Contemplating criteria for science education reform: The case of the Olympia school district

School Science and Mathematics, Nov 1998 by Tippins, Deborah, Weiseman, Katherine, Nichols, Sharon E

The language of SCC members was constitutive. Thus the ways in which they asked questions and engaged in the curriculum reform discourse both constrained and enabled the way in which they displayed what they knew. These multiple discourses, individual and collective, personal and professional, contributed to a sense of confusion and was considered by some SCC members to be problematic.

Implications for Science Education Research and Reform

In many respects, this study is but a chapter in an ongoing and dynamic account of science curriculum reform; the researchers continue to reflect in and on our interpretation of the Olympia story. In practical terms, the role of discourse plays an integral role in reform. Perceiving documents such as Frameworks as a resource to mediate the development of a shared language can have a powerful role in reform. In the study, the use of a questionnaire served as a heuristic tool to explore how participants perceived their status in the reform community. The varied perspectives of stakeholders must be considered in terms of how they come to view their roles and goals in the reform process. Curriculum reform, when viewed as an ongoing process of negotiation and not merely a set of tasks contrived to enact a political agenda, must provide substantial opportunity for such tools and dialogue to dialectically inform decision making and action.

As themes continue to emerge, they shed light on dilemmas mediating the overall reform process-a process whose very nature is characterized by incongruent philosophies, differential stances, and value systems. We are constantly reminded that reforming science education is not just an issue of improving existing classroom practices through curriculum change. As Kyle (1991) notes, "`where we are' in science education must be investigated in the context of `where we are' in reconceptualizing schooling in general" (p. 407).

References

Berryman, S. E. (1993).Learning forthe workplace. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 343-404). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1990). Teacher as supervisor of complex technology. Theory Into Practice, 29(2), 78-84.

Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(4), 247-266. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. (pp. 119-161). New York: MacMillan Publishing.

Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/ reconstructing practice: Developing new understandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(5/6), 485-498.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Uses of interpretive research in science education. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Interpretive Research in Science Education. (pp. 3-18). National Association for Research in Science Teaching Monograph No. 4.