Success of the Sputnik Curriculum Materials

Success of the Sputnik Curriculum Materials: 

Success of the Sputnik Curriculum Materials Excerpts from The Sputnik Era: Why is this Educational Reform Different from All Other Reforms? Rodger W. Bybee, National Research Council

Why Reformers of the Sputnik Era Did Not Fail: 

Why Reformers of the Sputnik Era Did Not Fail Educational reform is not a pass or fail phenomenon. Every reform effort contributes to the overall development and continuous improvement of the educational system. The educational community and the public learn from the experience.

Can Reform Ever Fail?: 

Can Reform Ever Fail? Many hold the misconception that a particular reform will, once and for all time, fix our educational problems. Although the reformers made mistakes and the programs had weaknesses . . . the approaches they used the groups they formed the programs they developed have all had a positive and lasting influence on American education.

Lasting Effects of Reform: 

Lasting Effects of Reform The new programs were being used extensively. Commercial textbooks had incorporated these approaches. In the academic year 1976/77 almost 60% of school districts in the U.S. were using one or more of the federally funded programs in grades 7-12; and 30% of school districts reported using at least one program in elementary schools.

Research Support: 

Research Support Reviews of the effects of science curricula on student performance indicated that the programs were successful, (i.e., student achievement was higher in Sputnik-era programs than with traditional curriculum) especially in the BSCS programs.

Secondary Outcome of Sputnik Era: 

Secondary Outcome of Sputnik Era Birth of educational groups specializing in development of instructional materials. Some of the groups continue today, for example, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Lawrence Hall of Sciences, and Educational Development Center. Further, new groups that serve a similar educational function have emerged since the Sputnik era, for example the National Science Resources Center (NSRC) and Technical Education Resources Center (TERC).

Direct Classroom Influence: 

Direct Classroom Influence Many of the classroom activities and lessons developed during Sputnik that infuse science and mathematics education are still widely used. For example, the ESS program produced activities on “Batteries and Bulbs” and “Mystery Powders.” These, and many other are used in classrooms, undergraduate teacher education, and professional development workshops. Many ESS,SCIS and SAPA activities have been adapted and hold prominent spots in activity-based curriculum such as Delta and Foss.

In 1978, a researcher identified three innovations of the curriculum reform movement that had been integrated into mainstream commercially published textbooks during the 1960s and 1970s.: 

In 1978, a researcher identified three innovations of the curriculum reform movement that had been integrated into mainstream commercially published textbooks during the 1960s and 1970s. 1 Subject matter content was updated and redistributed to more accurately reflect the current state of a scientific discipline 2 Content was organized around a few conceptual schemes that are central to understanding a scientific discipline, and 3 An activity-oriented approach was being used in science education textbooks. http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/deboer.htm

Barriers to Implementing New Activity-based Curriculum (listed by teachers): 

Barriers to Implementing New Activity-based Curriculum (listed by teachers) Teachers do not like science &/or are not trained in science. There is a heavy reliance on the textbook. There is a lack of time to adequately prepare for science activities. Teachers don’t hear about new programs. Science supervisors are not available to help teachers. Lack of equipment and $$ to purchase supplies. No materials storage space. Science is not valued by elementary teachers or their administrators.

What Have We Learned?: 

What Have We Learned? 1. Replacement of school science and mathematics programs is difficult at best, and probably impossible. 2. Reluctance of teachers increases as the innovations vary from current programs and practices and they lack political, social, and educational support.

What Else Have We Learned?: 

What Else Have We Learned? 3. Exclusion of those in the larger science and mathematics education community (e.g., teacher educators, science education researchers, and the public) contributed to the slow acceptance and implementation of the programs, reduced understanding by those entering the profession, and afforded less than adequate professional development for teachers in the classroom. 4. Support from federal agencies and national foundations freed developers from the political and educational constraints of state and local agencies and the power and influence of commercial publishers. Because of this, realities of state and local school districts went unrecognized.

General Lessons Learned from Sputnik about Science Education Reform (Roger Bybee): 

General Lessons Learned from Sputnik about Science Education Reform (Roger Bybee) Use what we know about educational change Include all the key players in the educational community Align policies, programs, and practices with the stated purposes of education Work on improving education for all students, and Attend to the support and continuous professional development of classroom teachers, since they are the most essential resource in the system of science and mathematics education. http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/bybee4.htm