Research in Science Education

, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 611–634

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Pupils’ voice Biology education Curriculum development Interest Students’ questions 

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing children’s spontaneous interests in science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 803–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2007). Interest in biology: A developmental shift characterized using self-generated questions. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2010). Quantifying the gender gap in science interest. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Busch, H. (2005). Is science education relevant? Europhysics News, 36, 162–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Christidou, V. (2006). Greek students’ Science-related Interests and Experiences: Gender differences and correlations. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1181–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark, R., & Grunstein, M. (2000). Are we hardwired? The role of genes in human behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researchers, 31, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Denofrio, L., Russell, B., Lopatto, D., & Lu, Y. (2007). Linking student interests to science curricula. Science, 318, 1872–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  30. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Toronto, Ontario: Collier-Macmillan Canada.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Eurobarometer (2005). Europeans, science and technology (No. Special Eurobarometer 224): European Commission, Public Opinion Analysis sector.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 860–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science class. Science, 326, 1410–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Idan, Y. (2009). You bore us (In Hebrew). Ha’aretz, 6, 31 July.Google Scholar
  41. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2006). Syllabus of biological studies (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
  42. Jenkins, E. W. (2006). The student voice and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 42, 49–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levin, B. (2000). Putting Students at the Centre in Education Reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mendelovici, R. (2009). Chief Inspector of biology education in Israel. In p. communication (Ed.).Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  53. Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2005). The student review of the science curriculum. School Science Review, 87, 83–93.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies: Policy report. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pierce, J., & Paulman, A. (1999). The Preceptor as Ethics Educator. Family Medicine, 31, 687–688.Google Scholar
  58. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rop, C. F. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: a teachers’ beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 716–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden: Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science—seen as signs of late modern identities. Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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)Google Scholar
  69. Tamir, P., & Gardner, P. L. (1989). The structure of interest in high school biology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 7, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Upadhyay, B. R. (2006). Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: an elementary school teachers’ thinking. Science Education, 90, 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weinberg, R. A. (2007). The biology of cancer. New York: Garland Science, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  74. Whitehead, J., & Clough, N. (2004). Pupils, the forgotten partners in Education Action Zones. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations