Characteristics of a Genetic Approach to Curriculum Design

Abstract

Over the past 30 years I have worked in six curriculum development projects and have written a series of science books for children. During each of these efforts I became acquainted with some standard pedagogical practices and began to develop some of my own ways of structuring science education experiences. It all started with a fortunate break of being hired to work for the Elementary Science Study (ESS); continued with the African Primary Science Program; followed by a long involvement with the Boston Children’s Museum; and most recently at the Center of Science Education of Education Development Center, which in its early days was the progenitor of curriculum projects such as the PSSC high school project and the ESS. My initial involvement in curriculum design was the most formative. This was with the Elementary Science Study that had an impressive group of scientists and master teachers who represented a range of thinking about ways of engaging elementary school children in effective science education. In looking through the various curriculum guides generated through this project one can see this range of pedagogy in practical terms. Some are very open-ended leaving a great deal up to the teacher in terms of where and how to proceed, while others were much more structured and specific in what to do with the children. However, there still was a shared philosophy and a basic set of values. Emphasis was on a student-centered as contrasted to a subject-matter-centered approach. Direct involvement with the phenomenon through the manipulation of simple materials was paramount. In most of the curriculum units there was a pedagogical flow where activities were sequenced in a way that grew out of students interests and what could be investigated with simple materials. What I learnt from this experience was an idea of a pedagogical approach that focused on the exploration of a phenomenon in contrast to other approaches that started with science concepts or processes and then arbitrarily pick concrete examples to develop the concept. The priority was on what engages the curiosity of the students and how to provide the right kind of support to investigate their own questions. The overall approach was based on the exploration of a phenomenon rather than imparting a body of knowledge. The scientists and master teachers would get excited about interesting phenomena that they wanted to share with students. There still was the goal of promoting scientific thinking but it was to arise within a context of making discoveries about the natural and man-made world.