Lopez and Schultz reply: Roger Tobin illustrates quite well what can go wrong in science education. Teachers must have both the scientific and pedagogical content knowledge to teach science effectively. But good professional development is not enough. Tobin also has put his finger on two other essentials.
First, good instructional materials should not suffer the kinds of design problems Tobin indicates, and they should come with a teacher’s manual that makes clear the nature of the measurements and the physics underlying them. Good materials should also not be isolated, however good their “gee-whiz” features, but should be part of an extended investigation that will lead to a deep understanding of the science and will enable students to develop increased skill in actually doing science.
Second, to implement such a program, understanding and support must come from both the administration and the community. Tobin’s involvement in the classroom seems to have been key to a successful outcome in the case he reports. This is a good example of why scientists must be involved in science education.
As we discussed in our article, not only are ongoing professional development, good instructional materials, and administrative and community support essential, but so are a system for supporting the materials and an assessment program aligned with the curriculum. Only when these five elements are in place has a school system undergone what we believe to be a systemic reform that is likely to mean a good and sustainable science education program.
