Secondary Science MAT and MOSAIC Summer Reading List
2015
Science MAT and MOSAIC Summer Reading List 2015
George DeBoer
A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice
©1991
(any edition is acceptable; ~ $21.00 new)
M.S. Schiro
Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns
©2012 (second edition)
(~ $34.00 new)
The Next Generation Science Standards
©2013
available online: http://www.nextgenscience.org/
Richard Milner
Rac(e)ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and Race in Schools and Classrooms
©2015
(~ $30.00 new)
D. B Larkin
Deep Knowledge: Learning to Teach Science for Understanding and Equity
©2013
(~ $26.00 new)
Reading Frames for each book or online document are attached in this packet.
Please pay close attention to these guides and be prepared to share your notes in class sessions
during fall Jumpstart (weeks 1 and 2 of fall term).
Please read the first three documents in order (begin with DeBoer, move on to Schiro, then read
the Next Generation Science Standards).
We recommend that you read the Larkin book after you have read Milner’s Start Where You Are
But Don’t Stay There (required reading for students in all MAT and MOSAIC programs).
1
Secondary Science MAT and MOSAIC Summer Reading List
2015
DeBoer Reading Frame
A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice by George DeBoer ©1991
Reading Assignment: entire book
The purpose of this reading assignment is to provide a solid grounding in the history of the
Recommended Science Curriculum in the US. We are all steeped in the current Standards
movement, but it’s important to understand what got us here, the extent to which this current
reform mirrors others in our past, and the reasons why “reforms” in science curriculum come and
go.
As you read, keep in mind that your goal is to understand the major curriculum reform movements
in a historically (socio-politically) contextualized way. This means that you should understand not
just what the reformers were advocating, but who those reformers were and what motivated their
goals for science education.
We will focus on the following major reform movements—
1. Inquiry at the Turn of the Century (note especially the Committee of Ten report)
2. The Progressive Era (spanning 1920’s to WWII, see the works of Dewey and others)
3. The Reform Era (also known as “structure of the disciplines”; see Schwab and others)
4. The New Progressivism (1970’s through 80’s)
For each of these curriculum movements, consider the following questions—
1.
Who were the major players in this era of curriculum reform? (college professors, scientists,
teachers?)
2.
What were the main goals for science education? Were they more inwardly focused (improving
individuals) or outwardly focused (benefiting society)? Imagine yourself asking the major players,
“What is the purpose of studying science in school? Who should take science courses? Which ones?” what would
their answers be?
3.
Also consider their strategies for affecting reform: How did they intend to impact the science
curriculum? For example, they might have felt that telling others what to do was sufficient. Or
they may have believed that developing instructional materials was required. Or they may have
thought that the best way to impact what happens in schools is to impact the teachers
themselves, etc.
4. How do you make sense of these reform goals given the social and psychological influences of
the time? (Pay particular attention to the political, economic, and cultural contexts, as well as
what was known/believed about how people learn.)
Prepare notes that reflect your thinking about these issues and bring them to class during Jumpstart.
2
Secondary Science MAT and MOSAIC Summer Reading List
2015
Schiro Reading Frame
Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns by M. S. Schiro. ©2012 (Second
edition).
Reading Assignment: Chapter 6
Reading Frame
1. As you read, consider which of the four ideologies best fits your personal views about the
goals and purpose of education: Scholar Academic, Social Efficiency, Learner Centered, or
Social Reconstruction.
2. Also consider what your own K-12 learning experiences have been - did you spend time in
schools that reflected one of these ideologies more than another? What are the
characteristics of schools that lead you to this conclusion?
3. Reflect back on the major reform movements DeBoer wrote about. Is there a dominant
ideology that seems to align with each of these movements? What connections do you see?
While Chapter 6 is the only one that is required for summer reading, we encourage you to read the
rest of the book. The chapters that detail the origins of the ideologies are very interesting and help
to ground your understanding of these schools of thought. They provide additional insight into the
reasons why ideologies have been (and continue to be) so impactful in the history of US education.
NGSS Reading Frame
The Next Generation Science Standards. ©2013
You may access this document at http://www.nextgenscience.org/.
Reading Assignment: Appendices A, D, E, F, G, H, and J
Reading Frame
1. What themes from earlier in the history of science curriculum to you see re-emerging in
today's standards?
2. Based on what you've read here, is there a particular curricular ideology that seems to be
most influential in the standards?
3
Secondary Science MAT and MOSAIC Summer Reading List
2015
Larkin Reading Frame
Deep Knowledge: Learning To Teach Science For Understanding And Equity by D. B. Larkin.
©2013
Reading Assignment: entire book
This book focuses on two important topics: how to teach for deep understanding and equity. Pay
close attention to the first chapter that defines some key terms such as race, ethnicity,
culture, and diversity. Most of the book is devoted to case studies of beginning science teachers’
experiences with teaching for deep understanding and equity.
To prepare for an in-class discussion of these topics, please read the book carefully and take
notes. Select one case that interests you and answer the following questions:
1. How do the background experiences of the teacher in this case compare with your own?
a. Consider his or her early experiences with school.
b. Consider his or her more recent experiences with disciplinary content.
c. Consider his or her more recent experiences with teaching.
2. How does the teacher in this case view teaching and learning science? Do you agree with his or
her approach? Why or why not?
3. How does the teacher in this case view the challenges and benefits of teaching in urban public
schools? Do you agree with his or her views? Why or why not?
4. Consider the author’s (Larkin’s) perspective on this case.
a. Do you agree with his interpretation of the teacher in this case’s approach to
teaching and learning science? Why or why not?
b. Do you agree with his interpretation of the teacher in this case’s perspective on
teaching in urban public schools? Why or why not?
c. What do you find surprising or disturbing about the author’s perspective on
teaching and learning and/or equity? Why?
4