back to list of Papers
back to list of Papers
THE ROLE OF CURRICULUM IN SYSTEMIC REFORM
Rodger W. Bybee
Executive Director
Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education
National Research Council
Washington, DC
A Presentation for:
The National Institute for Science Education (NISE) Forum
24-25 February 1997
Washington, DC
Science and mathematics educators have worked for over a decade on contemporary reform. In that decade, the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded systemic initiatives and, perhaps more importantly, introduced systemic into our perspective of reform. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Research Council achieved a consensus on standards for mathematics and science, respectively. The science and mathematics education community is poised for a major transition from work on establishing a systemic perspective of education and identifying standards for development and implementation of curriculum to achieve science and mathematics literacy for all students (Bybee, 1997).
A Perspective for Curriculum
Most would agree that curriculum has a significant role in systemic reform. Upon further review, however, one often discovers significant variation in the use of the term curriculum. For some, curriculum is a framework or syllabus; for others, it includes instructional materials; and still others, it is the course of study. Curriculum may include what some intend, what teachers teach, or what students learn. Here, I will try to clarify what I mean by curriculum. The science and mathematics curriculum includes a series of constructed relationships among conceptual schemes, procedural strategies, and contextual factors; that is, the concepts, methods, and topics that define the respective disciplines of science and mathematics. Compared to commonly used definitions (Jackson, 1992), my definition presents a broader and more systemic view that includes the fundamental concepts of disciplines, the actions and behaviors teachers and learners, the various technologies of education, and the contexts within which the context and processes of science and mathematics may be learned.
This definition of curriculum includes dimensions of structure, function, and feedback. The structural aspects include the extant relationship among concepts, procedures, and contexts in materials such as textbooks, scope and sequence charts, curriculum frameworks, videodisks, software, and standardized tests. The curriculum structure is what is usually thought of as instructional materials and some refer to it as the intended curriculum. It is rationally thought out, has an organization and by itself is static (Murnane & Raizen, 1988; Cuban, 1992; TIMSS, 1996).
The functional dimension involves the actions and behaviors of teaching. This dimension combines the structure with various ways science and mathematics teachers adapt instructional materials to accommodate myriad classroom situations involving individuals and groups of students. This dimension includes what the classroom teacher contributes to the curriculum including his or her understanding of science and mathematics, the various pedagogical abilities and strategies, and understanding of contexts, such as history and society.
Any viable curriculum in science and mathematics must include feedback. That is, the assessment of student attainment and the opportunities for learners have to develop the understandings and abilities identified in the structural and functional aspects of the curriculum. In one sense this is the achieved curriculum (Murnane & Raizen, 1988) and in another I use the term in a more systemic sense as the results should serve to modify the structural and functional aspects of the curriculum.
A Perspective on Systemic Reform
Despite common use of the terms in educational system and systemic reform, the meaning of systemic is often vague. Systemic perspective requires an understanding of the whole in terms of interacting components (e.g., subsystems), boundaries (e.g., critical factors and leverage points), flow of resources (financial and intellectual resources in education), feedback (e.g., assessment of achievement and opportunities to learn).
Intuitively, most educators recognize the systemic perspective. For example, if one addresses one component such as curriculum they will often point out the necessity of another component such as administrative support. The fact that one can list numerous such instances when one component is juxtaposed to another provides ample evidence of the degree to which there is coordination among components and coherence in the system. I would argue, along with others (Fuhrman, 1993; NCES, 1996), that achieving greater coherence is one of the major challenges facing science and mathematics educators. The good news is that for over a decade we have been preparing for this task through the NSF systemic initiatives and development of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996).
A Strategy for the Curriculum in Systemic Reform
Table 1 identifies a strategy that centers on curriculum and uses a systemic perspective in order to move the community of science and mathematics educators through the period of transition. The following paragraphs address the six points and provide some recommendations. Curriculum reform provides the context for the strategy.
Continuing the Discussion
American education has a long history of large and small innovations that have influenced policies, programs, and practices. Recently we have witnessed numerous such innovations, for example, cooperative learning and performance-based assessment, which hold promise of improving science and mathematics education. Unfortunately, we have also developed a perspective that all such innovations carry the same importance and once we have implemented the new ideas our work is finished. First, the innovations of national standards and systemic reform cannot be equated with other innovations because they are dominant organizers that influence curriculum development and implementation; but they are not the curriculum. The important point here is that we cannot assume that because we have standards and systemic initiatives we are finished. We are not. The steady work of reform is nearer the beginning than the conclusion.
The first step in the proposed strategy is to recognize and accept the fact that reform is a continuing process and to engage each other is a dialogue of central issues of science and mathematics education. I suggest that we begin with discussions that center on our goals.
Table 1. The Role of Curriculum in Systemic Reform: Strategies for State and Local Educators
| Activity | Goal | Central Questions |
| Continuing the Discussion | Avoid the misunderstanding that systemic reform consists of what we have accomplished | Since we are not finished, what do we have to do now? |
| Defining our Goals | Clarify the major goal for curricular reform of science and mathematics | What do we wish to achieve through curriculum reform? |
| Committing to Standards | Define the understandings and abilities that the curriculum should achieve. | What has the nation already agreed that all students should know and be able to do? |
| Deepening Understanding | Challenge and change fundamental misconceptions of science, mathematics, and education. | Have we thought about the role of curriculum in systemic reform? |
| Increasing Coherence | Achieve greater alignment among components of the curriculum and between the curriculum and the educational system. | Is there greater alignment among components of the educational system? |
| Monitoring Progress | Provide feedback about the role of curriculum in systemic reform. | How are we doing so far? What do we have to do now? |
When asked about the purposes of science and mathematics education, we easily answer with slogans such as scientific literacy or politically oriented goals such as being first in the world by the year 2000. We have to ask the second and third questions, what do these terms mean? How are they translated into curriculum, instruction, assessments and teacher preparation and professional development?
I recommend that the community of science and mathematics educators begin with focused discussion of the National Education Goals, specifically Goal 3.
By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including... mathematics, science ... and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy.This goal poses several questions worthy of discussion within our community.
It is time to recognize the place of standards and their significance in guiding decisions about the science and mathematics curriculum. In the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989) we have consensus documents that should inform curriculum decisions. I realize that placing trust in these documents is a major deviation from usual practices. What the community should understand is that the commitment is to students and learning--what all students should know and be able to do--and this defines the core content of the curriculum. Other decisions, including other content, are left to state and local educators and policy makers.
Deepening Understanding
Decisions to improve science and mathematics programs through the design and implementation of curriculum can facilitate discussions that result in deeper understanding of content and pedagogy. These discussions can center on fundamental misunderstandings about standards, curriculum, and systemic reform. I have identified several such misconceptions in Table 2 School personnel can address these, and probably other, misunderstandings through professional development that accompanies curricular reform. I should point out that in this case curriculum has assumed another role in systemic reform; namely, an opportunity for educators to deepen their understanding of science, mathematics, and education.
Increasing Coherence
The November 1996 release of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), in particular the extensive analysis of curriculum that complemented achievement results, clarified a problem in the educational system. I am referring to the lack of coherence among essential components of the system. For example, the content of contemporary instructional materials is not aligned with widely used assessments, teacher preparation and professional development are not aligned with state and local frameworks and practices. Further, some initiatives, such as vouchers, focus attention on issues that vary from the central components that support teachers and teaching and students and learning.
What can be done to make science and mathematics more coherent? My answer centers on the role of curriculum opportunities it provides students to learn the content in National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989). Curriculum provides the concrete and practical entry into systemic reform. However, there must be logical connections and orderly relationships among the instructional materials, teaching practices, and assessment strategies. We need, to use a biological metaphor, a nervous system that coordinates --brings coherence--to basic educational omponents. Such a view proposes standards as a central organizing guide for school science and mathematics programs.
Table 2. Misconceptions About the Role of Curriculum in Standards-Based Systemic Reform
|
Using the national standards in this manner leaves considerable latitude for state and local decision making. I will restate an earlier point. These documents thoroughly elaborate what all students should know and be able to do. In a systemic perspective, they define the systems or student outcomes and the content of the curriculum. Educators and communities can make decisions about the way content is organized, emphasized, presented, and assessed.
Monitoring Progress
My final step in the strategy seems obvious. We need to monitor our progress and provide feedback among various components of the system. Our usual approach emphasizes assessment of student learning. Many states have implemented assessments, at the national level we have the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and at the international level we have TIMSS . A very important complement to assessments of student achievement is the evaluation of opportunities students have had to learn the valued content.
Conclusion
Curriculum has a very important role is systemic reform. Many educators have the natural inclination to identify curriculum as a critical leverage point for improving student learning. Although I support this view, I have argued that reform requires a more systematic approach, one that centers on standards and sets in process a strategy that attends to the varied components and their interactions in the educational system.
References
Bybee, R. W. (Ed.). (1996). National standards and the science curriculum: Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In Philip W. Jackson, Ed., Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.Fuhrman, S. H. (Ed.) (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gabel, D. T. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning New York: Macmillan
Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum renewal Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Goodlad, J. I., & Zhixin, S. (1992) Organization of the curriculum. In Philip W. Jackson, Ed., Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
Jackson, P. W. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
Murnane, R., & Raizen, S. (1988). Improving indicators of the quality of science and mathematics education in grades K-12. Washington, DC: National Academy Press..
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996, November). Pursuing excellence. NCES 97-198. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (NRC). (1996). National science education standards Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.