to a daily dose of information;
• Provide an activity based science experience; Avoid textbook or lecture centered instruction; Facilitate many goals and realize
• that the single goal of content acquisition is, by itself, an empty goal;
• Remain extremely flexible in their time, schedules, and curriculum expectations;
• Require considerable student self-assessment;
• Ask questions. expecting to hear new, and often unpredicted answers;
• Expect learning to occur because of student activity;
• Have a view that science content is not something that merely exists for student mastery simply because it is recorded in print;
• Expect students to question facts, teachers, authority and knowledge;
• Focus on problems, questions and unknowns;
• Not view classroom walls as a boundary; Frequently use societal issues as a focus;
• Not force closure.

The following diagram illustrates the minimum infor mation required to convince a skeptical administrator that you do indeed know what science education research has to say about effective science teaching.

Student goals

STUDENT ACTION

teacher action content, materials, activities and strategies studentsÕ cognitive abilities and prior knowledge THE CASE AGAINST

Set goals, make decisions, and self-evaluate, and Demonstrate logical and critical thinking.

The foundation of a research-based rationale is knowing how to facilitate student acquisition of these goals. What does science education research suggest is effective in fostering these student goals? Some answers may be found in NSTA's Focus on Excellence series, which identified and evaluated exemplary science programs.

All decisions in the classroom should be defended as facilitating student actions (both physical manipulations and logical/mathematical thinking) that are congruent with student goals.

Each monograph includes criteria for excellence and descriptions of successful science programs. The principle investigator in this series has commented that teachers who were involved in these exemplary programs resented how administrators strictly adhered to the modular systems when evaluating science lessons. These science teachers were promoting a rich divergence of ideas in accordance with the student goals, and often had to play games with administrators during the evaluation. Administrators need to be aware of the global attributes (not essential elements.) of science instruction consistent with the Focus on Excellence series (see Fig 1).

All decisions in the classroom should be defended as facilitating student actions (both physical manipulations and logical/mathematical thinking) that are congruent with student goals. Content decisions, materials, activities (dependent on the students' cognitive abilities and prior knowledge), and teacher actions and strategies are all defended as eliciting desired student actions. Unless a teacher can convincingly describe the desired state of science instruction, cite instructional strategies that, according to research, brings about that desired state, and then compare his or her teaching as it compares to the desired state, it will be difficult to change an administration's current evaluation scheme (see Figure 2). We have included a number of citations for further reading that will help science teachers develop a convincing research- based rationale for teaching science.

Science teachers who invest the time and energy needed to develop a convincing research-based rationale (and persuasively communicate this to their administration) can, at the very least, affect the manner in which they are evaluated.