The basic concepts of evolutionary theory are contained in the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1966) as well as those of the various states. For example, in the table below we show the alignment between the "big ideas" of evolution and the science standards for three states: Massachusetts, Missouri, and Texas. The “learning progressions” in the second column are adapted from the Atlas of Scientific Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2007), while the quotes in the third column are from the Massachusetts Science Framework; we also index in that column the corresponding standards from the Missouri “Show-Me” Standards and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills Standards.
Beginner Level
| Big Idea | Learning Progression | MA Science Framework |
|---|---|---|
| Basic needs of organisms | Plants and animals need air and water; plants also need light and nutrients; animals also need food and shelter. | “Identify the ways in which an organism’s habitat provides for its basic needs.” See also MO Science K-4: VII.B.2, TEKS Grade 4:5.A&B |
| Organisms and their environment | For any particular environment, some kinds of organisms survive well, some less well, and some cannot survive at all. | “Identify the structures in plants and animals that enable them to survive in an environment.” See also MO Science K-4: VII.A.2, TEKS Grade 4:8.A |
| Interspecific differences | Plants and animals have different life cycles that include being born, developing into adults, reproducing, and dying. | “Classify plants/animals according the physical characteristics that they share.” See also MO Science K-4: VII.C.1 |
| Basic needs of species | Groups of organisms can survive even though every individual in the group eventually dies. | “Give examples of how changes in the environment have caused some organisms to die.” See also TEKS Grade 4:8.B |
| Interactions between species | Organisms with similar needs compete with each one another for resources. | “Investigate how invasive species out-compete native ones.” See also MO Science K-4: VII.A.2, TEKS Grade 4:8.B |
| Intra-specific differences | Individuals of the same species may differ. | “Observe differences between organisms.” See also MO Science K-4: VII.E.2, TEKS Grade 4:8.A |
| Heritability of traits | Offspring are usually very much, but not exactly, like their parents. | “Differentiate between inherited and other characteristics.” See also MO Science K-4: VII.D.2, TEKS Grade 4:8.C |
Intermediate Level
| Big Idea | Learning Progression | State Learning Standards |
|---|---|---|
| Basic needs of species | For a species to survive, the individual organisms in it must reproduce fast enough to replace the ones that die out. | “Describe how organisms meet their needs by using behaviors in response to stimuli received from the environment.” See also MO Science 5-8: VII.C.1&2, TEKS Grade 5:5.A |
| Interactions between species | Every animal species depends on another species, plant or animal, for food. | “Give examples of how organisms can cause changes in their environment to ensure their survival.” See also MO Science 5-8: VII.E.2, TEKS Grade 5:5.B |
| Intra-specific differences | Differences between individuals in a species may give some an advantage in surviving and reproducing. | “Give examples of how inherited characteristics may change over time as adaptations to changes in the environment that enables organisms to survive.” See also MO Science 5-8: VII.E.1&3, TEKS Grade 5:10.B |
| Heritability of traits | Some traits of organisms are inherited from their parents; others are learned or acquired. | “Recognize that every organism requires a set of instructions that specifies its traits.” See also TEKS Grade 5:10.A |
Advanced Level
| Big Idea | Learning Progression | State Learning Standards |
|---|---|---|
| Heritability of traits | Heritable characteristics can affect the likelihood that an organism will survive and reproduce | “Relate the extinction of species to a mismatch of adaptation and the environment.” See also MO Science 5-8: VII.E.4, TEKS Grade 7.10.C |
| Genetics | Heritable traits are transmitted from parents to offspring via different forms of genes, called alleles. | “Recognize that hereditary information is contained in genes located in the chromosomes of each cell.” See also TEKS Grade 7.10.C |
| Survival of fittest individuals in an ecosystem | Offspring of advantaged individuals are more likely than others to survive and reproduce, increasing the proportion of organisms that have advantageous traits. | “Recognize that biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations.” MO Science 5-8: VII.E.4, TEKS Grade 7.10.B |
The word "model" means a lot of different things to different people. A model airplane looks like a real airplane, only smaller; a paper airplane flies like a real airplane, only not as far or as fast. Both are models, neither is the kind of model I have in mind.
For the purposes of this discussion I'm defining a model as a description of a phenomenon in terms of things that can't be seen, felt, or heard, but that explain what's going on. Models may involve things that are too small to be seen, or too big; processes that take place too slowly or too fast. The plate tectonics model, for instance, informs us that the Himalayas are being formed, even as we speak, by the earth crumpling like a car fender, as India crashes (rather slowly, to be sure) into Asia.
Science is all about models of this kind, and an important goal of science education -- and of the Concord Consortium -- is to give students some examples of models and show them how to use those models to make predictions, to guide experimentation, and generally to make sense out of their own and other people's observations and experiments. Scientific models are constantly subject to revision as new experiments are performed, new data collected, and new interpretations advanced to explain existing data. It is important, therefore, that we teach our students about this process as well, giving them the sense that science is perpetually a work in progress, rather than a set of unchanging "facts."Take, for example, the theory of evolution, a model that systematizes the description of an enormous body of data in terms of three simple propositions:
Genetics is only one example - evolution depends critically on models drawn from many other sciences. Geological models of the age of fossil-bearing rocks, critical to giving evolution theorists enough time for the hypothesized processes to take place, bear directly on the feasibility of the evolution model. So do models of mutation rates in different organisms, which themselves depend on models of the environment in which those organisms lived a long time ago. And the burgeoning new science of genomics, by comparing DNA sequences across present-day species, gives us the ability to trace the evolution of those species with a precision that Darwin could never have imagined.
All this interdependency makes evolution a particularly fragile model, as its opponents often point out. The discovery of a single errant fossil,* like the human footprint supposedly found amid dinosaur tracks, could in principle bring the entire elaborate edifice crashing down. But its very fragility confers on the evolution model its extraordinary power. Evolution is fragile because it is so broadly applicable. In providing a model for how the multitude of species arose on this planet, it feeds into and constrains dozens of other models. It is powerful, in other words, for precisely the same reason that it is fragile.
*For an in-depth discussion of this issue try http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to figure out how much money it would take to actually conduct good research about math and science education interventions: textbooks, computer software, supplementary materials, etc? Certainly hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps billions. Where is that money going to come from? Nowhere fast--at least not anytime soon.
And where is the money to develop and test new instructional materials? Especially significantly different, technology-based interventions.
This whole topic of “evidence-based practice” would require a book, or two or three. (And of course there are some that are at least related.) The No Child Left Behind Act actually defines “scientifically-based research,” which is a very strange idea. (Can you imagine the Congress defining medical research?). And the same Act also requires (strong language) that billions of dollars of federal monies be used only for proven ("scientifically-based") practices. Of course, that "requirement" is impossible to adhere to, partly because the evidence base is so weak. (Not to mention the Reading First scandal, in which it was discovered that the manager of the $1 billion federal Reading First program was biased for some programs and against others, independent of the research.)
Then there’s the whole question of appropriate outcome measures. Take the goal of teaching students to write well. There is now evidence (a) that if you teach students using a word processor (and other technology tools) they write better and (b) if you test students with paper and pencil those who have learned to write with a computer may be disadvantaged. Virtually all writing in the real world, especially of any length, is now done with computers. But very few students are tested that way--yet.
Contemplating the government’s decision to invest more than $400 million in the What Works Clearinghouse should give one pause. Is this a wise investment? What do you think?
The Colombian Ministry of Education and three regional secretaries of education (Turbo, Atlántico, and La Guajira) have worked in collaboration with the Concord Consortium and Metacursos to offer the CONGENIA pilot project. CONGENIA is the Spanish acronym for “Genuine conversations about topics important to learn.” This project is co-sponsored by the Colombian government and USAID through the dotEDU project. This project has been implemented in three regions where there is a critical need to improve the quality of education. Results from “Pruebas Saber,” a set of standardized tests that measures basic education competences of all 4th and 8th graders in Colombia, show in 2005 that students in the selected regions perform below national and state averages. Other indicators, such as retention and promotion rates are also in the “red” zone. To address this issue, three teachers colleges and fifteen elementary schools with computers and a connection to the Internet were selected to participate in the project. The CONGENIA project has offered teacher professional development with a combination of online and onsite interaction between participating teachers and facilitators—blended learning environments—to help teachers reflect on their practices and to coach them in the introduction of changes that lead to the solution of critical educational problems in their institutions.
Effectiveness of teacher professional development (TPD) goes beyond participation of teachers in events that seek to increase their competencies as educators. It needs to produce positive changes in the way they teach and their students learn. CONGENIA thus added another dimension to the blend: we integrated work, learning, and training by fostering technology-based local and global communities of practice over an 18-month period, beginning in July 2005.
CONGENIA invited participating teachers to videotape classroom sessions at the beginning and at an advanced stage of the project in order to reflect on their own teaching practices, to share their thoughts in face-to-face and online forums, and to discover and record changes in methods. Each teacher selected at least one episode from his/her classroom. Teachers at participating schools shared their teaching episodes and discussed them locally. Additionally, distributed study groups of elementary teachers discussed issues related to content areas, relevant literature reviews, and current video-documented practices in the three regions in a blended format.
Participation in both local and global communities of practice helped teachers understand the meaning of “genuine conversations,” a core concept in CONGENIA. When they viewed their own classroom video episodes, teachers discovered that their classes were teacher-centered and that conversations with students were mostly didactic. Online and face-to-face workshops helped teachers realize that project- and inquiry-based learning strategies could foster student participation and allow teachers to become co-learners, willing to listen to student thinking and able to build knowledge collaboratively.
CONGENIA has been an occasion to rethink teacher preparation and TPD strategies in participating teacher colleges. It also has been a way of making synergies in participating elementary schools between continuing TPD and institutional efforts that seek to improve the quality of the education provided to students.
Blended communities and blended learning environments have accomplish their function in CONGENIA. The experience—as documented by teachers in institutional video cases—is very positive. It is now time to expand this successful initiative to other regions.
Concord, MA, November 20
Jessica Vascellaro writes (August 31) that some parents are saying no to school laptops. That's hardly news, because in districts with tens of thousands of students parents have a variety of opinions. But Ms. Vascellaro chose to focus on the negative. Research shows that students who learn to write using word processors become better writers, and students in laptop programs are more engaged in school. She did not write that Henrico County, VA commissioned public opinion polls showing overwhelming support for their laptop program from parents, teachers, administrators, and students. Nor did the article mention that two successive governors have strongly supported Maine's laptop program, as have Maine legislators and the public. It is a disservice to readers to ignore the substantial body of good news about laptop programs.
Andy Zucker Cambridge, MA
Bob Tinker, The Concord Consortium, August 4, 2006
The central problem in science education is the poor performance of pre-college students. We know how to improve this: create innovative, research-based curricula and provide teacher professional development based on these materials. We do not need fundamental research in learning, a massive teacher recruitment program, or motivational awards. What is needed is to enrich what is going on in classrooms with better materials, more technology, and better-prepared teachers. This could be accomplished within the current NSF education budget by changing priorities and coordinating grantees.
The total request NSF funding for 2007 is $6,020M, up 7.9% from the 2006 budget (source: AAAS). Of this, almost 13.6% is in the Education and Human Resources division, a total of $816M, which is up by 2.5% from last year but down 20% from the 2004 budget in real terms. In addition, research funding from other divisions often include education, so the total education funding is more. It would not be inaccurate to claim that the NSF is spending about a billion dollars annually on science education. It is important, however, to avoid being complacent about this investment, because very little of this funding is being used to address the crisis in pre-college science education. The funding is spent on a broad portfolio of projects that each appears to be sensible and well meaning, but fail to impact K12 classroom practice.
Many science research projects include a small percentage for education, perhaps 5% of the total budget. These are often very low quality, “feel good” efforts undertaken by scientists who are not well versed in educational research and development. A typical educational program in a research project involves assigning a science graduate student to create an educational web page, teach some classes, post some lessons, or engage some teachers in the funded research. The thinking behind such programs is that the presence of scientists will greatly improve educational practice. This is a myth (see: http://www.nationalacademies.org/rise/backg2a.htm). Efforts of this sort will not contribute significantly to the crisis in science education.
“A concise summary of [the last 100 years of science] is that atoms and molecules are 85% of physics, 100% of chemistry and 90% of modern molecular biology,” says Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman, and, he contends, there is an urgent need to revise secondary science curriculum to reflect this reality. What is needed is a “Physics First” curriculum, which involves switching the secondary science sequence from biology-chemistry-physics to physics-chemistry-biology.
But simply changing the order is not enough. Most PCB curricula offer a simplified traditional physics course followed by standard chemistry and biology courses. For the new sequence to benefit learning, the basic physics of atoms and molecules needs to be introduced early so that chemistry can take advantage of these concepts. Similarly, biology needs to leverage student understanding of atomic-scale physics and chemistry to address key introductory molecular biology concepts.
Every teacher or administrator with whom we have communicated about these reforms has complained about the lack of appropriate curriculum materials addressing the science of atoms and molecules. Textbook publishers are eyeing the market, but the development of three new coordinated texts is expensive, so they are waiting. It is likely that many schools are dissuaded from implementing secondary science reform by the lack of appropriate materials.
The Molecular Workbench models of the atomic world can provide the missing content, allowing students to experience an otherwise inaccessible world and build mental models that can be used to understand and predict macroscopic phenomena. Student explorations of these models can lead to a good understanding of connections between atomic-scale events and those events that they can observe at the macroscopic scale.
There are hundreds of models that can be accessed at http://mw.concord.org. Tested units based on these can be found at http://molo.concord.org. Over the next year, we plan to adapt these to provide the content that will make Physics First far more effective.
Do you have experience with Physics First? Are you considering it? Do you think these models can help?
Dr. Gale Sinatra of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, gave a brown bag lunch at CC on the topic of using beliefs and dispositions to make judgements about scientific theories.
Summary
A Little Knowledge Can be a Dangerous Thing: Using Beliefs and Dispositions to Make Judgments about Scientific Theories
In our work on epistemological beliefs and acceptance of biological evolution (Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, Demastes, 2003; Sinatra & Southerland, 2002; Southerland, Sinatra, & Matthews, 2001) we have argued that learning about evolution involves epistemic conceptual change. That is, conceptual change in the domain of science involves a change in students' beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. In this presentation, I will present the results of three studies investigating the relationship between knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and acceptance of scientific explanations of phenomena. Students with high and low levels of biology knowledge will be compared in terms of their acceptance of scientific theories and their epistemological beliefs and dispositions. The results of all three studies show that students' who view knowledge as changing and who hold a more open-minded disposition toward change, report greater acceptance of the scientific view of human evolution. We posit that epistemic conceptual change is a result of increasing appreciation of the epistemic and ontological assumptions of the nature of science. I conclude with a description of a "nested" view of conceptual change as involving cognitive and affective change. Finally, challenges for research and instruction are discussed.
Take part in an Arctic expedition this summer -- in comfort! Ed Hazzard, a former physics teacher and part of a team at the Concord Consortium that develops innovative uses of technology for science teaching, is traveling on a 45' wooden sailboat around the perimeter of Baffin Bay during July and August. Ed will make observations and take simple measurements, using tools that could be used in classrooms at a relatively modest cost. A blog is located at http://arctic.concord.org. Carolyn Staudt, his liaison at CC, will suggest parallel activities that students could do in their own regions.
The crew of four will leave from Nova Scotia on July 10, travel to Newfoundland, up the west coast of Greenland, down the east coast of Baffin Island and Labrador, and back to Nova Scotia by September 1. Ed signed on as the cook, but he couldn't resist doing some science along the way. He will log ocean temperature, salinity, zooplankton, and weather, and post sound files, data, and pictures at the blog.
Onset Computer Corporation, the maker of Hobo dataloggers for industry and education, is donating some of the data-collecting equipment. Rich Marvin, the iScienceProject Program Manager at Onset, is excited about this chance to tie real field measurements to discussions of global climate change. Teachers who want to try parallel weather and water measurements and write their own activities can obtain free dataloggers from Hobo. (http://www.iscienceproject.com/)
Several Concord Consortium staff members including Janice Gobert, Paul Horwitz and Barbara Buckley, are attending the 7th annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences this week in Bloomington, Indiana. They are running a full day workshop on Monday entitled "Authoring, Assessment & Open Source: Implications for Research and Classroom Application."
This workshop will present several complementary educational technologies that support science learning through curriculum authoring and delivery, scaffolded student activities, and the logging and reporting of student interactions for purposes of research and assessment. Participants will have hands-on experience with authoring environments that allow the design of highly interactive curriculum, fine-grained data logs and reports, and scalable portal functionality. These technologies take advantage of open source models to support dynamic communities of exchange.
Dr. William Barnett of the Chicago Field Museum gave a brown bag lunch at CC on the topic of Museums and Technology.
Summary
Museums have a great public value that is intrinsic to our society. Museums, however, are traditional organizations, many dating back intellectually to the age of discovery. Natural history museums are still perceived by the American populace as 'Dead Zoos' of collections. The rapid development of online content, portable technologies, and changing modes of public information consumption and creation have been a challenge for our traditional delivery of informal education and entertainment. Museums can best respond by understanding the impact on these trends for knowledge providers, rethinking their role in creating public value, and by strategic partnerships with other organizations.
Update: The TEEMSS2 Unit 0 Activities have been superceded by the CC DIY
Please use that system instead of the one mentioned further in the article
The TEEMSS2 project has released the first prototype release of a web application which allows anyone to create and deploy simple probeware activities that work with six different probeware vendor-interface combinations. Try it the activity microportal here:
Here's a link to a very simple temperature probe activity:
Simplest possible temperature activity
If you want to change the probeware vendor-interface go to this page and select your probeware vendor-interface in the pull-down menu on the right and then click Save. Then Run any of the activities on the microportal again.
Select probeware vendor-interface
If you want to change the activity instead open this page on the microportal, make your changes, click Save and then click Run.
Edit: Simplest possible temperature activity
The web application supports authoring of simple probeware applications. After authoring the activity is made available as a Java webstart application built on the SensorPortfolio technology developed in the TEEMSS2 project.
Here is a list of the vendors-interface combinations that you can select.
Fourier Ecolog
The Fourier EcoLog has several built-in sensors, can read external Fourier sensors, and communicates via usb.
Data Harvest Easysense Q
The Data Harvest EasySense Q works with all the Data Harvest sensors and communicates via usb.
Pasco Science Workshop 500
The Pasco Science Workshop 500 has four input ports for connecting older Pasco sensors and communicates to your computer via a serial port.
Pasco Airlink SI
The Pasco AirLink Si uses PASPORT sensors and communicates to your computer via Bluetooth wireless networking.
Texas Instruments CBL2
The Texas Instruments CBL2 works with TI sensors and communicates via usb.
Vernier Go!IO
Vernier's usb Go!Link interface works with many Vernier sensors. The Go! Temp and Go!Motion sensors have a Go!Link interfaces integrated into the sensor. Simulated Data Use the Simulated Data interface when you have no probeware to attach to your computer but you still want to test your activity.
Robert Tinker, CC's president, writes about the lack of Educational Innovations in our Spring 2006 @Concord newsletter:
Education cannot thrive without innovation, but effective innovations do not just happen. They need to be based on solid ideas, they need to be developed by a talented team with diverse skills, and they need to be widely disseminated…
He compares the way that Education funding is done to other large-scale projects like those of NASA, concluding:
Our radically decentralized system is duplicative and inefficient. When pushed by standards and possible sanctions, it may be able to do some things adequately, such as basic literacy and numeracy, but it fails in science and math education because these areas are complex, ever changing, and difficult to teach.