An Analysis of Standards-Based High School Physics Textbooks of Finland and the United States

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This study examines how the curriculum is in alignment with the reform standards using the questioning style and level of inquiry activities, which are key components of the National Science Education Standards [NSES], in terms of the inquiry milieu (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Two countries’ textbooks were chosen for analysis in this study: Physica (meaning physics in Greek) of Finland and Active Physics of the United States’ high school physics, which are products of reform efforts in science education. In 2003, Finland undertook a major change in the curriculum at the national level, which produced the “National Core Curriculum” (FNBE, 2003), whereas the United States went through a major reform in science education in the past decade, which produced the “National Science Education Standards” (NRC, 1996). Physica of Finland was developed as a high school physics textbook based on the National Core Curriculum for Science Education, and Active Physics of the US high school curriculum was developed based on the National Science Education Standards. The United States developed a new curriculum based on the national standards as an alternative to the traditional curriculum. Finnish Physica was developed based on a “traditional” national level curriculum, which includes aims for upper secondary physics and short descriptions of core content (FNBE, 2003). However, a study of how those particular curriculums have met the visions espoused by the National Science Education Standards is yet to be studied.

Keywords

Active Physic Laboratory Activity Science Curriculum National Science Education Standard Science Textbook 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1997). Education Update, 39(1).Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is–or might be–the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reforms? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8. 14.Google Scholar
  5. Beatty, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., & Dufresne, R. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1).Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Bryant, J. (2000). A comparison of pre-college earth science teaching practices in Iowa during the decades of 1975–1985 and 1985–1995. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  8. Chiang-Soong, B. (1988). An analysis of the most used science textbooks in secondary schools in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  9. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoritical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doran, R. L., & Sheard, D. M. (1974). Analyzing science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 74(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenkraft, A. (1998). Active physics. New York: It’s About Time.Google Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. FNBE. (2003). National core curriculum for upper secondary school 2003. Vammala: National Board of Education (NBE)/Vammalan kirjapaino.Google Scholar
  17. Harms, N. C., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  18. Hatakka, J., Saari, H., Sirviö, J., Viiri, J., & Yrjänäinen, S. (2005). Physica: Lämpö. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
  19. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurd, P. D. (1994). New minds for a new age: Prologue to modernizing the science curriculum. Science Education, 78(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahl, S., & Harms, N. (1981). Project synthesis: Purpose, organization and procedures. In N. Harms & R. E. Yager (Eds.), What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  22. Kleinman, G. (1965). Teacher’s questions and student understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(4), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kulm, G., Roseman, J., & Treistman, M. (1999). A benchmarks-based approach to textbook evaluation. Science Books & Films, 35(4), 147–153. Retrieved August 5, 2011, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/articles/approach.htm.Google Scholar
  24. Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1975). Relationship of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(4), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lowery, L. F., & Leonard, W. H. (1978a). Development and methods for use of an instrument designed to assess textbook questioning style. School Science and Mathematics, 78(5), 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lowery, L. F., & Leonard, W. H. (1978b). A comparison of questioning styles among four widely used high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask better questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 854–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, J. (1979). Effects of teacher higher-order questions on student process and product variables in a single-classroom study. The Journal of Educational Research, 72(4), 183–187.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, M., Mullis, I., Gregory, K., Hoyle, C., & Shen, C. (2000). Effective schools in science and mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center of Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Google Scholar
  31. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005). PISA2003 (Technical Report). Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  36. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Vol. I: Analysis. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  37. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. I). Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Park, D. (2005). Differences between a standards-based curriculum and traditional textbooks in high school earth science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(5), 540–547.Google Scholar
  39. Park, D., Yager, R., & Smith, M. (2005). Implementing EarthComm: Teacher professional development and its impact on student achievement scores in a standards-based earth science curriculum. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 9(3). Retrieved September 15, 2011, from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev9n3.html
  40. Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pizzini, E. L., & Shepardson, D. P. (1991). Student questioning in the presence of the teacher during problem solving in science. School Science and Mathematics, 91(8), 348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Renner, J. W. (1972). The laboratory and science teaching. In J. W. Renner & D. G. Stafford (Eds.), Teaching science in secondary schools. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  43. Rowe, M. (1986). Waiting time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 221–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching science as inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Shymansky, J. A., & Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1992). Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 749–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education, Vol. 13. Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  49. Staver, J. R., & Bay, M. (1987). Analysis of the project synthesis goal cluster orientation and inquiry emphasis of elementary science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stavy, R. (1990). Pupil’s problems in understanding conservation of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stinner, A. (1995). Science textbooks: Their present role and future form. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  52. Strangman, N., & Hall, T. (2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/text_transformations.Google Scholar
  53. Tamir, P. (1976). The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching (Technical Report 10). The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA: Science Education Center.Google Scholar
  54. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiss, I. R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics and social studies education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Research Triangle Institute.Google Scholar
  56. Yager, R.E. (1980). Crisis in Science Education (Technical Report 21). The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA: Science Education Center.Google Scholar
  57. Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(6), 577–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yager, R. E. (1992). Viewpoint: What we did not learn from the 60’s about science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 905–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yager, R. E. (1996). Scope, sequence, and coordination; A national reform effort in the U.S. – The Iowa Project. Paper presented at “History and Philosophy in Science Teaching – A Means to Improve Scientific Literacy?” Evangelische Akademic Loccum, Rehburg-Loccum, Germany.Google Scholar
  60. Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-asking capability: A meaningful aspect of problem-solving in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 510–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teacher EducationUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations