Resources - Archived Materials

Background Research Commissioned by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training

Secondary School Curriculum

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authors:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This research project was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. It reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the ministry.

© Queen's Printer Ontario, 1997

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper is one of a series of thirteen English-language papers, some of which are also available in French translation. The titles of the papers are as follows.

English-language papers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND RESEARCH - SECONDARY CURRICULUM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NEED FOR CURRICULUM RENEWAL

It is time for a renewal of secondary school curriculum in Ontario. Many of our guidelines are more than a decade old and new issues and knowledge have been identified in every subject area. Up-to-date skills required for life and work in the twenty-first century must be incorporated in a new generation of curriculum policy statements

In addition, Ontario has announced its intention to re-structure its high school programs beginning with the grade 9 class of 1998. Changes in curriculum will be required to implement a variety of policy decisions that will be made as part of this reform initiative. One aim of secondary reform is to allow students with a variety of post-secondary destinations to graduate after completing grade 12.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CO-ORDINATION WITH SECONDARY REFORM

All responses to the secondary reform consultation have been received and policy decisions are expected in the late spring of 1997. The process of curriculum renewal can now begin. Some decisions about new curriculum will not be made until after the policy decisions are complete. Questions like "What will grade 9 look like in the reformed high school system?" will have a significant effect on Curriculum. Other decisions can be made quite independently of the reform initiative. An example of a pure curriculum question is, "What knowledge of statistic~ is required for future employability?" This is an example of a question that requires careful attention because knowledge and skills for the future will be different from knowledge and skills in the past, whatever the form of Ontario high schools..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FORMATS OF SECONDARY CURRICULUM

New policy documents will be called Curriculum Guidelines. They will include the outcomes for a subject or closely related subjects (e.g., the different sciences), as well as some general elements about expectations for teaching and learning, assessment, language and the use of technology. Other documents called Course Profiles will provide more detail for individual courses and will be written after the Guidelines are complete.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFINITION OF THE BACKGROUND RESEARCH PAPERS

They are NOT the official position of the Ministry of Education and Training on education in the various subjects.

They are intended to stimulate discussion about the curriculum in every subject and thus raise issues which must be addressed before curriculum can be adapted or developed

The papers do not claim to raise all the issues, but they do ask many of the most important questions. Writers of the papers have tried to avoid taking strong points of view.

The Background Research Papers are designed to raise issues and ask questions about different subjects, with reference to the professional literature. The writers of the papers are all members of Faculties of Education in Ontario, who are academically qualified to prepare research documents. They have worked in consultation with members of subject associations. Writers were asked to avoid advocacy as much as possible, and wherever possible to suggest a range of options for addressing various issues

Although there is much that is similar about the papers, each one is unique in its approach and presentation. They should be read with thoughtful attention, as a starting point for reflection, and their bibliographies should be used to suggest further reading.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE ROLE OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH PAPERS IN SECONDARY GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT

The Background Papers are one of several sources of ideas for people who wish to use this opportunity to re-think curriculum directions. In preparing their input about secondary curriculum, interested people will reflect on the classroom experience of teachers, data about student achievement, and opinions expressed in various documents including the background research papers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEGINNING STEPS IN GUIDELINE PREPARATION

Preparation of the Background Research Papers has been the first stage of curriculum renewal for secondary school. The next stage is identification of Expert Panels, whose members will study the papers to support their discussions. The Expert Panels will also distribute the Background Research Papers to relevant groups, with suggestions for questions which the Panels would like considered by the groups. The Panels will receive written input from groups and from individuals who choose to comment in writing.

The Expert Panels will each prepare a "Directions Paper" which will recommend key directions to be incorporated in the actual subject Guideline.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCHEDULE

Background Research Papers will be available to the Expert Panels on March 6, 1997 and will be distributed to relevant groups before the end of March. Boards and other interested organizations will be notified during the second week in March about the means by which they can access the Background Research Papers.

During the last week in May, the Expert Panels will discuss the input received and prepare a draft of the Directions Papers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE EDUCATION CURRICULUM IN SECONDARY SCHOOL

Peter Chin, Hugh Munby and Eva Krugly-Smolska
Faculty of Education, Queen's University

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this paper is to raise important issues in science education and to provide the background for discussion and consultation about these issues prior to the production of a direction paper for science curriculum reform in Ontario. The issues addressed arise from several sources: curriculum documents, discussions with science educators, consultation with subject association representatives, and the research literature on science education. Following a brief introduction, the issues are framed around five questions fundamental to curriculum design: (1) Who should be learning science? (2) What science should be taught and learned? (3) How should science be taught and learned? (4) Where should science be taught and learned?, and (5) How should science teaching and science learning be assessed?

Introduction

In the last half of this century, in North America, there have been calls for science education reform every ten years or so. This is not surprising because change and growth in scientific and technological knowledge have occurred at an accelerating pace. At the same time, and often as a result of scientific and technological change, there have been economic and social changes which called for responses from educational systems. The first such call for responsive science education reform followed the Soviet advances in space signalled by the launching of Sputnik. In the United States, large amounts of money were invested in changing curriculum so that the United States could compete technologically with the (then) Soviet Union. Few countries could afford to launch curriculum projects on such a large scale and many, including Canada, adopted those developed in the United States. It was assumed at that time that science was culture-free.

Much of the development on these earlier projects was by practising scientists rather than science educators and, after an implementation period that allowed for some evaluation discovered that many of the programs were aimed at elite students for whom science was to become a career. The vast majority of students were not being served. In other countries it was discovered that the programs were inappropriate from both an environmental and a cultural perspective. As a result many smaller projects were launched in a second reform movement. In Canada, the lack of a Canadian context and the failure to address the needs of students not necessarily planning to make science a career became evident from the results of a study reported in 1984 by the Science Council of Canada. A summary of the study was published with the title of Science for Every Student. Many of the issues highlighted in this summary continue to be issues today, more than a decade later.

Who Should Be Learning Science?

Most people are aware that for many years females have been under-represented in science and technology careers. More recently it has become evident that members of certain ethnic minorities are also under-represented. While the gap has narrowed in the last decade, the issue persists, especially in physics. In addition to the under-representation of women, it is now clear that students of both gender are turning away from science. In 1990 it was reported that a lower percentage of students than in previous years chose science as an area of study in first-year university.

There have been many suggestions for increasing the participation of women and minorities in science, and for making science learning more accessible and interesting. There have been efforts to link science to the real world, to include values in science education, and to design activities to address a variety of learning styles. Holistic approaches to science learning are also common in First Nations' cultures in Canada and throughout the world. In many of these cultures, other forms of knowledge and other modalities for learning are more highly valued than the linear and analytic approaches common in science classrooms. Addressing multiple intelligences6 and acknowledging different forms of knowledge are, therefore, other approaches for ensuring that science is accessible for every student.

The Adolescent of Today

How can the science curriculum address the complex needs of today's students?
The lives of today's adolescents are more complicated than they have ever been in the past. Students have been directly affected by changes in technology, economics, social structure, and competing roles in education. The explosion of knowledge that accompanies technological change influences both learners and employers to focus their attentions on problem-solving abilities rather than on memorization and the building of a knowledge-base in science. Today's adolescents experience anxiety as a result of these changing job expectations and the concern for future job prospects. This worry is compounded by current economic trends that have resulted in corporate downsizing and changes to continental trade.

The complex nature of adolescent life is also evident in our changing social structure. The decentralization of the nuclear family and the economic pressure for all adult members of households to maintain full-time work results in increasing parental expectations of schools. The presence of ethnic diversity in schools increases the number of compe~ing values in the lives of adolescents. Further, education continues to play a competing role in the lives of teenagers as they are "people first and students second." Students deal with a multitude of issues on a daily basis: obligations to part-time jobs, increasing violence and concerns about their safety in schools and society, drugs, relationships, and media influences. The need to prioritise science education in the complex lives of today's adolescents is an issue that must be considered as we address~the level of learning experienced by students in science.

How should the science curriculum recognise that different approaches are required for those students with different destinations?
By making science compulsory, our society has acknowledged that every student ought to learn science. We should ask why this is required? While many students continue to study science and make it a career, it is unrealistic for everyone to do so. The other side of the issue is that everyone needs to know about science and technology in our technologically-dependent society. This is captured in the notion of scientific literacy. While it is difficult to get exact agreement on the meaning of the concept,9 most science educators agree that it centres around students learning enough science content and enough about how science works, to function as responsible citizens within society. It becomes obvious that there are two very different broad goals: (a) science for career preparation, and (b) science for every student. These goals may call for different courses for these very different needs and destinations.

What Science Should Be Taught and Learned?

Within the context of examining what science should be taught, several factors play important roles in determining the scope and sequence of the individual courses in the new science curriculum. First, the Assessment of Science and Technology\ Achievement Project (ASAP) is currently developing detailed outcomes for science and technology for grades 1-9: At the present time, these outcomes are intended for use by the 17 participating school boards, although the Ministry of Education and Training has now expressed the wish for this draft framework to be disseminated province-wide for consultation. Second, a consultative draft of the Pan-Canadian common framework of science learning outcomes from K-12 has recently been released by the Council of Ministers of Education.'2 These emerging national standards recognise the importance of an over-arching view of what outcomes should be achieved at each grade level in the overall science curriculum in all provinces.

Before serious curriculum development can begin, there is a need to resolve some of the issues identified by these initiatives. Two examples illustrate the complexity of the problem.

The current ASAP initiatives for writing the detailed outcomes for science and technology will be immediately helpful only if there are no alterations to the currently accepted scope and sequence'. It is instantly obvious that the science requirements in grades 7-9 will need to be adjusted since the Ministry of Education and Training recognises that, with the elimination of OAC, five years of high school cannot simply be squeezed into four.
In addition to a host of serious concerns raised by the Science Teachers' Association of Ontario, the Science Coordinators and Consultants Association of Ontario'4 and some science educators, the current Pan-Canadian science outcomes for K-12 do not acknowledge the differences in the structural arrangement of the Ontario school system. This final point can be illustrated by the recently released findings of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study TIMSS).
The TIMSS project, an international assessment of mathematics and science in over 40 countries, recently reported its findings from grades 7 and 8 data (although the study focused primarily on grade 8). The report shows that Ontario students scored below the national average, while Alberta and British Columbia students scored above it. Alberta students placed fourth overall in grade 8 science performance just behind Singapore, Korea and Japan).'5 Closer examination of the three provincial school systems is helpful in illustrating one possible factor that helps to account for the TIMSS results. Alberta students typically attend three different schools within their primary and secondary school years: (a) elementary school from K-6, (b) junior high school from 7-9, and (c) high school from 10-12. Junior high school and high school constitute the secondary school component and, as such, science in these schools is taught by subject-specialist teachers (i.e., those with ,the academic background and training to be secondary science teachers). Elementary' school science in Alberta is taught by generalist teachers, although in some cases science specialists teach grades 4-6 on a rotary system (in the same way that elementary students are taught French). in British Columbia, elementary schools cover K-7 while secondary schools cover grades 8 to 12 (with recognition that grades 8,9, and 10 are the "junior secondary" years). As in Alberta, elementary schools in B.C. are staffed with generalist teachers and secondary schools are staffed with subject-specialist teachers. In most Ontario schools, grades K-8 are located in elementary.' schools (with generalist teachers) and grades 9-OAC are located in secondary schools (with subject-specialist teachers)

Given the structures of these three provincial school systems, the TIMSS results in grade 8 science are not surprising. Alberta students had already received two years of science instruction from a subject specialist, British Columbia students had already received one year of science instruction from a subject specialist, while Ontario students received their instruction from a generalist (who may or may not have a science background). The TIMSS data also report that the greatest gain in achievement between grades 7 and 8 students occurred in British Columbia, and the report attributes this to the fact that this coincides to the shift that students make from an elementary school to a secondary' school.'6 The need for an endeavour such as the Pan-Canadian science initiative to create national standards for science becomes more obvious when it is realised that the curriculum overlap with the TIMSS assessment tools was 81 percent nationally, but ranged from the extremes of 98 per cent in British Columbia to only 53 per cent in Ontario and Alberta. But this national vision of K-12 science does not acknowledge the differences in school systems. Any science curriculum revisions that extend beyond the scope of grades 9-12 must attend to the fact that elementary generalists, not subject-specialists, will be responsible for teaching the science curriculum

Taken together, the issues from the current initiatives raise two important questions:

How will the scope and sequence of the new secondary science curriculum take into account the different destinations of learners (i.e., work, college, or university)?
How will the scope and sequence of the new secondary science curriculum take into account the present structure of most Ontario school Systems where K-8 are taught by generalist teachers and 9-12 are taught by subject-specialist teachers?
There are numerous answers to the above questions, and each of these answers has implications for the kind of science curriculum that is developed. In order to add clarity to the deliberations, it may be helpful to address more fundamental questions surrounding a broad vision of science education from K-12. Such deliberations help to inform our decisions about what science knowledge, skills, and attitudes we want students to possess when they leave secondary school so they are scientifically literate and prepared for the 2lst century, regardless of whether their destination is work, college, university or other post-secondary education.

The Ministry of Education and Training intends that the proposed new curriculum should be a comprehensive and consistent program from grades l-12 and should have a logical sequence that is consistent and coherent. There is some difficulty in achieving these goals by restricting curriculum deliberations to grades 9-12 since decisions made about the science curriculum in those grades are dependent on what is taught in the earlier grades. A broad and comprehensive vision of science education from K-12 would ensure that there is continuity, consistency and coherence in the new science curriculum and would recognise the structure of the Ontario school system.

The current Pan-Canadian common framework can be seen as a first attempt in developing this broad and comprehensive vision, although critics contend that its vision (and its outcomes for each grade) are predominantly content-oriented at the expense of process and attitude outcomes. This is particularly ironic in view of the fact that the Pan-Canadian science framework makes very clear statements about the nature of learning in taking the stance that learning: (a) is experience-based, (b) is developmental, (c) occurs in a variety of ways, and (d) occurs best when done through inquiry and problem-solving. What critics point out is the need for clear evidence that the Pan-Canadian outcomes reflect the Pan-Canadian vision of the nature of learning.

Although this section of the background paper focuses on the issues surrounding what should be taught in the science curriculum, it seems obvious that, in light of the nature of learning and the kinds of skills and attitudes we want graduates to possess, such deliberations cannot occur in isolation from how science should be taught. For example, Munby and Russell argue that "if individual differences are to be accommodated within a common science curriculum then the only way this can be done is by presenting an authentic account of science and by teaching in an authentic manner." Stated in a different way, if we want our future citizens of the 2lst century to have a clear understanding of how science works, our curriculum should reflect the position that students need to experience how science works rather than just being told how science works. In this way, the subject matter becomes a means for achieving a broader aspect of scientific literacy rather than being the end in itself.

The junior secondary science curriculum of British Columbia serves as a clear example of how the issues of teaching and learning can be integrated with the content objectives that are desired. In its introductory section, the curriculum guide clearly states that the program is "investigative" in nature and that teachers should use a wide variety of activities and teaching approaches in their classroom instruction. The curriculum guide is also designed to be flexible in terms of teaching strategies, content,evaluation and time allotments in order to provide worthwhile experiences for all students. Thus, each "unit organizer" in the curriculum guide highlights essential and optional learning outcomes, lists a range of possible activities such as - laboratory' activities. class discussions, case studies, debates, field studies, games, simulations, interviews, individual and group projects, media and lectures - and provides suggestions for integration with other subject areas in the same grade level.

The approach of the British Columbia junior secondary science curriculum is mirrored by the national standards initiative in the United States where the content and assessment standards are organised around inquiry. As well, the national standards focus more on collaborative learning and active exploration to emphasise that students should attend more to understanding concepts rather than to the memorisation and recitation of factual information. This position is reinforced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in its document that articulates the benchmarks for scientific literacy. The AAAS also recognises that, if there is to be a focus on the lasting knowledge and skills students are to acquire by the time they become adults, there is a need to radically reduce the sheer amount of information being covered. Understanding can only occur when the primary focus is on the depth of a topic rather than on the breadth of topics covered.

Consideration of the nature of learning and how science should be taught raises three important questions:

The range of possible teaching strategies can be described in many' ways. Exploration of the natural world through personal and "hands-on' experiences is often encouraged in the elementary years, while students in the secondary' years become increasingly accustomed to note-taking, explanations that precede demonstrations formal lab reports and testing for recall of information. The contrast between ''interpretation" and "transmission"points to a broad range of issues including how we know and the role in learning of students prior knowledge and experience.

Curriculum documents in secondary' science courses tend to require that more content be covered and assessed than the realities of the school timetable permit. (Other sections of this background paper highlight how content and assessment have been addressed in other jurisdictions.) The teaching of science universally tends to a set of "transmission" strategies that represents an appropriate and creative compromise by teachers. The understandable result of the need to "cover the curriculum" is the widespread use of fairly rigid course outlines that proceed with little opportunity to respond to students' difficulties with major concepts. Not surprisingly, this approach makes learning particularly difficult for exceptional learners and English as a Second Language (ESL) students. Additional time constraints result in laboratory work often being used to verify laws and theories rather than to explore natural events and the ways in which science develops. Laboratory activities of this sort are often characterised as the "cookbook" variety since students follow the directions much like they would in a food recipe. As class sizes increase, laboratory" safety concerns are causing,many science teachers to reduce the number of laboratory' activities students perform, opting instead for more teacher demonstrations.

During the past two decades, a new theory about how people learn and its implications for teaching, has been articulated and refined within the educational research community. It is commonly referred to as "constructivism" or a "constructivist view of learning." Constructivism is broadly referred to as a perspective on learning that is based on the assumption that knowledge is actively constructed in the minds of the learners and that knowledge is acquired as a result of a continual process in which we organise, structure and restructure our experiences in light of existing schemes of thought. This perspective is grounded in the belief that knowledge cannot be passively received or acquired because the learner must impose meaning and significance on events and ideas by contrasting these experiences with what he/she already knows. Further, this process is enhanced within specific learning contexts where students clarify their understanding of concepts with each other. During the past decade, the constructivist perspective has been utilised extensively within science education in the teaching approach known as "conceptual change teaching." As well, extensive development of teaching strategies consistent with a constructivist view of learning has been done in Australia within the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL).

An illustration of one strategy developed in the PEEL project shows what classroom teaching looks like when it is consistent with the constructivist view of learning. A strategy known as P.O.E. (Predict-Observe-Explain) illustrates one alternative approach that focuses not only on the facts and laws of science but on the understanding of concepts. The P.O.E. strategy calls for a teacher to engage students' interests and experiences by seeking a range of predictions about what could happen together with a statement of reasons that support their personal predictions. When the events are observed, each individual immediately knows if there are any discrepancies between prediction and observation and the relationship between the "correct" scientific argument and the individual's reasons can be explored and resolved. The entire strategy occurs within the context of classroom discussion that encourages the interaction of students and the interaction of ideas. As well, it should be noted that strategies such as POE. emphasise the importance of the learner being aware of his/her own process of learning.

Conceptual change teaching and the procedures developed in t!he PEEL project illustrate that there are significant alternative ways to teach science. These strategies tend not to receive widespread attention because they are often associated with reducing the range of units and topics in any one science course. The P.O.E. strategy has been described here as an example of an alternative approach that is possible at the "interpretation" end of the range of teaching strategies.

The issue of how science is taught is tightly linked to other issues such as the "quantity" of material specified in curriculum documents. the central themes of authorised textbooks, and the importance attached to students' performance on standardised tests that tend to emphasise factual recall. Alternative teaching strategies and assessment strate2ies are most likely to develop and persist when individual science teachers are encouraged to take responsibility for the "quality"' of students' experiences studying science. The potential for improvements in the "quality\"' of students' science experiences would be enhanced by a consistent and comprehensive curriculum where the curriculum documents, textbooks, and assessment strategies are organised around a clear vision of science teaching that also recognises what we know about how learning best occurs.

In the previous section on "What science should be taught and learned?" we introduced the idea of authentic science.29 The following table provides a framework for understanding how "cookbook" laboratory activities are quite different from authentic science activities.

Table 1. Levels of Openness in the Teaching of Inquiry.

Each level represents a decrease in structure and an increase in the degree of authenticity that the activity has with the typical work of scientists in the workplace. Within this framework, "cookbook" laboratory activities are characterised at level one because the problem that the laboratory activity addresses, the procedure to solve the problem, and the intended answer to be verified are all provided. More authentic science activities are those that allow for the student to play a central role in the design of the activity where the answer is not something that is already known. Science fair projects, albeit optional activities in which some students participate, would be categorised at level four.

There are several curriculum projects that, in different ways, rely upon forms of teaching designed to give students insight into how science works. The overall theme of these curriculum projects, then, is to emphasise that science itself is aimed at creating kn~wl edge. Authentic science teaching helps students to learn how to use science to make knowledge. One of these, "Project-Based Science," has been developed at the University of Michigan in collaboration with local schools. Here the intent is to engage students in long-term and authentic science projects. For example, students in one high school use three approaches to study the health of a river that serves as the town's source of drinking water: (a) a study of micro-organisms, (b) a physical assessment (earth science), and (c) a chemical assessment. The entire project illustrates how systematic inquiry of a genuine environmental problem involves biological, chemical, and physical science aspects.

Other approaches to science teaching emphasise the connections between~science and social issues. A recent Canadian example of this approach is Logical Reasoning in Science and Technology. This program focuses on the use of science processes and content to resolve social problems associated with the consumption of alcohol. The program has opportunities for students to learn about such topics as courtroom evidence, breathalyzer tests and alcoholism.' while emphasising the links between science and society. A similar approach in England uses science to understand and ultimately remedy problems of sound in a school's hallways .33 A feature common to these two projects is that they cross the traditional boundaries of biology, chemistry' and physics, thus illustrating the interdisciplinary of science.

These science curriculum projects have common and important features:

they provide opportunities for students to encounter science authentically;
they allow for links to be made between science and environmental and technological issues; and
they encourage an active form of learning rather than a passive one.
All of these features are consistent with current knowledge about learning and teaching science.

The issues surrounding how science should be taught and learned are summarised as three important questions:

How will textbook selection and/or design reflect the content and teaching approach advocated in the new science curriculum?
A majority of teachers use textbooks as a primary source for student learning in science. Because textbooks play a central role in science classrooms, it is important to highlight some factors that need consideration when implementing the new science curriculum. Expectations for the content and format of textbooks can be quite different depend in~ on whether teachers use science textbooks as student resources or as guides for planning instruction and learning. There is currently a wide selection of Circular 14 approved textbooks available for science classrooms, but each textbook can be quite different in terms of the amount of content presented, the structure of the content (e.g., sequential topics, themes, and systems approaches), and the approach to learning that is advocated. Textbook analysis research shows that. as a result of technological advances in society and the exponential growth of our scientific knowledge-base, many textbooks have become more theoretical with increasing amounts of content. This has been compounded with a focus of many textbooks on presenting science content rather than encouraging higher-order thinking skills.

In recent science curriculum reform in other provinces, curriculum planners recognised the need for science textbooks that reflected the vision of science and the learning approach being advocated in the new program. They also recognised the importance of providing support materials for teachers in the implementation of the program. Their solution was to approve only those textbooks that met the specific criteria of the new curriculum. As well, publishers were invited to create textbooks that would meet the specifications for the new curriculum. For example, the Science Directions 7-9 series in Alberta, and the Science Plus 7-9 series in the Atlantic provinces, parallel the subject matter and teaching approach of their respective curricula. Teacher resource manuals with support materials to assist teachers with their transitions to the new curricula, were also created.

Where Should Science Be Taught and Learned?

We already assume that science is taught in the science classrooms and laboratory areas of schools, colleges and universities. Such facilities seem ideally matched to the view that what is important in science is its content and that the is is best learned by transmission. Given the power of the content view and the transmission model, it is not surprisin~ that formal science education has long been associated with schools and that informal learning has been associated with museums, science centres, conservation areas and the like.

Yet informal science education is displaying substantial growth in several ways, clearly showing that science education occurs in places other than science classrooms.

The integration of science with other subject areas (geography, mathematics, and technology) increasingly provides students with opportunities to encounter science in non-science classrooms and in contexts where the agenda is not focused solely on learning science content.
Environmental education offers students opportunities to encounter science in settings beyond school walls.
Academic co-operative education programs, representing co-operation between schools and work settings, give secondary-school students direct experience with science and its applications in the public and private economic sectors.
These versions of informal science education share several features. First, they represent the discipline of science authentically. That is, in these settings science is an active approach to understanding and to addressing problems in context rather than a passive set of principles and content which seem isolated from reality. Second, learners' encounters with science in these settings are consistent with the constructivist approach to knowing and learning. Third, there is substantial evidence that science learning in these versions of informal science is successful. And fourth, there is increasing recognition that these versions of science learning are of strategic importance to the Canadian economy.

A major issue for science curriculum reform is:

This section reviews the issues involved in considering the settings where science can be taught and learned.

Museums and Science Centres

While there is evidence of the success of museum programs, there appear to be few that are integrated with the science curriculum of schools. The use of museums, especially those whose collections are on-line. becomes an important issue. especially when local! resources are scarce.

Integration with Geography and Earth Science

A vision of the secondary-school curriculum must include a determination of the orientation and function of the geography curriculum. In the United States, earth science typically takes the place of topics one might associate with physical geography. Yet it can be argued that earth science provides students with an accessible]e route to understanding science and to acquiring some basic science concepts simply because the phenomena addressed are familiar and observable.

Integration with Mathematics

From the perspective of science education, mathematics tends to be viewed as a tool for solving problems or for constructing algorithms and models. Science curriculum development, then, may inadvertently encourage students to develop an inappropriate understanding of the discipline of mathematics. Most research shows that, even when mathematics is used in the service of science problems, students are less successful when they do not understand the science concepts involved in the problems they are attempting. Recent case study data suggest that teachers are unclear about what integration of science and math is intended to look like within their classrooms.

Integration with Technology

Technology is not to be confused with computer science for which the orientation and function in the school curriculum is quite different from science itself; nor do we refer to computer technology placed in the service of science instruction. There is research on this showing, not surprisingly, that simulations, drill and practice and micro-computer based instruction are effective to varying degrees.

The traditional view that technology is simply applied science has long been replaced by the historically and presently accurate view that science and technology are inextricably entwined" and "interdependent." The basis for this view is what science and technology do: science creates knowledge and technology creates things. that do not yet exist. As well, there are many similarities between the science problem-solving process and technology design process.

From the perspective of schools, while both science and technology are areas of study in their own right, they frequently refuse to remain contained in the areas of the curriculum specified for them. It is possible to find examples of science occurring within technology, but it is much more difficult to find examples of technology within science. In most cases, these examples turn Out to be examples of technology done in science classrooms. The "Structures and Design" unit of the Grade 8 Alberta science curriculum, where students are asked to build bridges using popsicle sticks, is an example of technology education and not an example of science education. This can be contrasted with a technology education design project in which performance criteria may depend upon science knowledge, such as bending moments. While this is plainly not applied science, it illustrates an interdependence between science and technology.

The interdependence between science and technology need not mean that integration is possible or even desirable. According to the definitions, science education deals with how we come to know, while technology education deals with how we come to design and make, often to improve human life. These are so different that integration may not be possible. Instead, the effort should be at ensuring that teachers make the links between science and technology evident whenever possible. So technology teachers point out when science is being used, and science teachers point out when technology is being used. For example, the dialysis machine was the result of technologists designing and making a machine for cleaning blood, given the need and given scientific knowledge. Science did not make the dialysis machine.

The outcomes of science education and the outcomes of technology' education do not readily lend themselves to integration. But high-school students need to be clear about the interdependence.

Co-operative Education

There is surprisingly little research on co-operative education programs in Canada. Some of the features of these programs have been explored and there have been occasional studies of the effectiveness of the effectiveness of co-operative placements. Co-operative education is discussed in the background paper on Guidance and Career Education, and it is included here to highlight the academic function of co-operative programs in science education.

There are two different views about the purpose of co-operative education: either co-operative education is seen as largely academic, with an emphasis on learning the subject area (e.g., science) as it appears in the work setting; or co-operative education is seen as part of career education in which the student is to learn the skills and attitudes associated with productivity in the workplace. The vision of the function of co-operative education in the school curriculum will ultimately affect the duration of placements. Currently, credits involve approximately 110 hours-frequently 3 hours per day, 5 days per week for 15 or 16 weeks following intensive in-school classes on the work setting, and careful planning and assessment. If time in the placement is reduced, this will limit the time available to learn the science of the work setting. There may be other consequences: it is not clear, for example, if supervisors in the workplace will be interested in investing time in students whose stay is less than the current practice.

The Ministry of Education and Training's discussion document gives samples of co-operative education that clearly show the difference between a career orientation and an academic orientation. One sample describes a Native Co-operative Education program, the intent of which is to "prepare Native students for work by providing opportunities for them to decide upon a particular career choice for employment." The next sample describes "Talented Offerings for Programmes in the Sciences" which is an enrichment program for talented students motivated to academic achievement to prepare them for professional careers in scientific leadership.

How Should Science Teaching and Science Learning Be Assessed?

This section beg\ins with an overview of assessment in science. It then turns to recent developments to show how the character of assessment is changing. The issues and implications of change are presented, and some examples and illustrations are mentioned at the end. These important assessment issues need to be considered at the classroom level where teachers assess students, as well as at the provincial level where large-scale standardised assessments of students are conducted. Typically, there should be consistency in the assessment practices used at both levels.

Standard Views of Assessment

Assessment is generally defined broadly as the collection of information, the interpretation of that information, and the recommendations concerning the performance of individuals, groups, or instructional units or programs. While this view of assessment goes beyond measurement and testing, assessment is customarily associated with these terms. It is not surprising to find discussion of assessment dominated by talk about test instruments such as those used in international comparative studies (IEA) and in provincial assessments such as the Ontario Assessment Instrument Pool (OAIP). Usually, assessment in this framework begins with the construction of a matrix for outcomes and ways to assess them and the most used method for obtaining data is the standardised achievement test. Assuming that the instruments are valid, they can be and are used with some confidence in provincial assessments, as in B.C.'s assessments of 1978, 1982, 1986 and 199l, and Manitoba's assessment of 1988.

Performance Assessment

Objective test performance has been joined by performance testing which, in science education, becomes an assessment of performance on tasks frequently involving laboratory experimentation. Some Canadian work in laboratory' assessment was developed by Talesnick in 1979. An early step in producing such assessments is the identification of specific laboratory skills such as the 14 identified by Gardner. Performance assessments can be administered individually or in groups and can take the form of computer simulations, open-ended written exercises and visual diagrams. Although performance assessment is not without its difficulties. there are good suggestions for how it may be designed and ;implemented, and the evidence is that these tasks produce trustworthy information.

Attitude Assessment

Although there have been many attempts to develop instruments to measure students' attitudes to science, the resulting instruments have consistently failed to meet even the most generous standards of reliability and validity. There is little evidence of successful attitude assessment in provincial assessment programs in Canada and this may relate to less attention being given to attitude objectives in the curriculum.

New Thinking in Assessment

Recently an expanded model of assessment has been developed. This model shares with the traditional approach the view that assessment is not mainly about measurement and numbers, but is concerned with informed judgements of teaching and of what individuals know. This view leads to considering authentic assessment, for which the characteristics of the tasks used in assessment are re-thought. First, these tasks are worth doing for their own sake. not just to produce an outcome. Thus, one learns something new or practices something by doing an assessment task. Second, the assessment tasks are designed so that they resemble as closely as possible tasks that at would be encountered in settings beyond the classroom. For science, such tasks would resemble \' hat scientists or those in science-related work settings do.

A further intent of authentic assessment is that it be devised so that teaching responds to assessment. This is quite different from the usual model in which assessment drives the teaching, as it is known to do in high stakes assessments such as the "departmentals" of several years ago. The report of the Royal Commission on Learning specifically recommends authentic assessment as an alternative to typical tests of memorisation. The position taken by the Royal Commission is not without its detractors, however.

Provincial Testing

Standardised testing has mixed appeal. Older forms of test rig, which encouraged memorisation, have not been associated with the development of better schools: "The emphasis on external standards, the competition that characteristically follows, the narrow focus on easily tested products of schooling are notably not the conditions that lead to the development of engaged, thoughtful, creative and continual learners."

Possibly, this type of bad press derives from our memories of the test items we attempted on standardised achievement tests and these memories may lead to a misunderstanding of the word "standardisation." An achievement test assesses knowledge and understanding and a standardised achievement test is one that is given and scored in the same way whenever and wherever it is used so that the scores of all students can be compared. Standardised assessments may take many forms, including multiple-choice questions, essays, and laboratory' performance tests.

Because authentic assessment is a model of assessment, it may be used in the assessments employed by teachers within individual classrooms' or by provincial assessors for gathering information about province-wide achievement and learning. The issue of standardised testing is not related to the breadth of the assessment program but to the character of the assessment tasks used.

Inclusion and Assessment

The inclusive classroom poses special challenges to traditional assessment practices because the latter has typically depended on written responses to written test items. Without question, such instruments test reading and writing ability as well as the science they are intended to assess. Within the inclusive classroom. teachers can expect to encounter students who have difficulty reading and writing but whose challenges should not prevent Them from demonstrating their science learning. In these circumstances, authentic assessments would be adapted so that all learners may show what they know. The use of Braille tests or oral examinations illustrate some of the available alternatives.

Prior Assessment

The issues raised in this section on assessment centre around three questions:

On the model of authentic assessment. prior learning assessment is considerably larger than determining the knowledge and skill the student might have. Prior assessment would require a determination of the tasks that are expected of a student who has completed a course, and these tasks would have their own intrinsic merit as well as have an authentic relationship to science outside the classroom. Prior assessment, then, will demand more than memorisation and algorithmic problem-solving.

The extent of concern across Canada for appropriate assessment is reflected in the collaboration that resulted in the "Principles for Fair Student Assessment Practices for Education in Canada."74 These principles were developed by a group advised by representatives from the following professional groups: Canadian Education Association, Canadian School Boards Association, Canadian Association for School Administrators, Canadian Teachers' Federation, Canadian Guidance and Counselling Association, Canadian Association of School Psychologists, Canadian Council for Exceptional Children, Canadian Psychological Association, and Canadian Society for the Study of Education. The principles reflect recent knowledge about authentic assessment and provide a coherent set of guidelines for developing assessment programs and tasks. Other examples of sound practices can be found in Canada. For example, the series of science assessments in British Columbia represent good models for regularly gathering and interpreting information on a provincial scale. The most recent science assessment in British Columbia was expanded beyond the "classical" testing of scientific knowledge and included performance assessment tasks and interview tasks that probed into students' understanding of science-technology-society issues. As well, teams of researchers went into 60 classrooms and developed case studies of how science was being taught in each context. In Ontario, authentic assessment characterises the work of the Education Quality and Accountability Office. The mandate of this office includes conducting provincial assessments of reading, writing and mathematics for Grades 3, 6, 9 and 11.

SUMMARY

Secondary reform and the elimination of the OAC year requires more than just the organisational task of making adjustments to the science curriculum. Reform can be seen as an opportunity to re-evaluate and re-think what vision of science education we want and need for students to succeed in today's society. Curriculum reform can easily be interpreted as the writing of new official documents to reflect the subject matter that we want students to know. but curriculum actually goes much further and deeper. Curriculum reform that places a vision of science teaching and learning at the centre can serve as a focal point for the kind of teaching and learning that we want to occur in our science classrooms.

In this background paper, we have grouped, within five questions, the issues that need to be addressed when rethinking teaching and learning:

As we have worked through each question. we have identified the range of current thinking, drawing particularly upon the best and most recent knowledge available. In addition, where possible, we have illustrated productive approaches or have provided references to sources that will be helpful to those seeking further information. Successful implementation of new curricula is always enhanced by the development of resource materials that support teachers in utilising new teaching approaches and assessment strategies. Addressing all these issues comprehensively is the hallmark of curriculum reform.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Representatives from the following professional associations responded quickly and cheerfully to our requests for input and we are grateful to them:

Staff at the Ministry of Education and Training were always responsive to our questions. Special thanks go to Denis McGowan and Sylvia Solomon.

At the Faculty of Education, Queen's University, Anne Beveridge and Cinde Lock worked efficiently and thoroughly as graduate research assistants on the project. Jan Carrick acted as copy editor. Our colleagues Malcolm Welch and Robert Wilson provided helpful responses to our queries, and Tom Russell and Nancy Hutchinson read the draft and provided invaluable comments and contributions.