Jeff Ricker wrote:
> I believe that the problem runs much deeper than this: many
> of them seem to expect that scientists should provide them with certain
answers to
> their questions. When we do not do this in our courses, our students
> seem to feel as if we have failed in some way; and they may even begin
> to suspect that psychology is not really a science, after all.
The problem may not be in the students, but in the finest textbooks money
can buy:
http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/press/rl092899.htm
Excerpt:
=============
Washington, DC - Not one of the widely used science textbooks for middle
school was rated satisfactory by Project 2061, the long-term science,
mathematics, and technology education reform initiative of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). And the new crop of texts
that have just entered the market fared no better in the evaluation.
The in-depth study found that most textbooks cover too many topics and don't
develop any of them well. All texts include many classroom activities that
either are irrelevant to learning key science ideas or don't help students
relate what they are doing to the underlying ideas.
"Our students are lugging home heavy texts full of disconnected facts that
neither educate nor motivate them," said Dr. George Nelson, Director of
Project 2061. "It's a credit to science teachers that their students are
learning anything at all. No matter how `scientifically accurate' a text may
be," Nelson continued, "if it doesn't provide teachers and students with the
right kinds of help in understanding and applying important concepts, then
it's not doing its job."
Nelson released the textbook evaluation on September 28 at the National
Press Club, which featured him as its "Morning Newsmaker."
The study, headed by Dr. Jo Ellen Roseman, Project 2061 Curriculum Director,
examined how well textbooks for the middle grades can help students learn
key ideas in earth science, life science, and physical science, drawn from
AAAS's Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Research Council's
National Science Education Standards.
"This study probed beyond the usual superficial alignment by topic heading,"
Roseman said. "Instead, it examined the text's quality of instruction aimed
specifically at the key ideas, using criteria drawn from the best available
research about how students learn."
Each text was evaluated by two independent teams made up of middle school
teachers, curriculum specialists, and professors of science education. The
evaluation procedure was developed and tested over a period of three years
in collaboration with more than 100 scientists, mathematicians, educators
and curriculum developers, with funding from the National Science
Foundation.
"This study confirms our worst fears about the materials used to educate our
children in the critical middle grades," said Nelson. "Because textbooks are
the backbone of classroom instruction, we must demand improvement so that
our students can acquire the knowledge and skills they will need for more
advanced learning in high school, college, and the workplace."
The study also looked at three stand-alone units that are not part of any
textbooks. Developed at Michigan State University and the Michigan
Department of Education through research aimed at how students learn, the
units rated much higher than the textbooks. "These encouraging results show
that good science materials can indeed be developed," Roseman reported.
"Although Project 2061 does not write textbooks," Nelson explained, "our
goal is to provide guidance for those who do. For example, we plan to send
detailed reports to the publishers of science textbooks and invite them to
discuss the findings with us. Project 2061 hopes the reviews not only will
guide textbook development in the future but will also be valuable for
middle school teachers today. We understand that these negative evaluations
will be disturbing for schools using these texts, but teachers should be
able to use the explanations in the full reports to start looking for ways
to compensate for the text's shortcomings."
This is the second in a series of Project 2061 textbook evaluations funded
by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The evaluation of middle grades
mathematics texts, released in January 1999, rated several texts high, but
these texts are not yet widely used. As a result of Project 2061's
evaluation, a number of school districts are now considering these highly
rated math texts for adoption. Project 2061 will release its findings for
high school algebra and biology textbooks next year and is seeking funds to
examine elementary school materials and to update the middle and high school
materials evaluations.
Project 2061 has been working since 1985 to improve science, mathematics,
and technology education for all students. Its 1993 publication Benchmarks
for Science Literacy recommended specific learning goals for students at the
end of grades 2, 5, 8, and 12 and provided the foundation for national and
state science standards and frameworks. The project offers a variety of
professional development programs for teachers and other educators.
A summary of the middle grades science textbook evaluation will be posted on
the Project 2061 web site at http://www.project2061.org. Full reports on
each textbook will be available early next year.
