Change – A Desired Permanent State in Science Education

Chapter

Abstract

Calls for reform in education abound in a climate of rapid change. Research evidence, however, suggests that fundamental, sustainable, and widely spread change is inherently difficult to achieve. The challenge is augmented by dilemmas in the realization of ambitious goals, and the fact that science education does not operate in isolation, but is nested within schools and societal institutions. Based on cases of change in different educational contexts, issues persist and keep reemerging. Yet, despite not fully realized expectations, past attempts left imprints which gradually accumulated into significant contributions. While aware that schools and teachers need stability, the main message is that to rejuvenate and enhance science education continuously, change is a desired permanent state that should become the norm.

Keywords

Assessment Curriculum Learning Reform Teaching 

References

  1. Arzi, H. J. (1988). From short- to long-term: Studying science education longitudinally. Studies in Science Education, 15, 17–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arzi, H. J. (1998). Enhancing science education through laboratory environments: More than walls, benches and widgets. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 595–608). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Arzi, H. J. (2007). Travels in and between practice and research. In K. Tobin & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), The culture of science education: Its history in person (pp. 289–300). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  4. Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beasley, W., & Butler, J. (2002, July). Implementation of context-based science within the freedoms offered by Queensland schooling. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Townsville, Queensland.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, J., Holman, J., Lubben, F., Nicolson, P., & Otter, C. (2005). Science in context: The Salters approach. In P. Nentwig & D. Waddington (Eds.), Making it relevant: Context-based learning of science (pp. 121–153). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, P. (2003). Testing, testing: Listening to the past and looking to the future. School Science Review, 85(311), 69–77.Google Scholar
  10. Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Burris, C. C., Wiley, E., Welner, K. G., & Murphy, J. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110, 571–607.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, J. (1995). Teachers judging standards in senior science subjects: Fifteen years of the Queensland experiment. Studies in Science Education, 26, 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, E. (1987). Assessment in Queensland secondary schools: Two decades of change, 1964–1983 (Historical Perspectives on Contemporary Issues in Queensland Education No. 4). Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Education.http://education.qld.gov.au/library/edhistory/topics/assess Google Scholar
  14. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Lee J. Cronbach. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 8, pp. 64–93). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cuban, L. (2009). Hugging the middle – How teachers teach in an era of testing and accountability. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Modern Library. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1922/Dewey1922_24.html Google Scholar
  20. Dudley, R., & Luxton, P. (2008, September). The development of the P–12 assessment policy in Queensland, Australia. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26.Google Scholar
  22. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  23. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodlad, J. I. (2007). Foreword: A tale of lost horizons. In C. Kridel & R. V. Bullough, Jr. (Ed.), Stories of the Eight-Year Study: Reexamining secondary education in America (pp. ix–xiv). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 3–40). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. King, D., Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2008). Making connections: Learning and teaching chemistry in context. Research in Science Education, 38, 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kridel, C., & Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2007). Stories of the Eight-Year Study: Reexamining secondary education in America. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Labaree, D. F. (2004). The Ed school’s romance with progressivism. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers in education policy (pp. 89–112). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  30. LeTendre, G. K., Hofer, B. K., & Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Millar, R. (2005). Contextualized science courses: Where next? In P. Nentwig & D. Waddington (Eds.), Making it relevant: Context-based learning of science (pp. 323–346). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell, I. (2008). 24 years of PEEL – Have the goalposts shifted? PEEL Seeds, 100, 11–22.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pearsall, J. (Ed.). (1998). The new Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Redefer, F. L. (1950). The Eight Year Study …. after eight years. Progressive Education, 28(2), 33–36.Google Scholar
  38. Sarason, S. B. (2002). Education reform: A self-scrutinizing memoir. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schwab, J. J. (1978). The “impossible” role of the teacher in progressive education. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays, Joseph J. Schwab (pp. 167–183). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Reprinted from School Review, 67, 139–159, 1959.)Google Scholar
  40. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Sugrue, C. (Ed.). (2008). The future of educational change: International perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453–479.Google Scholar
  44. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future (Australian Education Review No. 51). Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  46. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  47. White, R. (2003). Changing the script for science education. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham (pp. 170–183). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  48. White, R. T., & Mitchell, I. J. (1994). Metacognition and the quality of learning. Studies in Science Education, 23, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ScholarTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations