Introduction
Selecting Computer-Based High School Science Curricula: A Guide for Teachers is intended for teachers and other educators confronting the challenge of using technology to enhance the way they teach science.
Accompanying the recent boom in education Web sites has been the production of guides and guidelines, models, and methodologies for planning technology reforms in school districts, school buildings, and classrooms. On the Internet, there are guides for integrating technology into the curriculum and guides for creating curriculum with technology. Selecting Computer-Based High School Science Curricula is different from other resources currently available in that it permits teachers to evaluate whether material offered via the Internet or CD-ROM uses technology to support a sound curriculum.
The tool presented in this document provides criteria, in the forms of a questionnaire and a matrix, by which teachers and other educators can determine the suitability of a program offered via a Web site or CD-ROM to serve as a “core curriculum” for high school science. A core curriculum refers here to a curriculum that is the basis of a conventional division of the school calendar (a quarter, semester, or year). The term is applicable to materials developed for any and all of the major science disciplines.
Developing the Curriculum Review Tool
The curriculum review tool is an adaptation and augmentation of a science curriculum-review instrument created for the EDC K–12 Science Curriculum Dissemination Center, a project located within the Center for Science Education (CSE) at Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), in Newton, Mass. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the K–12 Center introduced research-based print curricula to educators in small and/or logistically remote school districts around the country. Center participants were encouraged to closely review any curricula of interest using one of the few guides available for that purpose, including the tool prepared especially for the K–12 Center. That instrument, the Curriculum Evaluation Tool, is available on the CSE Web site (http://www.edc.org/cse) and is useful for thinking about curricula in general. The curriculum review tool offered within Selecting Computer-Based High School Science Curricula differs from that earlier tool in that it focuses on materials that are computer-based (rather than print-based) and targeted toward high school students.
The tool was developed and designed by CSE staff and submitted to an advisory board for review. It was then examined by a focus group of teachers who use computer-based curricula in their classrooms, and then piloted by high school science teachers around the country. During the pilot-testing process, teachers used the tool to examine and write reviews for the selected curricula included in this document (see selection criteria below). The resulting evaluation tool (found in Section III) presents the criteria as a set of open-ended questions, instead of a checklist of statements.
Drawing on Web searches and educator recommendations, CSE selected a sample of computer-based science curricula for the purposes of illustrating the use of the evaluation. The questionnaire was submitted to high school science teachers who were recommended by the products’ distributors. The selected sample reviews (found in Section IV) are not intended to be positive or negative evaluations of the products, nor are they meant to constitute a resource list or catalog of curricula. Instead, they are examples of the kind of discussion the tool can stimulate and the unique way teachers can use the tool in the planning process for a complete science program.
Based on the feedback from pilot users of the evaluation tool, the wording of some items was revised for clarity; however, the sense of the questions was not changed. To be consistent with the evaluation instrument as it now stands, the revised wording is used in the sample reviews.
The Issues
Throughout the design process, the planning
team of staff and advisors kept in mind a number of issues that emerged
from CSE’s
recent curriculum dissemination work. In one project, focus groups
of high
school teachers in eight locations across the country discussed the
issues that affect their work. Some of the technology issues related
to the search for an appropriate response to the emerging and substantial
classroom presence of computers, software, and Internet access. Following
are the issues that specifically influenced the planning of the tool.
Uncertainty about the impact of technology. The certitude of many that technology belongs in the classroom creates the impression that technology makes learning happen. In The Digital Classroom: How Technology Is Changing the Way We Teach and Learn, Kleiman claims it is a myth that putting computers into schools will produce improved learning. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education called for a study to determine the effect of technology on the improvement of curriculum and learning (Trotter, 2002). Although computers can help teachers provide students with experiences that break the confines of the classroom and with phenomena otherwise inaccessible for hands-on learning (such as the dynamics of planets, weather fronts, or atoms), in practice, students often spend their computer time simply reading onscreen or answering questions. And while instructional technology can enable students across the globe to share data with each other, it can separate them from opportunities to discuss findings with peers in their own classrooms. Because of the pros and cons of computer-based learning, only the teacher who is planning to use a particular curriculum can determine whether it will actually deliver improved student learning.
Core and supplemental curricula. Both core and supplemental curricula can provide students with opportunities to inquire. A core curriculum engages students extensively with a major problem or phenomenon under investigation. The substantial (semester or year) time frame of a core curriculum is structured to permit students to explore emerging ideas; formulate explanations for what they observe; interpret data and construct models for their findings; and clarify the precision of their thinking through discourse with peers, teachers, and consultation with other sources of scientific knowledge. This learning then flows into a new but related problem as a refinement of the overall theme of the curriculum.
An inquiry-based supplemental curriculum, on the other hand, usually contains short, self-contained investigations. They explore questions that the core curriculum does not address directly but that surface as students do the work of that curriculum. For instance, teachers may choose to enrich the core curriculum with supplements if they feel the core curriculum does not address a particular concept required by local standards.
Overwhelming supply. A dizzying array of educational products is offered electronically each year. In the 1990s, there was not only an explosion of new technological media, but also a surge in educational applications—activities, lesson plans, full-course materials, on-line courses, and components of distance learning courses. Web sites began to offer extensive lists assembling the teaching resources available on or through the Web. Then lists of lists appeared (e.g., top-ten lists are available at www.december.com). In 2000, the Web-Based Education Commission reported that the number of “lesson ideas and learning resources” on the Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) Web site (sponsored by a Syracuse University project of the U.S. Department of Education ) was 14,000, contributed by 200 organizations . By early 2002, the GEM Web site reported 26,500 resources from 320 organizations . The burden of evaluating the mass of resources and matching them to a specific curriculum and to the needs of a specific group of students often falls to the classroom teacher. The teacher is left to incorporate such materials into an existing curriculum or to undertake the complex task of creating a new curriculum based on those tools. However, high-interest, standards-based, interactive materials do exist to meet the needs of a teacher for an entire course.
Professional responsibility. Curriculum planning and the evaluation of materials are, in the best of circumstances, considerable tasks; adding them to the instructional responsibilities of the classroom teacher can create a serious burden. The pressure increases again when intentions to incorporate technology are complicated by the mixed quality and formidable supply and by the need to align with changing standards. Advocates for putting technology into the classroom have urged teachers to integrate it into the curriculum, to make their own units built on computer-based activities, or to coach students in using computers in research and/or presentations. In all these cases, the teacher has to work as a curriculum designer, a substantial assignment with or without the aid of computers. Any of these tasks may also require the teacher to commit to putting more professional development time into his or her schedule. However, some instructional materials offer the hard-pressed educator computer-based learning strategies already integrated into a full-course curriculum. Such a package may solve a number of problems at once and save some time.
The price of the investment. In addition to accountability for student achievement, educators face financial accountability. Although federal and state resources have been allocated for technology infrastructure in recent years, restricted local allocations for the purchase of classroom materials can seriously limit options. The purchase of computer-based materials must be justified by a convincing likelihood that the technology will support the curriculum.
Decisions to purchase technology and software are complicated not only by chronically limited funds, but also by products’ abilities to offer only thin evidence of learning improvements, by the need to coordinate with the intended curriculum, by the large supply of products on the market, and by the time needed to do justice to the process.
Sections of This Guide
This guide contains review criteria, a curriculum review tool, sample reviews to show readers how teachers can use the tool to evaluate computer-based curricula, and profiles of a number of currently available computer-based products for the high school classroom.
Review Criteria
This section discusses the review criteria used in the curriculum review
tool for examining computer-based high school science curricula and
walks the reader through the 13 questions they should consider when
reviewing computer-based products for the classroom. The criteria are
divided into four categories: Student Learning, Teaching and Professional
Development, Equity, and Feasibility.
Student Learning helps the user examine five different aspects related to computer use and student learning in the classroom:
- Alignment with standards.
- Pedagogy.
- Ease of use.
- Collaboration.
- Assessment strategies.
Teaching and Professional Development helps the reader examine teacher comfort levels with the use of technology in the classroom and the support they may require. The reader should consider the following topics:
- Training that may be necessary for using the technology-based curriculum.
- Support the teacher may need when implementing technology-based materials.
- Level of expertise necessary and how the program engages those with lower or higher comfort levels.
Equity aids teachers in thinking about the fairness and accessibility of the curriculum in terms of both funding and design. This section helps the reader consider how useful the materials are to diverse populations of students. It takes a look at equity in terms of the following:
- Pedagogical effectiveness of program design.
- Inclusion techniques of the technology features.
- Responsiveness to all students’ interests and questions.
Feasibility helps the reader think about infrastructure requirements and the cost-benefit analysis of adopting technology-based science materials through consideration of the following:
- Characteristics and requirements of the technology features of the curriculum.
- Costs of implementing the materials.
Curriculum Review Tool
The curriculum review tool consists of a set of questions reflecting
13 key criteria that represent critical issues related to the implementation
of computer-based curricula in science. These questions are divided into
the four categories introduced above, which are designed to lead the
user through an examination of the curricula in terms of their effects
on student learning, implications for teaching practice and professional
development, considerations for equity, and feasibility from an infrastructure
and budget perspective.
The tool is presented in two formats: a questionnaire and a matrix. The
questionnaire is the formal presentation of the tool. It outlines the
questions for each criterion in the four categories and allows the user
to place his or her responses in the spaces allotted to each question.
The matrix format, on the other hand, allows for a quick visual introduction
to the tool.
Sample Reviews
This section demonstrates how teachers have used the tool to review technology-based
curricula. Twenty-two teachers from large and small schools across
the country piloted the curriculum review tool with the computer-based
curricula selected for this resource.
In keeping with the character of the tool as a flexible, adaptable instrument,
some teachers followed the tool exactly, answering each bullet point
within each criterion. Others addressed each criterion as a whole, writing
a paragraph that summarized the questions in each bullet point. Some
even wrote a review that tried to encompass all of the criteria at one
time. And some reviews were more complete than others, delving more deeply
into the different aspects of the curriculum.
Of the submitted reviews, we have included a small sampling to give readers a feeling of the different information teachers gained from reviewing the different curricula. Ultimately, the way teachers use the tool should reflect their ultimate goal, whether that is to gain buy-in from district science leaders or to evaluate different computer-based curricula for supplementary use within their classroom science lessons.
Reviews appear as they were written for the most part, with minor editing to increase clarity. The reviews included in this document act as sample applications of the tool and are not to be considered evaluations of the reviewed programs.
Computer-Based Curriculum Profiles
All profiles have been checked for accuracy by the programs’ developers.
As with anything technology-based, the curricula and their components
are constantly evolving. To that end, the following profiles are based
on the curricula as they appeared in January 2003. They include:
•
General information about the publisher, developer, scientific domain(s),
and grade level.
•
Scope of content covered in the program.
•
Format of the curriculum.
•
Assessment instruments used in the curriculum.
•
Professional development support provided by the program.
•
Information regarding whether the program is considered stand-alone or
supplemental.
