Panel 1: Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
Panel #1
Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
Kevin D. McMahon
California State University, Northridge
625SC: Theory and Research in Teaching Secondary School Science
September 24, 2006
1
Panel 1: Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
2
Panel #1: Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
The debate over what is more important, depth or breadth, in science education or
other content domains, has been waged amongst teachers and professional pedagogists
probably since Plato established his Academy in Athens. A Depth/Breadth dichotomy
exists and nearly everyone has chosen sides in a tug of war that constantly shifts the
“balance” between what E.D. Hirsch (2001) describes as a “premature polarity.” The
history of education has seen pendulum swings between the two poles of this binary.
During the sixties and seventies the pendulum swung towards “deep understanding”
while during the last two decades and continuing through to the present the pendulum has
reversed to the “rote learning of mere facts” as evidenced by the standardization of
knowledge. In Seeking Breadth and Depth Hirsch’s attempts to resolve the
Depth/Breadth paradox which he perceives as a “barrier to progress” (p22). I propose
that when we attempt to resolve binaries we risk losing freedom and creativity at the local
school site and in our classrooms. We are consequently better off following the advice of
Derrida and St.Pierre (2006) who insist that we must allow binaries to coexist not only
because they tend to balance out the other but in doing so it acknowledges the limitations
of our own epistemologies while respecting diversity of thought and opinion of the other.
Given this understanding, it is inappropriate to state that depth is more important than
breadth rather I would suggest that it is now time for a shift in the binary whereby depth
is emphasized mitigating the excesses of the breadth emphasis of standardization and
high stakes testing.
Panel 1: Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
3
Since the Sputnik era American education has considered itself to be a nation at
risk and education reform as an essential component of national and economic security.
Public and professional media routinely report how our students fail relative to their peers
from other nations especially those who are seen as our adversaries. The solution has
been to broaden the scope of knowledge acquisition through regulation of content
standards and scope and sequence throughout K-12. However, concomitant to this, there
has been and continues to be an exponential growth in knowledge particularly in the
sciences. It is unreasonable to expect that all students can acquire and achieve mastery
of an expanding breadth of knowledge that is being presented to them at earlier stages of
their K-12 experience. Given this reality, it is time for local school communities to be
given the authority to prioritize content standards, whereby some content may be opted
out so that more time can be made available for depth.
There can be little argument that acquisition of knowledge and depth of
understanding occurs within the context of previously existing knowledge which
certainly argues for the necessity of breadth. It has also been shown that retention,
contextualization, and personalization of knowledge require depth of understanding.
Furthermore, when the aforementioned occurs students find the learning experience more
positive and are more likely to seek out further experiences of learning. An interesting,
albeit not definitive, experiment was conducted by Kristen Kennedy (2000). Kennedy
monitored the progress of two-college psychology courses taught by the same professor
using the same text. In the control class sixteen chapters were taught while in the
experimental class only eight chapters were covered. Both classes were given the same
pretest/post-test. There was no statistical difference in the performance on these exams
Panel 1: Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
4
by either group. After the completion of the course the students and the instructor were
interviewed. Not surprising, the students in the experimental class responded that they
found the class interesting, enjoyable, and they anticipated that the material would “stick
with them longer.” Students in the control class complained that the course was stressful,
and the instructor did not explain the information. The instructor stated that teaching the
experimental course was a more positive experience. It is not unreasonable to assume
that students from the experimental class will be more likely to continue their learning
experiences in psychology.
There is an important caveat to the experiment conducted by Kennedy; the
pre/post test only questioned information on the chapters covered in the experimental
class. It is hard to imagine that the students in the experimental class would have been
able to successfully answer questions regarding content from the other eight chapters that
were not covered. Similarly, it is to be expected that when we sacrifice breadth for depth
our students will likely miss those questions related to omitted content on their
standardized exams. The dilemma that the teacher who sacrifices breadth for depth faces
is that his or her students will likely miss those questions related to standards not taught.
This may or may not be compensated by improved performance on questions related to
material that was covered in depth. In the final analysis, it is the teacher and the local
school community that is in the best position to determine the needs of their children and
not a bureaucratic government agency. In the current environment teachers feel
pressured to cover as much content as possible with the hope of generating higher test
scores even though it may not be in the best interest of producing life long learners.
Panel 1: Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
5
In conclusion, the Depth/Breadth binary will continue to exist as a pedagogical
controversy. The solution is not to attempt to resolve it by government mandate but to
allow local communities to shift the binary in such a way as to best serve its students.
Given the current environment that emphasizes breadth over depth I propose that local
communities be given authority over content which will allow them to opt out of some
standards freeing up the time necessary for depth with the expectation that this will
produce a more informed, critically thinking citizenry who continue to learn beyond their
secondary education experience.
Panel 1: Depth is More Important Than Breadth in Teaching Science
References:
Hirsch Jr., E. D. (2001) Seeking Breadth and Depth in the Curriculum
Educational Leadership v59 n2 p22-25 Oct 2001
St.Pierre, Elizabeth (2006) Scientifically Based Research in Education:
Epistemology and Ethics.
Adult Education Quarterly, Volume 56 No. 4, 239-266, August 2006
Kennedy, Kristen M.; Rodrigue, Karen M.; Davis, Stephen F. (2000)
So You Want to Teach Less in Hopes of Teaching More?
College Student Journal, Vol. 34 Issue 4 p626
6