I have been writing about change recently, and how change is needed in the science curriculum, and the pedagogy that we use to help students learn science.  Indeed, I’ve suggested we suspend high-risk testing until we can show that this type of assessment model tells us what students know, and how well teachers are teaching.  Right now we don’t know.

But we do know that there is a need for change in our approach to curriculum and to teaching.  The change that is needed is to catch up with the work of creative teachers.

Years ago, I was serving as a member of Rachel Michel’s dissertation committee for her work on her doctoral degree in science education at LaTrobe University, Melbourne, Australia.  Her work focused on environmental education and how it was influenced and informed by the concepts of environmentalism.  In her study she did an analysis of environmental science curriculum that compared and contrasted two very different approaches or paradigms.  

Paradigm one might be summarized as education about the environment.  Paradigm two is summarized as education for the environment.  The chart below compares the two paradigms.

Paradigm one is what characterizes science teaching and curriculum in today’s schools.  Indeed, high-stakes tests that have been developed and are used to assess students learning have been constructed based on this model.  Here the traditional model, based on established science, is the dominant model used in just about every country in the world.  

However, within the context of schooling, there have been alternative models of teaching and curriculum that have existed alongside the traditional model, but because of political and social forces, these alternatives played minor roles in the overall picture of {science} teaching.  The alternative paradigm described by Michel summarizes the characteristics of paradigms that offer alternatives to the dominant paradigm.

Glen Aikenhead characterizes paradigm two in Michel’s analysis as “humanistic science,” and is the approach that we underscore in this Weblog, and in The Art of Teaching Science.  Aikenhead’s model is a student-centered model; it would replace the traditional, mechanized science curriculum with one that is innovative and flexible.  Two science curriculum examples come to mind as reflecting Aikenhead’s approach and Michel’s paradigm two.  They are:

The Global Lab Program:

Global lab was one of the first programs to utilize the Internet to support inquiry-based learning.

Developed at TERC and now continued at the Concord Consortium.  Global Lab is now being re-introduced in Russia.  Global Lab is an online laboratory for students around the globe who want to perform shared investigations.  It is a workplace for those who are curious about how real science is undertaken, who enjoy investigating the world around them, and want to participate in experiments with students and teachers in different cultures.  Teachers will find resources at this site that they can use to experiment with their own students, and see an example of a humanistic science curriculum. 

The Global Thinking Project:

The GTP curriculum was published as Environmental Science on the Net

The GTP was based on a humanistic-constructivist model of teaching and was seen as a “hands across the globe” science education project.  The paradigm provided opportunities for students and teachers  to participate in environmental study and to use new technology tools with peers across the globe.  Developed in partnership with researchers at Georgia State University and Agnes Scott College, and teachers in Georgia with researchers and teachers in Russia, the GTP expanded to include educators and students from Australia, Czech Republic, Spain, and many other countries.

Creative teachers around the world have been involved in a paradigm shift, and have led the way in developing innovative and flexible curriculum examples, and implementing new pedagogies that are student-centered, and call for a humanistic approach to teaching science.