Resources - Archived Materials

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction: The Pan-Canadian Science Project provides a welcome opportunity to examine both the ends and the means of science education in Canada. In its current form, the draft Common Framework initiates the discussion by asking a fundamental question about science programs: What learning outcomes should result from the study of science? and, by doing so, raises the related question: How should science be learned and assessed to ensure that students demonstrate the desired outcomes? These are questions that must be considered together since the most significant learning outcomes are the result of how learning takes place. As development of the Framework continues, the needed revision of the Learning Outcomes should be combined with an exhaustive consideration of how outcomes will be developed by each student and how the performance of each outcome will be assessed. In its current state, the Framework lacks this balance. As a result, the admirable vision of science education espoused in the beginning is not reflected in the Learning Outcomes. General Comments on the Introduction Section Re: 1 (Preface) Paragraph 2 assumes that "sharing ...resources between jurisdictions" will "increase the quality and efficiency" of curriculum development. This has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the document at hand. The draft Learning Outcomes appear to be a set of compromises around content that do not enhance our vision of what science education should be. Paragraph 3: The "illustrative examples" referred to have yet to be written. In their absence, judgments about the usefulness of this document remain tentative and caution before embrace is advisable. Paragraph 4: On the evidence of the draft Framework, the "expertise of participating ministries" is suspect. There appears to be little understanding of learning outcomes or the implications of outcomes-based learning for instruction, assessment and program organization. A wider and more meaningful "collaboration" might have resulted in a more forward-looking set of Learning Outcomes. Re: 2 (Vision) The Vision is appropriate and well-articulated as far as it goes, but does not define "active learning environments". This is a critical omission since the balance of the document fails to describe how students will "explore, analyse" and come to "appreciate the inter-relationships" referred to. Moreover, the preponderance of knowledge statements (in the Specific Learning Outcomes) may detract from an adequate emphasis on the skills development implied in this Vision statement. Re: 3 (Science Education for Canadian Students) Some of the terms used in this section raise pedagogical issues that are not adequately addressed in the document. For example, bullet 2 refers to dealing with issues in a "co-operative" and "responsible" manner. This will require a set of outcomes that can only result from learning that is co-operative and focused on authentic tasks, but the document does not create a vision of science education in which such learning experiences are central and essential. Similarly, how will "varying aptitudes and interests" of learners be addressed by a curriculum with such a strong emphasis on core knowledge? If the intent is to cover the same content with less rigour for some students, it is unlikely that individual interests and aptitudes will be adequately addressed. On balance, the goals listed in this section view the student as a social being and stress the function of science education in preparing students to play social roles such as student, citizen, employee, et cetera. While there are references to "their own lives" and "personal satisfaction", there should be more emphasis on science as a means of self discovery. This could be accomplished by inclusion of a goal such as: "insight into themselves as organisms with physical, emotional and intellectual needs and capabilities" and the addition of General and Specific Learning Outcomes specifically related to such a quest. The aesthetic and intellectual pleasure derived from the experience of science needs more emphasis. To convey this, we suggest that the fifth bullet in this section be divided as follows: "encourage students to develop a sense of wonder about both natural and invented environments and phenomena" and "develop through scientific endeavours a sense of accomplishment that engenders personal satisfaction and life-long learning." Re: 3.1 (Nature of Science) This is a reasonable depiction of science, but two changes would strengthen it. The first paragraph should emphasize that: "Science is both a way of learning about the world . . . and the resulting base of knowledge that is used in . . ." There should be a statement that the knowledge accumulated through science is always tentative, open to challenge and revision, reflecting the open-ended, self-correcting nature of the process. In some cases the language may be misleading. For example, the phrases "knowledge and theory" and "knowledge and theories" suggest that theories are distinct from knowledge when, in fact, they are one subset of knowledge. Such phrases should be replaced in this section with the more inclusive term "knowledge". Since "theory" does have a restricted meaning, the word "theories" where it appears near the end of paragraph two should be replaced with a broader term such as "frameworks" (as in "... frameworks are constructed to ..."). In sentence two of the last paragraph, the "processes of science" other than "experimentation" are not specified and the passage would read better as "... a combination of knowledge and investigations". Other refinements of language are also desirable. In paragraph 2, "community of scientists" would be more inclusive as "community of learners" and "societal and cultural influences" would convey the subtlety of the interaction.

However, the central question arising from this section is:
How should this view of the Nature of Science be reflected in

It may be argued that such questions are beyond the scope of a Framework, particularly one like this which is largely focused on knowledge. However, if the intended curriculum is to develop specified skills and attitudes, those outcomes must be discussed in the context of instruction since most skills and attitudes outcomes are the result of HOW learning has occurred, not what content has been learned. Moreover, outcomes are only statements on paper until they have been demonstrated to a satisfactory standard by the students. Therefore, a discussion of the purpose and forms of assessment are central to any meaningful consideration of which outcomes will be demonstrated. Considering the above, the question may be restated this way: if outcomes were derived from the Nature of Science AND with some consideration of how students will acquire and demonstrate them, would we have the Learning Outcomes that appear in this document? The answer is no. Outcomes would be stated as observable actions; skills of inquiry, problem solving and communication would predominate; there would be fewer and more carefully chosen knowledge outcomes and knowledge would be seen as a vehicle for developing skills and attitudes. Re: 3.2 (Nature of Learning) This section is an excellent statement of the principles that underlie learning. Some desirable learning outcomes can only be realized through tasks that relate learning to contexts beyond the artificial confines of school and the traditional subdivisions of school programs. Therefore, we would add the following principle of learning to this list Learning must be relevant to life. Learning must be integrated to allow inquiry that crosses the arbitrary divisions of school subjects. Tasks must be engaging and meaningful, leading to authentic demonstrations of skills and attitudes that are useful beyond school. All of the principles of learning stated here must be particularized to science. In doing so, questions about the Framework emerge. Questions such as: IF learning is "developmental" and "experienced-based and affected by prior knowledge", THEN what kinds of concrete experiences should young children have as a foundation for constructing scientific concepts about the world? Is this Framework, with its burden of knowledge expectations for K to 3, conducive to the kind of exploratory, constructivist learning needed by young children? Are the knowledge expectations too abstract for students at that age and operational level? IF learning "occurs through inquiry and problem solving" (and it does!), THEN what particular forms should inquiry and problem solving take in the context of science? How do we insure that such inquiry and problem solving has the open-endedness that characterizes real science and technology? Does this framework in its preoccupation with core knowledge, encourage alternative learning pathways and alternative demonstrations of outcomes? IF learning occurs in a variety of ways, THEN how many ways are there to learn and understand the processes of science? Does this Framework, in its preoccupation with core knowledge, encourage alternative learning pathways and alternative demonstrations of outcomes? Re: 4 (Foundation Statements for K-12 Science) Given the overwhelming preponderance of knowledge expectations in the Framework, we would redress this imbalance in part by repositioning the first bullet (... acquire knowledge and key ideas in the life, earth, and physical sciences;) at the end of the list. Re: 5.1 (An Introduction to the Five Foundation Areas) Foundation 2: Unifying Concepts Unifying Concept 4: Energy, (page 8) contains no reference to energy as an essential component of organisms and ecosystems. This omission seriously narrows the understanding of energy. Foundation 3: Science Technology Society and the Environment (STSE) The Nature of Science, (page 9) A key element of science is missing - the origin of scientific inquiry in exploration and the asking of questions. Since getting the question is essential to being able to do independent inquiry, an additional bullet, at the head of the list, should read: science starts with exploration, thinking about what is observed, and the stating of questions that can be investigated The Nature of Technology, (page 10) would be more accurately conveyed if problems were replaced with challenges. Foundation 5: Attitudes Attitudes toward other forms of life should be included by the inclusion of an additional statement such as: examining how their actions affects other forms of life and the environment Summary The Introduction of the draft Framework outlines a vision of science education based on sound principles of learning and an understanding of the nature of science. With improvements such as those suggested above, it will be stronger still. Unfortunately, there is a dissonance between the Introduction and the balance of the draft Framework. It is essential that the Foundation Areas, Learning Outcomes and Illustrative Examples be restructured to harmonize them with the intent of the Introduction. General Comments on the Learning Outcomes During our examination of the document it was decided to focus on the details of the document to inform our analysis of the more general statements, including the Introduction and the General Learning Outcomes. This is evident in the preceding section. Our concern with the General Learning Outcomes is similar - they are not supported by the Specific Learning Outcomes.

In examining the Specific Learning Outcomes some time was spent in groups looking at each division separately. To facilitate examination of the scope and sequence, sections of the document were re-keyed under the alternate groupings i.e. by subject for the K-6 outcomes, and by Unifying Concept for the 7-12 outcomes. This document proved very useful and we are submitting it as Appendix 1. The comments from each group were surprisingly similar. These common concerns expressed about the Specific Learning Outcomes are listed below:

Re: Specific Learning Outcomes (K-3) There is a concern about the inclusion of K and JK in the SLOs. Will every province have a common structure / framework where SLOs are divided across K-12? If so, and there is not a Kindergarten program in some areas, is there an expectation that the grade 1 teacher will cover all the Kindergarten and Grade 1 outcomes? This needs to be addressed. Much of the language used in the Specific Learning Outcome sections appear to be simply descriptions of activities. The SLO's are not measurable and observable. The real agenda of the Science project should be development of skills and attitudes in Science. The SLOs in the current format of the document are very heavily content laden. Content is what we expose the students to in order to develop the skills and attitudes. Content should simply be the vehicle used to teach the skills and attitudes. This ties into the belief held by the group, that the focus for the K-12 continuum needs to be the Unifying Concepts and not the various Science disciplines. Some Science disciplines are not meaningful and relevant to young children ( such as the very abstract Earth Science vs. the very concrete Physical Science), yet all unifying concepts are both meaningful and relevant. Re: Specific Learning Outcomes (4-6) A number of problems with outcome based language were identified in this section One example was the verb "demonstrate" which was used repeatedly, but it is not clear what it meant. Who is intended to be the person(s) demonstrating? Teacher? Students? In the area of Life Sciences it was noted that plant topics were not specifically mentioned (presumably having been covered in primary) especially with respect to life cycles, yet in Grade 6 there were outcomes which required observation by microscope to observe parts of plant life cycles. This latter would be better done in Grade 7 or 8 when students have are more likely to be able to use microscopes, let along have access to them. The study of systems does not identify human biology as being a particular focus and yet this is an obvious area of interest and therefore a logical starting point. It also provides a useful connection with the Physical and Health Education studied at that level. The emphasis on ecological concepts, including energy flow, fits well at this level, but should also be connected to the Physical Science examination of energy. Some of the concepts mentioned, such as commensalism and parasitism, would be more usefully studied later. Introducing terms to students at this level that are not in the routine vocabulary of educated adults presents a skewed picture of science. In the area of Physical Sciences it was noted that sound as a topic was not covered. Some concepts with respect to energy were expressed in an odd way. It is more common to speak of "magnetic forces" rather than "magnetic energy"! In the area of Earth Sciences there appear to be gaps in the sequence of topics throughout primary and junior. There should be a more logical progression of geological process and weather topics, both of which can be interesting and relevant to students at this age. Re: Specific Learning Outcomes (7-9) Gaps in sequence noted in this area include heat energy, adaptive characteristics, food webs, dynamic equilibrium in cells, energy transfer in forming solutions. More logical sequence on these topics from Grades 4-9 is needed. There is no inclusion of integrated outcomes to make the natural links with Math, Geography and Technology. Placement of topics appeared as a problem in this section. For example heredity and gene cellular processes should be at Grade 10. The use of telescopes should coincide with microscopy learnings at Grade 9. Stars and space probes should be at Grade 8 level along with the movement of planets. Rock cycle and rock composition should be at Grade 7 along with erosion and soil formation and the theories and models of the Earth's interior and plate tectonics. Re: Specific Learning Outcomes (10-12)

Concerns were expressed about adequacy of topics within each of the traditional subject areas. In the area of Life Sciences these included:

This section does not reflect the richness and diversity of current Ontario courses

In the area of Chemistry these included:

In the area of Physics these included:

In the area of Earth Science these included:

However, the major result of the analysis of this section was a number of questions which came up: Skill development is weak. Is it appropriate to separate content from skills in identifying the outcomes? Should they be together? The Grade 10 program in science does not seem to have much in it. What science do students do in Grade 10? Is there a need for a Grade 10 course? Would it be compulsory? How do you write curriculum from this document? Is it open to too much interpretation? Do we want more standardization? It seems to be very vague about Grade 10. Ontario is currently proposing reforms to secondary curriculum and this document could be valuable during the science curriculum renewal. However, the document lacks direction on who is to achieve the outcomes at the grades 10-12 level. Are these for all students or just for those who are interest in pursuing science related careers or post-secondary education? If it is deemed important for all students to have some science education at this level what should constitute that education? Does this document describe minimum expectations for students? Would students with specific post-secondary goals be required to meet some additional learning outcomes? For those who are bound for post-secondary science studies should there be an outline of subject specific outcomes which have had input from the post-secondary institutions? Given that many students go to a university in a different province the potential for consistency across the country based on this framework could be very useful. Is Grade 10-12 meant to be years of specialization or generalization? Recommendations Regarding Format of the Framework To address the concerns we have expressed about the Learning Outcomes in the Framework we have recommendations on how to improve the document so that it can meet its stated purpose. 1. That a scope and sequence content chart be included in the document, grade by grade. A grade one teacher could, at a quick glance, see the proposed content for grade one. 2. That the vision statement be expanded to include the word "apply" , along with "explore, analyse, appreciate,.." This word is needed to complete the reference to technology in the vision statement. 3. That the vision statement be followed by the two sections in their present order: The Nature of Science, and, The Nature of the Learner. 4. That the Foundation Statements come next and be accompanied by a visual that clearly shows that the "unifying concepts" described in Foundation Statement #2 should be the focus of science education from start to graduation. (See Appendix 2) 5. That the Foundation Statements, i.e. the Unifying Concepts, continue to be supported by the General Learning Outcomes, and that these General Learning Outcomes be reviewed to ensure that they clearly express expected student outcomes that are both observable and measurable. 6. That the Specific Learning Outcomes be used as the foundation for "illustrative examples". To specify them as outcomes will likely result in the curriculum becoming too prescriptive. Teachers as professionals need the opportunity to select appropriate curriculum from the scope and sequence chart to support the GLO's . Illustrative examples by grade would then become the link between the GLO's and the grade specific curriculum.

7. That a set of standards be developed to support the general learning outcomes and that a rubric be developed for each standard for assessment purposes so that there will be a common understanding as to what constitutes achievement of the learning outcome. The SAIP framework needs to be reconciled with this as well.

The vision and foundation statements about science education in the Pan Canadian Science Framework are supported in the document, through several levels of detail, in terms of WHAT science should be included in the curriculum.

It is our opinion that the Framework must also present a set of integrated policies which together support the delivery of the curriculum that is described. Those policies must address issues such as the following, which are defined in considerable detail in the U.S.A. National Science Education Standards document.

1) What criteria should be used to judge the quality of science teaching which is necessary to deliver the curriculum? What should teachers know and do to be most effective?

What constitutes good program planning?

How do we define "best practice" as it applies to the instructional and assessment methods used by science teachers?

How should the learning environment in science classrooms be designed and managed?

How do science teachers build learning communities in their classrooms?

What part should science teachers play in the school community as a whole?

2) What criteria should be used to judge the quality of professional development opportunities for science teachers?

How should science teachers develop the professional knowledge and skill required to implement the Framework's vision?

How should teachers of science learn science themselves?

How should teachers learn how to teach science?

What must be done to ensure that science teachers continue to learn throughout their careers?

What should be the nature of pre-service education for teachers of science?

What inservice programs will help science teachers develop from novices to experts to mentors?

3) How should student achievement be assessed and evaluated?

Issues in this area relate to the purposes of assessment, measuring achievement and opportunity to learn, assuring that assessment methods are valid and reliable, avoiding bias, and making sound inferences from assessment data. The role of large scale assessments as well as classroom assessment practices must be addressed.

What is assessed and reported defines more clearly what is taught than will any content framework. Without this component in the Framework there is little assurance of implementation of its other components.

4) How should the quality of science programs be assessed and evaluated, both at the school and board level?

How can teachers and administrators determine whether all the components of the Framework, including these which we recommend be added, are being implemented effectively?

What criteria can be applied to determine whether the programs and courses designed and implemented at the local level meet the expectations defined in each component of the Framework?

Do programs and courses designed from the Framework connect with related programs in mathematics and technology in the schools?

Are science programs supported with sufficient resources, including time, materials, equipment, space, qualified teachers, and access to community supports, facilities and spaces?

Is there equity of access for students to quality science programs across the system?

Does the culture of each school promote and support teachers as they implement an effective science program?

5) Do the components of the educational system as a whole, from the provincial to the local level, serve to support the expectations of the Framework in a consistent manner?

Issues related to this aspect of the Framework should address provincial legislation, policies and practices of teacher education institutions and boards of education, provincial curriculum practices, teachers' federations, and any other agencies, institutions and organizations which influence science education.

Central to this issue is that of TIME. The time required for successful implementation of science programs which address all the expectations of the Framework will be measured in decades, not months, years, or the length of time a provincial government may be in office.

Implications for Ontario

The document could have a different impact in each province in which it is implemented. There are some implications of this document which are peculiar to Ontario, both because of the way Science Education has been structured in the past, and because of the curriculum renewal which is now taking place.

Re: Earth Science

Ontario has a strong tradition of Geography education that currently encompasses the majority of outcomes described in the Earth Science portion of the OSIS documents, especially for Grades 7-12. The interest of students in most cases would best be served if this situation were to continue.

We recognize that many outcomes dealing with Astronomy have not been adequately addressed in the traditional Ontario Curriculum. We applaud their inclusion and recommend their coverage in either the Science and/or the Geography curriculum.

Re: Environmental Science

We appreciate the inclusion of many outcomes dealing with the sustainability of our environment. We recommend the clustering of these outcomes to provide a unique opportunity to integrate traditional practice in a holistic approach to environmental education.

Re: Secondary Reform

This is an area where once again we have more questions than answers. However, it is essential that these questions be addressed, at least by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training prior to the implementation of the Framework.

Will this document steer the future development for science education in Ontario?

Who will develop support materials/ curriculum-ready materials/classroom-ready curriculum materials? What will be the role of MOET? STAO? SCCAO? If this curriculum is activity-based, are there safety concerns with respect to students/facilities?

How will this document support the development of Series courses?

If skill development is recognized as a significant component of science education, will science be recognized as a special academic subject with respect to class size and safety?