Skip to main content
Log in

A Shadow Curriculum: Incorporating Students’ Interests into the Formal Biology Curriculum

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students have been largely ignored in discussions about how best to teach science, and many students feel the curriculum is detached from their lives and interests. This article presents a strategy for incorporating students’ interests into the formal Biology curriculum, by drawing on the political meaning of “shadow government” as alternative policies developed by parties not in office. A “shadow curriculum” thus reflects the interests and information needs of those who have no voice in deciding what the formal curriculum should include, although they are the ones who are most influenced by it. High school students’ interests in three Biology topics were identified (n = 343) and retested on another student sample (n = 375), based on their solicited questions as indicators for interests. The results of this exploratory case study showed that half of the questions asked by students in the areas of genetics, the cardiovascular system and the reproductive system are not addressed by the national curriculum. Students’ questions were then expressed in the curricular language of principles, phenomena and concepts in order to create a shadow curriculum. A procedure that could be used by other researchers and practitioners to guide the development of a curriculum that is more aligned with student interests is suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A syllabus is a document which outlines topics to be covered in a course, while the broader term curriculum encompasses learning outcomes, teaching strategies, and the context in which learning and teaching takes place. By infusing students' input into a syllabus, it is transformed into something that may be better described as a curriculum.

  2. Students' questions were also analyzed with regard to their cognitive level. Results are not presented since this study focused on the content of the questions.

  3. It is possible that some students studied genetics but chose not to answer the genetics question on the exam if their teachers taught them an extra elective subject. Direct data as to the number of teachers who taught advanced genetics as an elective subject in recent years are unavailable.

References

  • Agrest, B. (2001). How do biology teachers choose to teach certain topics in high school biology curriculum without compulsory parts. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2009). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: the authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Published online DOI. doi:10.1002/tea.20315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, S., & Linder, C. (2009). Relations between programme selection motives, academic achievment, and retention in engineering physics. Istanbul, Turkey: Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A. & Kaadni, A. (2009a). Gender dependency and cultural independency of science interest in an open distant science learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10.

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing children’s spontaneous interests in science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 803–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2007). Interest in biology: A developmental shift characterized using self-generated questions. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 546–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2008). Girl’s biology, boy’s physics: evidence from free-choice science learning settings. Research in Science Technological Education, 26, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2009c). Identifying meta-clusters of students’ interest in science and their change with age. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 999–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2010). Quantifying the gender gap in science interest. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R. J., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2006). Using questions sent to an Ask-A-Scientist site to identify children’s interests in science. Science Education, 90, 1050–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R. J., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2009b). Asking scientists: a decade of questions analyzed by age, gender and country. Science Education, 93, 131–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 609–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S. J. (2008). How students design and enact physics lessons: five immigrant Caribbean youth and the cultivation of student voice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.20257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S. J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 466–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning Tests with States’ Content Standards: Methods and Issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. U. (2005). The shadow curriculum. In G. Schwarz & P. U. Brown (Eds.), Media literacy transforming curriculum and teaching: Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 119–139.

  • Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1063–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, H. (2005). Is science education relevant? Europhysics News, 36, 162–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakmakci, G., Sevindik, H., Pektas, M., Uysal, A., Kole, F., & Kavak, G. (2009). Investigating students’ interests in science by using their self-generated questions. Istanbul, Turkey: Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 50–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamany, K., Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2008). Making Biology Learning Relevant to Students: Integrating People, History, and Context into College Biology Teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7, 267–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christidou, V. (2006). Greek students’ Science-related Interests and Experiences: Gender differences and correlations. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1181–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R., & Grunstein, M. (2000). Are we hardwired? The role of genes in human behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researchers, 31, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boy’s and girl’s interests in science: have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 557–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: a self-determination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denofrio, L., Russell, B., Lopatto, D., & Lu, Y. (2007). Linking student interests to science curricula. Science, 318, 1872–1873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Toronto, Ontario: Collier-Macmillan Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., & Joseph, D. M. (2004). The interest-driven learning design framework: motivating learning through usefulness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences Santa Monica, California.

  • Eurobarometer (2005). Europeans, science and technology (No. Special Eurobarometer 224): European Commission, Public Opinion Analysis sector.

  • Falchetti, E., Caravita, S., & Sperduti, A. (2007). What do layperson want to know from scientists? An analysis of a dialogue between scientists and laypersons on the web site Scienzaonline. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 489–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues: UNESCO.

  • Furman, M., & Barton, A. C. (2006). Capturing Urban Student Voices in the Creation of a Science Mini-Documentary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 667–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 860–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, R. (2009). Linking the components of a university program to the qualification profile of graduates: the case of a sustainability-oriented environmental science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 537–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girl’s interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 870–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science class. Science, 326, 1410–1412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idan, Y. (2009). You bore us (In Hebrew). Ha’aretz, 6, 31 July.

  • Israeli Ministry of Education. (2006). Syllabus of biological studies (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education Curriculum Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E. W. (2006). The student voice and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 42, 49–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E. W., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jucker, R. (2002). “Sustainability? never heard of it!”: some basics we shouldn’t ignore when engaging in education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3, 8–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidman, G. (2009). What is an “Interesting Curriculum” for biotechnology education? students and teachers opposing views. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9125-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2002). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to SDT. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 405–426). Rochester: University of Rochester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, N. C., Halpin, M. J., Reiter, J. P., Hoeffler, L. A., & Schwartz-Bloom, R. D. (2007). Pharmacology in the high-school classroom. Science, 317, 1871–1872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. (2000). Putting Students at the Centre in Education Reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcphail, J. C., Pierson, J. M., Freeman, J. G., Goodman, J., & Ayappa, A. (2000). The Role of Interest in Fostering Sixth Grade students’ Identities As Competent Learners. Curriculum Inquiry, 30, 43–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelovici, R. (2009). Chief Inspector of biology education in Israel. In p. communication (Ed.).

  • Mielke, K. W., & Chen, M. (1983). Formative research for 3-2-1 contact: Methods and insights. In M. J. A. Howe (Ed.), Learning from television: Psychological and educational research (pp. 31–55). London: Academic Pr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2005). The student review of the science curriculum. School Science Review, 87, 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (2008). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies: Policy report. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupil’s views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J., & Paulman, A. (1999). The Preceptor as Ethics Educator. Family Medicine, 31, 687–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qualter, A. (1993). I would like to know more about that: a study of the interest shown by girls and boys in scientific topics. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rop, C. F. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: a teachers’ beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 716–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning—what we know and what we don’t know. In L. Hoffmann, A. K. Krapp, A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 91–104). Kiel, Germany: IPN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schltz, B. D., & Oyler, C. (2006). We Make This Road as We Walk Together: Sharing Teacher Authority in a Social Action Curriculum Project. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden: Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science—seen as signs of late modern identities. Oslo, Norway

  • Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1000–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, G. (2006). Student interest-focused curricula. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Teaching and learning science: A handbook (pp. 336–344). Westport, CT, US: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2008). Young people, science and technology. Attitudes, values, interests and possible rectuitment. Paper presented at the ERT event. from http://www.ils.uio.no/english/rose/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-sjoberg-ert2008.pdf

  • Stawinski, W. (1984). Development of students’ interest in biology in Polish schools. (Paper presented at the Interests in Science and Technology Education: 12th IPN Symposium, Kiel, Germany)

  • Tamir, P., & Gardner, P. L. (1989). The structure of interest in high school biology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 7, 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2006). students’ interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of Biological Education, 40, 124–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay, B. R. (2006). Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: an elementary school teachers’ thinking. Science Education, 90, 94–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, R. A. (2007). The biology of cancer. New York: Garland Science, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, J., & Clough, N. (2004). Pupils, the forgotten partners in Education Action Zones. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, N. B., Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Viewing the school environment through multiple lenses: In search of school-level variables tied to student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, N. B., Lawrenz, F., & Haroldson, R. (2009). A judicial presentation of evidence of a student culture of “dealing”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 421–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerdelen-Damar, S., & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Questions about physics: The case of a Turkish ‘Ask a scientist’ website. Research in Science Education, 40, 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by VPR Fund Eliyaho Pen Research Fund. The authors would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayelet Baram-Tsabari.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Probing Questionnaire

Dear Participant,

I believe that if the content in biology studies interested you, you would learn, remember and enjoy more. Therefore I would be grateful if you could take a few minutes to answer this questionnaire. It will help me match the Biology curriculum to students’ interests. I have chosen to focus on three subjects in Biology that are taught in tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade: the intravascular system (cardiovascular, coagulation and immune systems), the reproductive system, and genetic engineering. Thank you for participating.

A. Background information

Gender: M/F Grade: 10th 11th 12th

My elective fields for the matriculation exams are: _____________________

 

Not at all

   

Totally agree

I am interested in topics related to Biology

1

2

3

4

5

I am interested in topics related to the intravascular system (blood, heart, immunization, and clotting)

1

2

3

4

5

I am interested in topics related to the reproductive system

1

2

3

4

5

I am interested in topics related to genetic engineering

1

2

3

4

5

In my free time, I sometimes read or watch popular science

1

2

3

4

5

B. Questions that interest me

In the space provided below, please write questions you would like to know the answer to, that are related to the intravascular system (blood, heart, immunization, and clotting), reproduction or genetic engineering. The questions can relate to everyday life, and do not necessarily need to be something you learn in school. I would appreciate it if you could explain why the questions interest you (personal reason, personal health, family health, something I read, something I learned, rumors, curiosity, faith, etc.)

figure a

Appendix 2: Generalizing Questionnaire

[Sections A (background information) and C (Questions that interest me) are identical to sections A and B in the probing questionnaire, and are not repeated here.]

B. The following questions were asked by high school students. For each question, please mark the extent to which you would be interested in getting an answer to that question in Biology class (1—not interested, 5—very interested). Write the number that best describes the reason for your interest or lack of interest. (1) Personal health (2) Family health (3) Curiosity (4) Something seen or heard (5) Important to my future (6) Something I learned (7) Already know the answer (8) The topic doesn’t interest me. You may also add a reason that is not listed.

[36 questions were presented in a table with a five point Likert-scale. The questions in order of popularity can be found in Table 3]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hagay, G., Baram-Tsabari, A. A Shadow Curriculum: Incorporating Students’ Interests into the Formal Biology Curriculum. Res Sci Educ 41, 611–634 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9182-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9182-5

Keywords

Navigation