Hand-on? Or Back-To-Basics? Which is best for science instruction?
First came the wars over how to teach reading and math to young students. Now the fighting has spilled into science. The battleground: California, vanguard of educational trends, a state with so much clout that its selection of textbooks influences editions sold across the country.
The issue: broadly, the best way to teach science. Specifically, whether a state panel is trying to unduly limit "hands-on" instruction (lab experiments and practical projects) in kindergarten through eighth grade as part of a back-to-basics movement.
The major players: the California Curriculum Commission, which advises the state Board of Education and has recommended new criteria for K-8 textbooks that allow for a maximum of 20 to 25 percent of hands-on material. In opposition are many classroom teachers and scientists -- including leaders of the National Academy of Sciences and the California Science Teachers Association -- who say the recommendation makes no sense in a field that is all about discovery.
Well, yes, once kids have mastered the facts that will allow them to make use of their discoveries. The hand-ons method is invaluable for demonstrating scientific principles; there's no doubt of that. But too much lab time can mean busy work that leaves kids reinventing the wheel.
Thomas Adams, executive director of the curriculum commission, said critics are misrepresenting the panel's views. He said commission members are trying to balance the need for a comprehensive science curriculum with the limited science background of many K-8 teachers. Twenty to 25 percent of hands-on instruction seemed like "the most reasonable amount of time for someone faced with the challenges of limited facilities and limited time," he said.
Interesting. So the commission is trying to regulate the instruction into the back-to-basics format under the assumption that most K-8 teachers don't really have the knowledge to make a primarily hands-on curriculum useful.
At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement about how students learn best...
Supporters of a philosophy known as "direct instruction" believe that students are served best in teacher-led classrooms that rely on structure, drilling and textbooks. They say that without the basics, students can't learn more complex scientific theories, and that hands-on-dominated curriculum doesn't offer enough content.
Critics of this approach say research shows that students learn best when they are allowed to discover material themselves and that back-to-basics programs leave no room for higher-level thinking.
That's ridiculous. Back-to-basics programs do not preclude "higher-level thinking," whatever that is (I've yet to see it defined in a newspaper article). There has to be some factual foundation to structure the hands-on experiences in science; it's silly to classify scientific experiments as pure "discovery," with no memorization or "book learning" required.
Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said the California curriculum commission's recommendation, if approved, would be harmful to students. "They are pushing very hard the dogmatic position of the 'direct instruction' crowd and emphasize what students know, not what they are able to do or understand," he said. "I strongly believe that they will turn even more students off of science and that they will work directly against the vital interests of California business and industry, who need a workforce of high school graduates who are able to solve problems using logic and evidence."
As a scientist myself, I've never noticed that what I know and what I understand are mutually exclusive. Why is direct instruction by definition "dogmatic?" Why is there an assumption that students who "know" science will not be able to understand it? And why the assumption that "hands-on" instruction is the only way California's kids can learn to use logic?
When asked about the debate unfolding in California, teachers and students in the Washington area said they could not understand any attempt to restrict hands-on learning.
"I've never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life," said Peter Petrossian, a science teacher at Pyle Middle School in Bethesda. Petrossian, who uses numerous innovative hands-on activities to engage his students, said: "It flies against all the current thought in educational psychology and, well, common sense. I think one of the things science has going for it is the fact that we can use so many modalities to reach our students -- even the old adage of 'tell a man how to fish versus show a man how to fish.' Yikes!"
Mr. Petrossian sounds like he knows his stuff, but I believe what's going on here is an attempt to structure the science curriculum for teachers who don't know their stuff, and who might be assigning lots of empty busywork in the lab. It sounds like California's teachers are over-reacting to the commissions' recommendations.
Posted by kswygert at February 2, 2004 09:58 PM