The Death of Science? What We Risk in Our Rush
Toward Standardized Testing and the Three R's

The authors raise an important question: Will standardized testing -- or, more accurately, the politicization of the "standards" movement -- snuff out the promise of inquiry-based methods for American science education?

By Olaf Jorgenson and Rick Vanosdall

FROM THE post-Sputnik panic of the 1960s to the landmark Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) of 1997, America's lackluster performance in science education has served as a catalyst for education reform. For more than 30 years, teachers, administrators, researchers, and corporate leaders concerned about the future of science instruction in America have contributed to significant improvements in science curricula and instructional methodology.

Today, a model of science education exists that is founded on successful practice and validated by profound achievement gains. It has begun to attract the attention of school systems nationwide. Referred to in varying forms as "inquiry" or "inquiry-based" science, this approach is increasingly associated with a growing network of science resource centers operating as part of or in tandem with school systems.

Ironically, even as inquiry methods and science resource centers stand poised to reinvigorate K-12 science education in America, the national movement emphasizing reading, writing, and mathematics instruction, as measured by high-stakes standardized tests, threatens to suppress the effort to make truly revolutionary progress in science education. Teachers and school administrators across the U.S. are facing enormous pressure to improve test scores in the basic skills areas. Consequently, they have been forced to reduce -- or in some cases eliminate -- the amount of class time devoted to science instruction. Such measures will have a devastating long-term impact on science education in America and, subsequently, on the medical, corporate, academic, and industrial sectors that rely on well-educated American science students.

How many of our scientists, researchers, graduate students, and entrepreneurs first found their interest in science sparked by experiences in school? These very experiences are now jeopardized by the "standards" push in many states. With politicians, education critics, and the news media calling for basic skills accountability and with their attention fixated on improved standardized test scores, our nation's scientific future is at risk.

Science Education That Works

More than 35 years ago, Highline School District in Seattle began to experiment with a new way to teach science in elementary school. Rather than have students passively observe while teachers talked about science -- still the way science is taught in more than 80% of America's K-8 schools1 -- this new system enabled the students themselves to perform ready-to-use science experiments from prepackaged kits. Students learned science by doing science, not by reading about science in textbooks or by watching their teachers conduct demonstrations. In the Highline science program, students began to explore and discover collaboratively, rather than just absorb and memorize in the isolation of their desks and texts. Students were allowed to learn over time -- preparing questions, designing experiments, organizing data, and developing conclusions as "real" scientists do -- rather than race through the "mile-wide/inch-deep" material covered in their textbooks. At this early date, the kit-based inquiry science movement was born.

The inquiry approach was founded on the premise that children learn actively, not passively. Students are introduced to science methods and use them to engage in hands-on, "minds-on" activities that inspire them to discover scientific knowledge rather than being told answers by the teacher or textbook. In the inquiry model, teachers serve as guides and lead students through the experiments. Using the inquiry method, "science content is covered in greater depth compared to a superficial traditional textbook approach."2

In elementary schools and increasingly in middle school settings, the materials necessary to engage in inquiry science instruction are provided in kits -- packaged in large, durable boxes -- which are distributed and refurbished by resource centers like Highline's.3 Some centers are operated by individual school districts, while others serve as regional cooperatives for several neighboring school systems. The kits are available through a number of specialized manufacturers. They cover topics in earth, life, space, and physical science and are correlated with the National Science Education Standards. Inquiry-based curricula integrate reading, writing and journaling, math and numeracy skills, technology, and the higher-order problem-solving skills required by scientific investigation.

Today, the National Science Resource Center estimates that 15% to 18% of the nation's K-8 public school systems have pursued training in inquiry-based science through LASER (Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform) workshops.4 Endorsed by the Smithsonian and the National Academy of Sciences and supported by such corporate sponsors as DuPont, Hewlett-Packard, Michelin, and BMW, LASER enables school systems to develop strategic plans for implementing inquiry science programs, which are typically associated with resource centers that prepare, distribute, and refurbish inquiry-based, hands-on kits. Currently, about 250 resource centers operate nationwide, more than 500 schools and school districts in the U.S. have received the LASER inquiry training, and LASER enrollment is increasing steadily.

In addition to Highline, other well-established inquiry-based science programs and science resource centers are now thriving from Anchorage to Fairfax County, Virginia. The testimony of teachers in the Mesa Unified School District over the 25 years that inquiry-based kits for teaching science have been available confirms the popularity and continuing success of the method, as does the success of the district's science students on Advanced Placement exams and in such competitions as the Science Olympiad. Mesa's science program has been recognized as exemplary in Newsweek and the Harvard Educational Review, and Mesa science teachers have received accolades annually -- including a 2000 National Teacher of the Year award and five recent Presidential Awards for Science Teaching.

Inquiry-based science has engaged Mesa students so effectively that, when one junior high school inadvertently listed science as "optional" on a preregistration form several years ago, 96% of the sixth-graders at a feeder school that used inquiry-based science methods signed up for science -- compared with only 4% from another feeder elementary that was then using traditional textbook science methods. (This student enthusiasm for inquiry-based science in Mesa is also being documented in a longitudinal study currently under way at Cal Tech.) After nearly three decades of success, inquiry-based science is a firm component of Mesa's educational philosophy and process.

Drill and Kill: Science Instruction That Doesn't Work

Despite the apparent strength of this integrated approach to teaching and learning science, despite the widespread positive reports from teachers, and despite the increasing numbers of schools and districts that are embracing inquiry-based science instruction, the vast majority of our public schools still rely on the traditional "drill and kill" model of teaching science: students study textbooks, watch videotapes on various topics, answer the questions found at the end of the chapter, and perhaps observe an occasional demonstration performed by the teacher. Ultimately, they display their rote knowledge on a paper-and-pencil test. Year after year, the international comparisons with school systems in Asia and Europe consistently show that this drill-and-kill approach is not working well. For example, American fourth-graders tied for second in science in TIMSS, but American eighth-graders fell to 17th.5 However, until very recently, no hard data existed to support the growing body of anecdotal evidence and case-by-case testimonials documenting the effectiveness of inquiry-based science.

The Research on Student Achievement

Relatively limited research has been conducted to quantify the impact of inquiry-based science programs. James Shymansky, Larry Hedges, and George Woodworth found that the first kit-based curricula were valuable, particularly for children of color, for females, and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.6 Some recent research indicates that the cognitive processes involved in learning a science are similar to those used in learning a language. Moreover, student proficiency in both subjects may be enhanced by teachers who understand their reciprocity when taught in an informed interdisciplinary fashion.7

Other research has focused on student achievement on science tests and has found the performance of students exposed to inquiry-based methods to be better than that of students in traditional text-based science programs.8 Preliminary data from a study in progress at the University of Wisconsin, which was shared at the annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association in March 2001, indicate that, after three years of kit-based inquiry science instruction, elementary schools participating in the study witnessed their achievement in science improve from 55% of students scoring "proficient" or "advanced" on the state's standardized science achievement tests to 80% performing at that level. In the Einstein Project's Cornerstone Study (also in Wisconsin), students at five "Einstein" schools that used the science kits scored an average of 77% on the state science test, compared with 64% for students at five comparable control schools that were not using inquiry-based methods or kits.9 In the Cornerstone Study, 81% of students who had studied inquiry-based science were judged to have mastery of science terminology beyond rote memorization; just 20% of students in the control schools could perform at that level.

In an even more remarkable study, the El Centro (California) School District, under the leadership of Superintendent Michael Klentschy, implemented a districtwide focus on inquiry-based science instruction five years ago. In this traditionally low-performing district with high levels of poverty and minority enrollment, teachers and principals received extensive training in inquiry-based science that continued over the four years of the study, and they were encouraged to focus their efforts on inquiry-based science instruction. The results, to be published in spring 2002 in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, indicate that not only did science achievement scores improve the longer students were taught using the inquiry and kit methods, but El Centro children in grades 4 and 6 also showed impressive improvements in their SAT 9 mathematics and reading scores, as well as on the district's writing proficiency exam. Klentschy's project developed out of "a belief that the skills of reading and mathematics are strengthened when taught using [the] engaging, high-interest content" of inquiry-based science.10

The results in El Centro speak for themselves. The district's fourth- and sixth-graders who received inquiry-based science instruction for the full four years scored approximately 35% better in math and 28% better in reading, on average, than their classmates who had not been exposed to inquiry-based instruction. Furthermore, on the district's writing proficiency exam, sixth-graders who had not received inquiry-based science instruction scored 23% on the test, while those who had been taught using the hands-on methods with science kits for the full four years of the program scored 89%.

El Centro's incredible success is attributable to Klentschy's vision and to the energies of committed, focused educators at each school. But the academic foundation for the revolutionary achievements in reading, math, and writing are rooted in the singular educational focus of the district over four years: inquiry-based science instruction.

Standardized Tests and the Basic Skills Frenzy: The Death of Science?

Despite the revolutionary results from El Centro and the successes in the other districts, many teachers and school administrators nationwide currently will not -- or cannot -- devote attention to science instruction. The vast majority of school systems today are locked in a frenzied struggle to better prepare their teachers and students for the high-stakes standardized tests that are sweeping through the U.S. state by state. Increasingly, politicians, the media, and the public have decried the academic performance of our schools based solely on the results of tests of student achievement. Consequently, preparation for basic skills tests has become the fixation in public school districts. In some Arizona school systems, for example, testing required by the state and individual districts already consumes 20% of a student's total time in class. And the pressure will only intensify with the passage in January of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, with its provision for annual testing in grades 3 through 8 in reading and math. Thus we continue to weigh the elephant again and again, rather than feed it, and still we expect it to grow.

Those who support the increased emphasis on standardized testing focus on improved achievement in math, reading, and writing and increasingly attach high stakes to the outcomes. School administrators necessarily respond by seeking ways in which teachers can help their students improve their test scores in reading, writing, and math. Meanwhile, the increasing fragmentation of subjects -- such as the separation of science from math and literacy -- continues to play a role in the disappointing performance of U.S. students in such international comparisons of science and math achievement as TIMSS.11

In some school districts, this "splintering" could spell the end of science instruction. For example, Lisa Graham Keegan, former state superintendent in Arizona, called for the public humiliation of schools that were unable to improve their literacy and math test scores. She proposed tying school funding, teacher salaries, and school "report cards" to the test results. Consequently, many Arizona principals and district leaders found themselves scrambling to commit material resources and to redirect funds for teacher training to improve test scores in reading, writing, and math. In the short term, such elective courses as music, physical education, and vocational education and even such core academic subjects as science and social studies may find themselves on the chopping block in some Arizona districts, as administrators and school boards are forced to focus on the test results that count.

Ultimately, the long-term consequences of the nationwide deemphasis on science education will be devastating. And it is painfully ironic for science leaders and educators familiar with the El Centro results and experienced with inquiry-based methods to know that, finally, just as real science education reform is within reach, the heavily hyped "standards" and high-stakes testing movements are threatening this hard-earned success. With inquiry-based science methodology and the science resource center model -- already in place and functioning successfully in school districts across the U.S. -- an effective strategy is now available that has been shown to improve science learning, promote critical thinking and problem solving, and even improve reading, writing, and math achievement.

Furthermore, once it can be implemented on a broad scale, inquiry-based science promises to fundamentally improve America's lackluster performance in international comparisons of science achievement and, if the El Centro results are any indication, to contribute to better reading, writing, and math achievement. Granted, inquiry-based science, using materials from resource centers, is an instructional program that requires considerable planning, training, time, and capital investment. But it is a program that is increasingly endorsed by both the corporate and academic scientific communities and is passionately advocated by a growing number of teachers. The question is whether standardized testing -- or, more accurately, the politicization of the "standards" movement -- will snuff out the promise of inquiry-based methods for American science education.

2. Michael Klentschy, Leslie Garrison, and Olga Ameral, "Valle Imperial Project in Science (VIPS): Four-Year Comparison of Student Achievement Data, 1995-1999," Journal of Research in Science Teaching (in press).

3. Such kits are not strictly necessary for teaching science through inquiry, but because many teachers (especially elementary teachers) lack a strong background in scientific experimentation, the kits make inquiry-based teaching easier.

4. Presentations on designing and implementing inquiry science, sponsored by the National Science Resource Center, annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, St. Louis, 24 March 2001.

5. William H. Schmidt et al., Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for a Closer Look at U.S. Mathematics and Science Education (Boston: Kluwer, 1999), p. 7.

6. James Shymansky, Larry V. Hedges, and George Woodworth, "A Reassessment of the Effects of Inquiry-Based Science Curricula of the 1960s on Student Performance," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 127-44.

7. Valarie Akerson, "Teaching Science When Your Principal Says 'Teach Language Arts,'" Science and Children, April 2001, pp. 42-47; and Carolyn Casteel and Bess Isom, "Reciprocal Processes in Science and Literacy Learning," Reading Teacher, vol. 47, 1994, pp. 538-45.

8. Patricia Stohr-Hunt, "An Analysis of Frequency of Hands-On Experience and Science Achievement," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 33, 1996, pp. 101-9; and Kevin Wise, "Strategies for Teaching Science: What Works?," The Clearing House, July/August 1996, pp. 337-38.

9. Einstein Project, "Cornerstone Study," available online at www..einsteinproject.org/cornerstone/index.shtml.

10. Klentschy, Garrison, and Ameral, op. cit.

11. William H. Schmidt, Curtis C. McKnight, and Senta A. Raizen, A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education (Boston: Kluwer, 1997).

PDK Home | Site Map
Kappan Professional Journal
Last updated 11 April 2002
URL: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0204jor.htm
Copyright 2002 Phi Delta Kappa International