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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2007). Interest in biology: A developmental shift characterized using self-generated questions. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 546–554.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Busch, H. (2005). Is science education relevant? Europhysics News, 36, 162–167.
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.
Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 50–73.
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.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44, 1–39.
Christidou, V. (2006). Greek students’ Science-related Interests and Experiences: Gender differences and correlations. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1181–1199.
Clark, R., & Grunstein, M. (2000). Are we hardwired? The role of genes in human behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researchers, 31, 3–14.
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.
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.
Denofrio, L., Russell, B., Lopatto, D., & Lu, Y. (2007). Linking student interests to science curricula. Science, 318, 1872–1873.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Toronto, Ontario: Collier-Macmillan Canada.
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.
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.
Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 860–877.
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.
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.
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science class. Science, 326, 1410–1412.
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.
Jenkins, E. W. (2006). The student voice and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 42, 49–88.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Levin, B. (2000). Putting Students at the Centre in Education Reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155–172.
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.
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.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2005). The student review of the science curriculum. School Science Review, 87, 83–93.
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.
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.
Pierce, J., & Paulman, A. (1999). The Preceptor as Ethics Educator. Family Medicine, 31, 687–688.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
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.
Rop, C. F. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: a teachers’ beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 716–736.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
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.
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.
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.
Seiler, G. (2006). Student interest-focused curricula. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Teaching and learning science: A handbook (pp. 336–344). Westport, CT, US: Praeger.
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.
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.
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.
Upadhyay, B. R. (2006). Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: an elementary school teachers’ thinking. Science Education, 90, 94–110.
Weinberg, R. A. (2007). The biology of cancer. New York: Garland Science, Taylor & Francis Group.
Whitehead, J., & Clough, N. (2004). Pupils, the forgotten partners in Education Action Zones. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 215–227.
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.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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.)
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
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9182-5