The performance of American schools is a hotly debated topic. While improvements are constantly made that ensure that the educational system is keeping up with the demands of the modern world, many issues still require change. One of the issues that still persists is the science classes. Some concerns exist regarding the way science is taught in schools and the insufficient professional competence resulting from it. The aim of this paper is to propose a model for identifying and implementing the change needed to address the situation, as well as a means of assessing and evaluating the process.
Science is commonly recognized as a set of determined practices that operate under well-established standards. While definitions vary, the majority of them mention the well-defined standards in some way. For this reason, it is not uncommon to see the process of science education as more or less focused on communicating the current understanding in any given field to the students. This is the case with the organization in question, and, according to the recent guidelines known as Next Generation Science Standards, with many other schools across the country.
According to the new guidelines, the science classes should focus not only on the body of knowledge that is consistent with the current views but also boost the understanding of the value of this information for the professional career as well as everyday usage (Next Generation Science Standards FAQ, n.d.). Additionally, each discipline should incorporate the promotion of critical thinking and application of the scientific method on a daily basis.
Such broadening of focus is impossible without significant changes in curriculum and an update of the resource and knowledge base, not to mention the need for establishing new educational partners. To successfully implement the changes, a four-step model is recommended, grounded in the principles of change laid out by Gene Hall and Shirley Hord. To monitor the change and evaluate its success, the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) can be implemented throughout the process.
The model will consist of the following steps: the initial partial implementation and resource management; the shift towards the new practices; the finding the professional partners for career development and major assessment; and total transition. However, before the initial step takes place, the proper identification of the problem and informing the participants is required. The recommended procedure is collecting the available information regarding the current state of science education, with case studies of both the traditional and innovative ways of teaching.
The results should then be spread among the main participants of the process – teachers, school principals, and state authorities. This will help to pinpoint and exclude unnecessary steps and at the same time increase the understanding of the purpose of change. Such understanding should, in theory, help the leaders project their vision onto other participants of the reform and decrease the resistance to change that will most likely arise (Grogan, 2013). After the problem is located and confirmed, the first step is the initial partial implementation and resource management. At this stage, the classroom activities are largely unchanged: the classes proceed according to the traditional curriculum.
The innovation is limited to finding the ties between a taught discipline and bordering fields, and emphasizing the practical implication of a given science and scientific method. Simultaneously the teachers and principals are working together to estimate the required changes in the resource base and contact state authorities to establish a meaningful dialog and secure the channels of resource updates. Largely this is a preparation stage. It is recommended to complete this stage in one year. As it is mostly conducted on the administrative level, the expected resistance to change is minimal.
The second stage, the shift towards the new practices, is where the first noticeable change takes place. During it, the students, who are already familiar with the links between different disciplines, are encouraged to identify and establish them on their own. The teachers are incorporating the practical side of the studied field and shifting towards the more career-competent approach. If possible, this is strengthened with the raised number of field practices and the alterations in assessment techniques.
However, the curriculum at this level is largely unchanged, and the innovation is of local character. However, the content that is relevant for the new paradigm may be added while the content that actively contradicts it can be decreased or removed entirely. This step is consistent with the fourth principle of change suggested by Hall and Hord (2015): while the institution is deciding whether the change takes place, it is individuals who are responsible for its implementation – in this case, the school staff and even students.
The recommended duration of the second step is one year although it is possible that under closer inspection two years will be required for its completion. The third step is where the professional partners are sought to provide the interaction between students and organizations that need skilled professionals in certain scientific fields. These partners will also help create better opportunities for field practice lessons and at the same time invest in future specialists. At this step, the teaching process is largely determined by the new guidelines and the structure of learning units leans toward the new understanding of science education.
Simultaneously, the assessment techniques are applied to find out if the students’ knowledge is consistent with the new standards. Steps two and three are where the most resistance to change is expected. According to Fullan (2001), the resistance is not necessarily a negative effect, as it can serve an early warning of the inconsistencies within the change. Hall and Hord (2011) suggest the four-stage framework called “stages of concern.” which roughly coincides with the planned steps and can be used to minimize the resistance. The likely duration of this step is one to two years. Finally, during the fourth step, the practices are well established and may be used to conceive a new curriculum and, in case the assessment shows positive results, spread the change state-wise.
This model is consistent with the current understanding of change implementation, such as the principles suggested by Hall and Hord. The change is conducted horizontally, involves the school staff and authorities working as a team, and accounts for the inevitable resistance (Hall & Hord, 2015). In addition, it is reversible – the first two stages do not disrupt the current teaching practice, which is why it is best suited for this particular reform.
To fully and comprehensively evaluate the process, two sides need to be monitored. The students are evaluated starting from the third step, and the obtained formative assessment data is used to guide the teaching process. Simultaneously, the staff is interviewed to determine the level at which they implement the new practice.
The data is analyzed, and the results are grouped into eight categories: non-use, orientation, preparation, mechanical use, routine use, refinement, integration, and renewal (Hall, Dirksen, & George, 2006). Such categorization provides the possibility to create a transparent and clear picture of the process. The observation of stages of concern can complement the data which can be then used by the leaders to make appropriate interventions and direct the change in the desired direction or change its pace.
References
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Grogan, M. (2013). The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: levels of use. Web.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Learning builds the bridge between research and practice. Standards for Professional Learning, 32(4), 52-57.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Next Generation Science Standards FAQ. (n.d.). Web.