This article is brought to you compliments of: HIS BOARD -- (805) 652-1478 Sysop: Bob Harr

This article is brought to you compliments of:
    
     HIS BOARD -- (805) 652-1478
          Sysop: Bob Harris



{CSA PATH FOR EXCELLENCE IN K-6 SCIENCE

by Richard B. Bliss, Ed.D.

The advent of home-school and Christian-school education brings 
with it a challenge for excellence in science education.  It 
seems that the door of opportunity is wide open for curricular 
excellence in science to be brought into a God-centered context.  
There is, at the fingertips of every parent and Christian school 
teacher, an opportunity that transcends anything that public 
education has to offer children at this time.

        Today we hear leaders in education claiming that they are 
ready to try new approaches in educating young people. 
Nevertheless, in spite of all these new efforts, there is turmoil 
in the teachers' camp.(1)  Former Education Secretary William 
Bennett says the nation's education system "is getting a little 
better, but it is nowhere near where it should be."(2)  It seems 
apparent that, by every standard for quality science education, 
the average classroom is found wanting.(3)

        Whether in the public school classroom, the Christian 
school classroom, or in the living room of those courageous 
parents who are teaching their children at home, the evidence 
appears to indicate that fewer students, tending to bring the 
instructor closer to the learner, is certainly a part of the 
answer.  A smaller class size not only offers a more 
"individualized" approach, but it appears to be the most 
productive approach to science education and education in 
general.  In view of the studies that are on record, it also 
appears that both the Christian school classroom and the home 
school classroom have a distinct advantage in producing the 
better-educated product for this world in which we live.  The 
question is, are they capitalizing on this advantage and 
producing this better product in science education?  A secular-
based survey of 58,728 high school students showed that the 
students believed Christian schools are better because academic 
standards are higher, there is stricter discipline, and there is 
greater dedication to the teaching profession than is generally 
found in public education.(4)

        The following is what we should NOT expect, according to 
the best research in science education:

1. that science courses would be nothing more than a repetition 
   of facts;
2. that science courses would be nothing more than history 
   courses;(5)
3. that science courses would not provide activity-oriented 
   hands-on experiences.

Clearly, this kind of science curriculum does nothing to develop 
critical-thinking skills in the student at the elementary level.  
Also, there is ample evidence that science, as now taught in many 
elementary classrooms (repetition science), does not carry over 
into real life.(6)

        On the other hand, what SHOULD we expect from Christian 
education, according to the most current research on methods in 
science education?

1. that science courses should develop the necessary skills in 
   the critical-thinking process, as well as the skills of 
   scientific inquiry;
2. that science courses would be developed through activity-
   oriented curricula;
3. that science courses would be challenging to the students on 
   the higher taxonomic levels of learning, such as analysis, 
   synthesis, and evaluation (note diagram of Bloom's Taxonomy);
4. that science education would incorporate math, reading, and 
   writing, and be generally interdisciplinary;
5. that our science courses and accompanying curricula would be 
   clearly centered on the attributes of God.

        Considering the five foregoing statements of expectations 
for good science education, what should we be doing in the 
Christian and home school classroom that will not only bring 
about the highest quality of science education, but, of necessity 
(we don't have tax-based funding), bring this education about in 
a financially reasonable context?

        CONSIDERING THE FIRST STATEMENT, what objectives should 
the Christian and home school teacher have that will develop 
critical thinking skills?  From current thinking, it appears that 
these skills should be basic to all education practices.  The 
skills to which we refer are often divided into three general 
sequential categories:

1.  THE ENABLING SKILLS, such as PERCEIVING (observing-comparing-
    contrasting), CONCEIVING (grouping-labeling-classification-
    categorizing), SERIATING (ordering-sequencing-patterning-
    prioritizing);
2.  THE PROCESS SKILLS, such as ANALYZING (fact/opinion-
    relevant/irrelevant information-reliable and unreliable 
    sources), QUESTIONING, and INFERRING (meaning of statements-
    cause and effect-generalization-predictions-assumptions-point 
    of view);
3.  THE OPERATIONAL SKILLS, such as LOGICAL REASONING and 
    EVALUATION.  Placing all of these skills together in the 
    learning process ultimately results in CRITICAL THINKING.(7)

Critical thinking is creative, and leads to higher levels in the 
thought process.  In this respect, critical thinking should be 
the aim of all Christian educators who are looking for quality-
curriculum development.  Critical thought also requires the 
keenest thinking process, and therefore resides at the higher 
levels of learning.(8)  In science education, we can reach these 
goals through the process skills of scientific inquiry.

        THE SECOND STATEMENT is that science courses should 
develop skills of scientific inquiry through activity-oriented 
curricula.  Reading about and repeating what the scientist does 
is not the way to develop an operational (working) understanding 
of the skills of scientific inquiry.  Repeating an experiment 
that has prescribed correct answers offers the pupil no 
opportunity to think creatively about what he has observed; 
therefore, the key to developing inquiry skills, in an 
OPERATIONAL sense, seems to reside largely in open-ended science 
activities.  For the student, this means that he will make key 
observations in the physical and life sciences, and then answer, 
"I-wonder-why?" types of questions.  The freedom to explore leads 
to further discovery, and, in the process, develops the crucial 
skills of scientific inquiry and critical thought.

        THE THIRD STATEMENT is that science courses should be 
challenging to the pupil.  Motivation in science, or any other 
subject matter, is predicated on making the learning challenging 
and relevant.  This can be done through enthusiastic instruction 
and challenging activities in the real world.  The excitement of 
observing real live guppies and plants in the aquarium is highly 
motivating for a first-grade pupil.  Working with living 
communities, ecosystems, electricity, and models is equally 
exciting for 5th and 6th graders.  The observations the pupil 
makes help in developing critical thinking when attacking the "I-
wonder-why?" questions.  The same is true in the physical 
sciences, when the pupil is dealing with objects, properties, 
interactions, systems, etc.  Furthermore, a "scope and sequence" 
for science that is developed around general concepts of science 
(environments, energy sources, ecosystems, systems, etc.) is more 
likely to develop challenging inquiry experiences that are more 
in tune with the real world.(9)  For example, studying about 
astronomy, the atom, geology, human anatomy, etc., offers 
excellent ancillary reading for the student, and should be 
included in the total education package; however, none of these 
specific topics offer much, if any, opportunity for open inquiry 
in the K-6 curricula.

        THE FOURTH STATEMENT is that those in Christian schools 
and home school education should expect science education to be 
INTERDISCIPLINARY and in context with the total learning process.  
We should avoid the idea that science is somehow separate from 
reading, writing, and arithmetic.  Making use of the excitement 
of scientific observations, pupils can be challenged to read, 
write, do math, and respond orally to the activities in which 
they are engaged.  In this manner, science should become part and 
parcel of the whole curriculum.  Scientific studies have shown 
that an interdisciplinary approach to science education in K-6 
enhances success for the pupil in key areas of learning.  In 
recent studies reported by the National Science Supervisors 
Association, we see reading in the content area of science 
showing a statistically significant gain in short and long-term 
recall.(1)  There are additional studies that clearly show the 
advantages of using the "process skills approach to scientific 
inquiry" (note the diagram above) as a significant aid in 
developing reading readiness and math readiness.(11)

        THE FIFTH STATEMENT is that we in Christian education 
should expect our science courses and accompanying curricula to 
be clearly centered on the attributes of God.  Science has 
"built-in" qualities that make the inquiry approach particularly 
adaptable to this curriculum imperative.  The frustrations of 
science, when attempting to get at first causes in the question 
of origins, are eliminated when we accept the clear and tested 
historicity of Scripture; therefore, this must be a mandate for 
any God-centered curriculum.  Creation will become an integral 
part of learning, when the K-6 child explores the handiwork of 
God.

        The path for excellence in science education in the home 
school and Christian school classroom is clear and available.  
The new curriculum, "Good Science for the Home School and 
Christian School,"(12) appears to offer this path in a realistic 
way.

Dr. Bliss is Director of ICR's Curriculum Development Division.

REFERENCES

1.  EDUCATION WEEK, Vol. VII, No. 26, March 23, 1988.
2.  EDUCATION WEEK, Vol. VII, No. 29, April 13, 1988.
3.  "What Works."  Research About Teaching and Learning, U.S. 
Dept. of Education, 1986.
4.  1. James Coleman, (Survey 58,728 High School Students), 
National Center for Education Statistics, University of Chicago, 
1982.
5.  The Spirit of Science, Thomas M. Weiss, NARST, Vol. 53, No. 
4.
6.  Evaluation of the Use of Science: A Process Approach with 
Pre-School Age Children: Jerry Ayers, NARST, Vol. 53, No. 4, 
October 1969.
7.  PROJECT IMPACT, Orange County Dept. of Education, December 
1982.
8.  Bloom, Benjamin S. (ed.) TAXONOMY OF EDUCATION OBJECTIVES 
(New York: Longmans Green, 1956).
9.  From SCIS to PELE: Herbert D. Their, Science Education, 
65(1): 105-113 (1981) John Wiley and Sons Inc.
10. Reading in the Content Area of Science, Thomas M. Fisher, 
NSSA Summer Issue, p. 6, 1987.
11. Teaching Science in the Elementary School, "Total 
Conservations by Task Using Inquiry Based SCIS Approach," John 
Renner, Don Stafford, William Ragan, Harper & Row, 1973, pp. 88, 
89.
12. Bliss, Richard, GOOD SCIENCE UNDER THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, 
Master Books, 1988.


{PB