Prologue:What's~1 PatI Lessons from the H istory of

Dorothy B. Rosenthal is a lecturer in science education at Cali- fornia State University, Long Beach, CA 90840. She eamed an M.A. in zoology from the Universityof Californiaat Berkeleyand an Ed.D. in curriculumfrom the Universityof Rochester.Prior to moving to Californiain 1988,Rosenthal was coordinatorof science and health for the Rush-HenriettaSchools in New York. She has Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/52/3/151/44509/4449067.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 worked on projectsfor the New Yorkand CaliforniaState Depart- ments of Education.Her researchinterests center around science, technology, society education and the history of science educa- Dorothy B. Rosenthal tion.

The approach of a new decade or century always courses in general biology (Finley 1926). At the same seems to stimulate thinking about the future, as for time, the specialized botany, zoology and human example, the theme of the 1989 NABT national con- physiology courses declined in popularity. By 1935, vention "biology education: moving toward the 21st they were all but eliminated from high school cur- century." I believe our ability to look into the future ricula (Rosen 1959). is only as good as our abilityto look into the past, but The success of general biology has been attributed most efforts at curriculumreform and development to three main factors: have not given much consideration to the perspec- 1. The enormousinfluence of colleges and universi- tive of history (Barnard1968; Bybee 1982). My major ties. Most high school teachers in the 20th goal in this article is, therefore, to draw attention to early century taught as they had been taught. Those our heritage in biology education and what we can exposed to Huxley's general biology learn from it in planning a biology curriculumfor the approach brought these ideas with them to the high future. More specifically, my purpose has been to schools. identify persistent and recurrentpatterns in the his- 2. A reaction against the highly tory of biology education and to derive from them academic,special- ized courses in botany, zoology and lessons for a biology curriculumfor the 21st century. human physiology. These predecessors of general bi- ology were only slightly revised versions of col- A BriefReview of the EarlyHistory of High lege courses. They stressed technical vocabu- School Biology lary, taxonomy and morphological detail. If they were at all appropriate,it was only for col- The first general biology course in American high lege-bound students. Although early general bi- schools began in 1881 in Milwaukee. By 1900, seven ology courses suffered from some of the same other cities were teaching general biology and New problems, they became a vehicle for those who York had developed a state curriculum(Hurd 1961). advocated a more practical orientation that The major impetus for the development of general would address the needs of future citizens biology-as opposed to separate courses in botany, (Christy 1936). zoology and human physiology-was a textbook 3. The changing population of American high written in 1876 by Thomas Huxley and Henry Mar- schools. In the first quarterof this century, the tin. When Martincame to the United States to teach number of students attending high school in- at Johns Hopkins University, he brought with him creased dramatically,not only because of a gen- the idea of a course that would integrate the three eral population increase, but also because of a separate courses into one (Christy 1936). The idea greater percentage of young people attending spread rapidly to other colleges and universities and high school. The result was an increase in the then to the high schools. numbers and percentage of noncollege-bound The new biology courses were immensely popular. students, many of whom were children of im- By 1923, almost 84 percent of high schools offered migrants or migrants from rural to urban areas.

PROLOGUE 151 Many educators believed that general biology processes, problem-solving skills, design and anal- was more appropriate than rigorous academic ysis of experiments, and the relationship between courses for these students, particularly if it was theory and empirical knowledge in biology. The oriented to the practical, civic, economic and third refers to the personal development and fulfill- human welfare aspects of biology. ment of the individual student through the study of biology, its aesthetic, vocational, health and cogni- Patterns from History tive benefits. The fourth, the social aim, refers to the Since 1900, many biologists, science educators, interactions between biology and society and the teachers, administrators and textbook authors, by need to prepare citizens to live in a society in which themselves or in committee, have listed aims (some- scientific and technological advances in biology affect times two dozen or more) for biology. Determined their daily lives. researchers have sifted through this vast array of Although these four major aims have dominated aims statements to reduce them to a small number of biology education throughout its history, the em- categories. The classification systems themselves phasis given to each has changed in response to his- vary, although often only in terminology, but they torical and social changes (Rosenthal 1986), as can be can all be reduced to four major aims: shown by two examples. The first biology courses were primarily knowl- Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/52/3/151/44509/4449067.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 * knowledge, edge-oriented. This was followed by a period of * methods, greater emphasis on the personal and social needs of * personal and students, partly in response to the dramatic popula- * social (Table 1). tion changes in the early decades of the century, as The first aim refers to knowledge of the theories, described earlier. A number of textbook titles of that concepts and facts of biology and the ways in which day reflected the new emphasis, although it is diffi- biologists organize knowledge. The second refers to cult to know to what extent it affected actual class- the methods biologists use to acquire knowledge, the room practice.

Table 1. Comparisons of categories of aims for biology education.

an Christy, 1936 McKibben, 1947 Bybee, 1977 Jacson 1978 Fraser, 1978 Yager, Rosenthal SpecificTopics Majorfacts, and l Knowledge | principles,concepts Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge K Applicationto daily comprehension life Useful Information Intellectual preparation Scientific methods Mental of thinking discipline/ Methods Process skills, Methods Scientific Method of science and scientists

Scientific ReligiousReligious ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~habits/attitudesManual~ skis~ Personal Aesthetic' Attitudes and needs Appreciation Appreciations interests Personal MoralTraining Interestsand Hobbies Career CO9n Health style education/ Vocation Practical Personal awareness l Culture Culturalawareness Practical/ (the humanistic, Philosophical, Economic philosophical, historical and Social needs Social sociological, social aspects Citizenship economicand of science aspects of o cec Conservation/Conservation/ ~~~~~~~~politicalscience) Environment

152 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 52, NO. 3, MARCH 1990 The curriculumreform of biology education in the many pulls in different directions, it is perhaps not 1960s was a result of the rapid growth of science and surprising to find that many attempts to reform bi- technology after World War II in the climate of the ology education failed. Cold War. A need for more scientists and engineers Publichigh schools grew out the academies, which was identified and emphasis was placed on knowl- were primarily college preparatory institutions, so edge and methods. The so-called "second wave of early high school courses, including biology, were reform"in the 1970s, in a climate of social unrest and strongly influenced by the colleges and universities. reform in the United States, attempted to increase Early biology courses and textbooks were only the emphasis on the personal and social needs of slightly watered-down versions of those used in col- students. leges and universities (Rosen 1959).The requirement Despite changes in emphasis among the four for high school students to complete 40 written labo- majoraims, research has shown that knowledge has ratoryreports was first instituted before 1900by Har- been the predominant theme in biology education, vard University. In California,enrollments in biology not only in stated aims, but, even more, in actual increased rapidly after 1915 when the University of classroom practice (Ogden & Jackson 1978; Del Californiawithdrew support for botany, zoology and Giomo 1969; Bybee 1977; Bybee & Kahle 1982). Dis- human physiology in favor of general biology Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/52/3/151/44509/4449067.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 satisfactionwith the emphasis on pure knowledge is (Christy 1936). not new. For example, in 1891, Campbellcomplained This influence on high school biology continued that ". . . the pupil is filled with information in re- through teacher training, entrance requirementsand gard to science . .. only in a few exceptional schools participationin curriculumcommittees and projects, is he . . . taught to think for himself" (quoted in although the trend has been for increased indepen- Christy 1936, p. 174). And, in 1910, Galloway said, dence of the high schools from college domination. "too much of the currentscience teaching asks pupils Between 1920 and 1940, high school textbooks were to get an excessive accumulationof facts without get- increasingly the work of high school teachers rather ting a true understanding of their relations." There than biologists. This contributedto high schools' in- have been many attempts to shift the emphasis away creasing independence (Hunter & Spore 1943) and from factual, textbook-basedknowledge, but knowl- was partly responsible for the gap that grew between edge has dominated the aims and teaching of sec- modern developments in science and high school ondary biology from 1900 to the present (Bybee & curricula.This led to strong criticismof curriculaand Kahle 1982). textbooks by biologists in the 1950s and early 1960s Examinationof the stated aims for biology educa- and to the curriculum improvement project estab- tion reveals that a lack of consensus has existed lished by the American Institute of Biological among scientists, professors of education and bi- Sciences and continued by BiologicalSciences Curric- ology teachers as to the desired emphasis among the ulum Study. four major aims. Differences in priorities appeared One feature of biology education is that, once es- early in the history of biology education. In fact, gen- tablished, patterns tend to persist. One has only to eral biology was originally a revolt of high school compare the ideas being discussed now with those teachers against domination by colleges and univer- just before and after the turn of the century. For ex- sities (Rosen 1959). And differences between the ample: biology should be a study of living, not dead, various parts of the educational community con- organisms;the laboratoryshould have an important, tinued to plague biology education. or even central, place; emphasis should be on con- For example, a survey in 1932 showed that sec- cepts ratherthan facts and on problem-solvingrather ondary biology teachers emphasized knowledge and than rote learning; and more attention should be preparationfor furthereducation, while teacher edu- given to the nature of science and the interactions cators supported appreciation of the environment between science and society (Hurd 1961). and use of the scientific method (Hunter & Knapp Another example of the persistence of patterns is 1932). The scientific method continued to receive a that the organization of many biology courses and low rating from teachers, as shown by another textbooks reflects biology's origins in three separate survey in 1941, a position directly contradictoryto courses: botany, zoology and human physiology. recommendations of various curriculumcommittees Until 1982, the New York Regents Biology curric- (Riddle 1942). An analysis of the science education ulum was still organized into separate units for literature from 1918 to 1972 showed that science plants, animals and humans. Then, the study of teachers placed greater importance on knowledge, plants and animals was combined in a functionalap- process, interests and hobbies, while college and uni- proach, while human physiology was retained as a versity professors gave more support to the applica- separate unit. tions of biology to daily life, career education and The recommendation that biology be taught in cultural awareness (Ogden & Jackson 1978). With so 10th grade was first made in 1899 by the Committee

PROLOGUE 153 on College Entrance Requirements of the NEA. In ical perspective, to include the methods of science as spite of some compelling arguments which have well as the personal and social aspects of science. been advanced since then-that biology should be History tells us, however, that to move from the taught after physics and chemistry-it is still usually dominance of the knowledge aim is very difficult. It taught in 10th grade. Before 1900, the president of requires a unity of purpose and a strength of com- Brown University was predictingthat the high school mitment from many parts of society. It requires a laboratory would wipe out the "dry-as-dust text- concerted effort by all parts of the science education book" (Rosen 1963). William Mayer has written that community, not least of all classroom teachers and the "identify-observe-compare-dissect-draw-label- science supervisors. It requiresfundamental changes memorize-test" pattern of biology teaching, which in preservice and inservice teacher education. It re- began in 1910, is "still with us . . . now although quires active participation-but not domination-by mercifullyto a lesser extent" (Mayer 1986). There is, scientists and educators. Finally, it requires a conti- then, a pattern in biology education that patterns, nuity of effort that is not limited to reactionsto short- once established, tend to persist and to resist change. term crises. Many characteristicsof our currentbiology educa-

tion are the result of practicesbegun years ago. The Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/52/3/151/44509/4449067.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 Lessonsfrom History persistence of patterns in biology education teaches The historical perspective provides a way of orga- us that if we seek to change the biology classroom, nizing and analyzing into four fundamental aims a we need to move beyond fads, beyond movements seemingly endless series of variations on objectives and beyond critiques to an organized effort that re- put forth by individuals and committees. These form flects a unified community of biology educators and a frameworkthat could be used for defining goals for integrates the efforts of all parts of that community. biology education that move beyond knowledge per The history of science education, including that of se to include the methods for acquiring knowledge biology, is largely based on committee reports and and the personal and social uses of that knowledge. analyses of literature. Historical research in biology Because all the aims stated for biology education education has not dealt extensively with what has ac- since the turn of the century can be classified into tually gone on in classrooms, primarilybecause so knowledge, methods, personal or social aims, it is little firsthandinformation is available. This makes it unlikely that any major new categories of aims will difficult to distinguish the dreams from the reality. emerge for the 21st century. Biology educators need One of the lessons we can learn from the history of to come to agreement on the appropriateemphases biology education, then, is the importance of docu- among the four majoraims before trying to establish menting actual classroom practices. If such docu- more specific goals. mentation is not available to a significant extent for The study of the history of biology education also the past, we can remedy the situation for future his- tells us that the emphasis among the four majoraims torians of biology education by focusing substantial has changed in response to various social and histor- research efforts on recording what is actually hap- ical forces. Many of the responses have been to crises pening in the classrooms. Research studies of this in American life. Recently, economic competition type can serve as both formative feedback, as we try from Japan has fueled another wave of critiquesand to implement changes in biology education, and as reforms. As Paul Hurd has said, "Eachmajor social summative feedback when the next history of bi- crisis in American life tends to be reflected in the ology education is written. science program"(Hurd 1961, p. 13). What is needed to blueprint a biology curriculum We can expect, and probablywould want, biology appropriatefor the next century is general agreement education to be responsive to the needs of the time. on the domain of science education (Yager1984) and The problem is not that changes have occurred and the involvement of teachers, educators and scientists will continue to do so; it is that the changes have in a unified effort. The framework for the new bi- been more a matter of words than actions. Each re- ology must allow for responsiveness to changing so- sponse to a crisis generates calls for reform, i.e. a cial conditions and historical events without being change in emphasis. Once a crisis is passed, there is merely reflexive. If new patternsare to be institution- no longer an impetus for change and little real alized in classrooms, there must be a commitmentto change occurs. Some science educators have tried to changes in teacher education. The history of biology shift the debate from knowledge versus other aims to education is replete with many excellent ideas that the question of what knowledge is most worth have never been fully implemented. The new biology knowing and appropriate for a scientifically and does not requirenew ideas so much as a fresh look at technologically literate citizen (Harms & Yager 1981; the old ideas for what they can offer and a new com- Bybee 1986). The answer would seem, from a histor- mitment to bringing these ideas to fruition.

154 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 52, NO. 3, MARCH 1990 Conclusions knowledge on science education in the United States since 1850. ScienceEducation, 53(3), 191-195. Since the beginning of the 20th century, educa- Finley, C.W. (1926). Biology in secondaryschools and the tors have tried to move biology education in the trainingof biologyteachers. New York:Teachers College, classroom beyond pure knowledge. The curriculum ColumbiaUniversity. Fraser, B.J. (1978). Use of content analysis in examining reformersof the 1960s sought to strengthen attention changes in science education aims over time. Journalof to the processes of science in biology. In recent years, ScienceEducation, 62(1), 135-141. many science educators have been advocating a re- Galloway, T.W. (1910).Report on the committeeon funda- turn to an emphasis on "the personal and social di- mentals of the CentralAssociation of Scienceand Mathe- mensions that have been ignored for over two de- matics Teachers. SchoolScience and Mathematics,10(9), 801-813. cades" (Bybee 1987, p. 669). Biology for the 21st cen- Good, R., Herron, J.D., Lawson, A.E. & Renner, J.W. tury cannot be limited to knowledge of the natural (1985). The domain of science education. ScienceEduca- world, to teaching students how to learn that knowl- tion, 69(2), 139-141. edge (Good et al. 1985) or to the biology/society in- Harms, N.C. & Yager,R.E. (Eds.). (1981).What research says terface(Yager 1984). Unless the biology curriculumof to the scienceteacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science TeachersAssociation. the 21st century is to look much like that of the 20th Hunter, G.W. & Knapp, R. (1932).Science objectivesat the century, it will need to involve an appropriatecombi- junior and senior high school level. ScienceEducation, Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/52/3/151/44509/4449067.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 nation of knowledge, methods, personal and social 16(5), 414. aims. It is certainlytime, by the turn of the next cen- Hunter, G.W. & Spore, L. (1943).The objectivesof science tury, to make this effort a reality. in the secondary schools of the United States. School Scienceand Mathematics,43(9), 633-647. Hurd, P.D. (1961). Biologicaleducation in Americansecondary References schools:1890-1960. Baltimore, MD: AmericanInstitute of BiologicalSciences. Barnard,J.D. (1968).Pre-1960 contributions to science edu- Mayer, W.V. (1986).Biology education in the United States cation. ScienceEducation, 52(3), 239-243. during the twentieth century. QuarterlyReview of Biology, Bybee, R.W. (1987). Science education and the science- 61(4), 481-507. technology-society (S-T-S) theme. Science Education, McKibben,M. (1947). The present status of general objec- 71(5), 667-683. tives in the teaching of secondarybiology. ScienceEduca- Bybee, R.W. (1986).The Sisyphean question in science ed- tion, 31(3), 171-175. ucation: What should the scientificallyand technologi- Ogden, W.R. & Jackson,J.L. (1978). Secondary school bi- cally literateperson know, value and do- as a citizen?In ology teaching, 1918-1972:Objectives as stated in period- R.W. Bybee (Ed.), Science-technology-society(1985 NSTA ical literature.Science Education, 62(3), 291-302. yearbook). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Riddle, 0. (Ed.). (1942). Theteaching of biologyin secondary Association. schoolsof the UnitedStates: A reportof resultsfrom a ques- Bybee, R.W. (1982). Historicalresearch in science educa- tionnaire.Menasha, WI:Union of AmericanBiological So- tion. Journalof Researchin ScienceTeaching, 19(1), 1-14. cieties. Bybee, R.W. (1977).The new transformationof science ed- Rosen, S. (1959). The origins of high school general bi- ucation. ScienceEducation, 61(1), 85-97. ology. SchoolScience and Mathematics 59(6), 473-489. Bybee, R.W. & Kahle, J.B. (1982). Biology education: Rosen, S. (1963).Innovation in science teaching-a histor- Beyond the status quo. In F.M. Hickman & J.B. Kahle ical view. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 63(4), 313-323. (Eds.), New directionsin biologyteaching. Reston, VA: Na- Rosenthal, D.B. (1986). Biology education in a social and tional Association of Biology Teachers. moral context. Science-technology-society(1985 yearbook Christy, O.B. (1936).The development of theteaching of general of the National Science Teachers Association, pp. 103- biologyin the secondaryschools (Peabody Contributionto 116). Washington, DC: National Science TeachersAsso- EducationNo. 201). Nashville: George Peabody College ciation. for Teachers. Yager,R.E. (1984).Defining the disciplineof science educa- Del Giorno, B.J. (1969). The impact of changing scientific tion. ScienceEducation, 68(1), 35-37.

Remember These Dates!a

November 7 - 11, 1990: National Convention, Westin Galleria and Westin Oaks, Houston, Texas

November 6 - 10, 1991: National Convention, Stouffer Hotel, Nashville, Tennessee

PROLOGUE 155