|
Get
Involved - Stay Informed
edited
by Bob Rose
SYMPOSIUM
The
National Academy of Sciences' Study on High School Biology
Education
This
was a panel discussion on the future of high school biology
education. It was lead by Walter G. Rosen (National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, D.C.) and Evelyn E. Handler (Brandeis
University, Waltham, MA). After an initial period of panel
discussion, the audience generated most of the conversation.
Many in the audience had participated in National Science
Foundation Institutes of a few decades back. NSF attendees
considered those institutes very valuable and would like
to see their return. Such institutes could address some
of the current problems (see below).
Some
of the important issues which were exchanged between panel
members and the audience included . . .
1.
A primary purpose of biology teachers must be to teach students
how to think [logically], and this takes time. Lack of
funding and time limitations within class periods results
in pulling back from laboratory experiences. This, in turn,
lowers motivation in students. Not only do the students
need the experiences of laboratory work, but so do the teachers.
There is a real need to involve teachers in doing real research
themselves. [A teacher training program which does not
require an original research project from the future teacher
is delinquent and contributes to the general lack of research
and logical thinking that is missing in the high school
biology curriculum.]
2.
Teacher training programs must increase their effectiveness
in preparing elementary teachers to teach science. In order
to adequately prepare citizens for our increasingly technological
society we must increase the time devoted to K-12 science,
from the less than 5% presently being taught to at least
20% in an enhanced educational program. Not everyone in
the audience agreed that this was as big an obstacle as
the need to enlighten administrators about the genuine need
for increased science instruction, especially in the elementary
grades. [Kansans who attend the annual spring KATS KAMP,
sponsored by our state affiliate to the National Science
Teachers Association, will agree that we have plenty of
competent elementary teachers eager to teach science. What
we lack is administrative support to do it. Which leads
to the next item.]
3.
The mandate of state and federal level testing may be leading
us into teaching toward the tests. This was generally perceived
as an undesirable situation. Biology (and science) curriculum
should be internally generated by practicing biology educators
and researchers. There is a perceived gap between the practice
and the administration of biology curriculum. We may doing
an adequate job of preparing students for the science professions,
but failing to adequately [scientifically] educate the students
going into non-scientific careers. There is a need to turn
around this situation of leading students through biology
courses which are designed to meet test standards, but may
not be keyed to their future careers, nor even to their
geographical regions. This can lead to heated arguments
about who's in charge of biology education.
4.
The importance of the textbook was discussed. There was
a general acknowledgement that the textbooks are improving.
For those teachers who do not, or can not, attend workshops,
institutes, and conventions, the textbook is the primary
mode for them to improve their own biology instructional
strategies. Updated textbooks serve to inform teachers
of the current status of biology education, to some extent.
Modern publishing technology is allowing editors to get
up-to-date information in front of teachers several years
sooner than was previously possible.
5.
A problem needing to be solved right away is inadequate
funding. Despite all the "good, new things out there"
most teachers can't buy them. Some mechanism needs to found
which will get teachers more purchasing power to acquire
new equipment, supplies, and materials to allow for innovation
in the teaching and learning of science.
It
is evident that attending a symposium such as this one allows
a teacher to participate in important discussions with other
professionals from across the nation. The problems, and
sometimes solutions, which are common throughout the country
can be isolated and confirmed in just this type of interchange.
A teacher can relay to his or her own school some of the
national concerns and emphasize the appropriateness of the
same concerns locally.
The
Biology of the Future Confronts the Biology of the Past,
by Everett Mendelson, Department of the History of Science,
Harvard University.
Mendelson
began his review of twentieth century biology by focusing
on two quite different voices which have carried through
the last half of the century. Francis Crick's strong reductionist
position proclaimed optimistically, in 1964, that all biology
could ultimately be explained in terms of physics and chemistry.
Rachel Carson's more passionate, though fatalistic, tone
shown through in her 1962 book, Silent Spring. She
alerted the world to the impending environmental problems
which would face us all, even the non-scientists, in the
very near future. Mendelson, quoting from the 1942, Seashore,
reminded us that "we live in a scientific age but only
a few have the knowledge of science."
Tracing
the roots to these two strands of contemporary biology even
further back to the turn of the century, Mendelson reminded
us that in 1903 evolution was thought of in terms of gene
mutation. Darwin's theory of natural selection had been
eclipsed by the work of molecular biologists and geneticists
who thought characteristics were to species as atoms were
to molecules.
On
the other hand, turn of the century naturalists John Burroughs
and John Muir were advocating conservationism and grappling
with biological problems in holistic fashions. Anti-urban,
anti-modern, anti-industry, anti-reductionism marked the
beginning of what would later blossom as environmentalism.
Halfway
through the century biologists were using mechanistic and
materialistic models to guide their research. Three-fourths
through the century $30 billion had been spent on genetic
engineering. Today, as we are on the threshold of the 21st
century, the organismic [holistic] view of biology is struggling.
Our degree of control over biological technology has not
kept up with the questions that need to be answered before
we rush forward. What we teach our students today about
the history of biology, about the legacy of science, will
determine the social and political values they impose on
the future of biology.
Next
Section: Paper
Sessions
|
