JOSEPH D. McINERNEY

Curriculum Developmentat the Biological Sciences

Curriculum Study

By placing enduring scientific principlesin a context useful to teachers andsympathetic to the prevailing educationalculture, BSCS textbooks have transformedthe way many students learn biology.But new challenges lie ahead.

he Biological Sciences Curricu-lum Study (BSCS), a nonprofitcorporation, was established in

1958 to rejuvenate and restructure thetenth-grade biology curriculum. BSCSaccomplished this task by first updat-ing what Bentley Glass (1970) called"the antiquated content of the biologycourses in the high schools" with moreexperimental, quantitative content, andsecond, by designing materials thatpromoted "the teaching of science as a

EDouATIONA. LEADERSHIP

process of investigation and inquiry,rather than simply and wholly as abody of knowledge" (Glass 1970).1

Those two principles of curriculumreform were reinforced by a decisionto avoid a single representation ofbiology (Glass 1970). The result wasthe development of three separatetextbooks: Biological Science: A Mo-lecular Approac (blue version, orig-inally published as Biological Science:Molecules to Man); Biological Science:An Ecological Approach (green ver-sion); and Biological Science: An In-quiry Into Life (yellow version). Thebooks have sold more than 5.5 millioncopies since their commercial releasein 1963. A fourth program, BiologicalScience: Patterns and Processes, devel-oped for high school students who areunsuccessful learners, has sold morethan 750,000 copies since its develop-ment in the mid-1970s. BSCS text-books have been adapted for use inover 60 countries.

Independent analysis has shownthat when compared to traditionaltextbooks, the BSCS basal textbooksresulted in improved student achieve-ment, improved process and analyticskills, and improved attitudes towardscience (Shymansky 1984).2 Further-more, BSCS programs were moreeffective in improving achievement,process and analytic skills, and atti-tudes toward science than were othermajor curriculumdevelopment pro-jects of the 1960s, such as PSSC Phys-ics, Project Physics, CHEM Study, andthe Chemical Bond Approach. TheBSCS has had a secondary impact onbiology education in that many otherhigh school biology textbooks followthe BSCS model.

William Mayer (1978 in press), Ar-nold Grobman (1969, 1984), and Glass(1970) have analyzed in detail the

process used to develop the threeBSCS versions. As important as theprocess itself, however, was the deci-sion to make the BSCS a permanententerprise, rather than to apply itscurriculum development process onlyas an ephemeral palliative for thedeep-seated problems in biologyeducation.

Determining What IsWorth KnowingThe rate at which new knowledgeaccumulates in biology is daunting.One may, perhaps, quantify this ex-pansion of knowledge in terms of newresearch articles, new journals, or newpieces of information. No one person,however, can truly comprehend theimpact of the steady accumulation ofinformation on the conceptual frame-work of the discipline.

Yet, curriculum developers in biolo-gy (and other disciplines, as well)must synthesize and interpret tremen-dous quantities of information. Theymust choose from an enormous bodyof knowledge information that con-veys to students a cogent answer toErnst Mayr's (1982) seductively simplequestion: "If one wanted to say a fewwords about modern biology, whatwould one say?" To attempt to answerthat question in isolation from thosewho generate the information, or fromthe context of general education, guar-antees the development of irrelevantmaterials. The objective for the curric-ulum developer, then, is to answer aquestion that parallels Mayr's, firstraised by Herbert Spencer in the mid-nineteenth century, to wit: "Whatknowledge is of most worth?" (Spen-cer [1854] 1966).

In arriving at an answer to thatquestion we consider several criticalcriteria

Citerion 1: How l does te br-mation in question iustre tBe basc,endurwg principles of boVg? Aten-tion to that question helps avoid whatPaul Doty and Dorothy Zinberg (1972)called the "temptation of being cur-rent," that is, to incorporate into cur-riculum new information simply be-cause it is new, absent of anyjustification for how it helps studentsunderstand major concepts. Onemight, in a chapter on genetics, list thehuman genes that have been mappedmost recently to highly localized re-gions of specific chromosomes. Forthe average student, however, that isuseless information unless it is dis-cussed in the broader context of amajor unifying concept such as geneticcontinuity (see note 1), or applied to aparticular problem that has personaland social utility such as the use ofgene mapping in the prenatal diagno-sis of genetic disorders.

This guideline, which is importantfor curriculum development at thenational or local level, helps develop-ers avoid the growing tendency to-ward producing encyclopedic, vocab-ulary-laden textbooks, a trend that willlikely accelerate as a result of newinformation and newly developedstate science requirements (McIner-ney in press). It also requires that thedevelopers understand thoroughly themajor organizing principles of the dis-cipline, and that they involve advisorsand writers who do, as well. Althoughthat seems obvious, biology and otherdisciplines are saddled with textbookswhose concentration on minutia dem-onstrates that the developers did notsufficiently comprehend the majorprecepts of the discipline, or con-sciously subordinated major princi-ples in favor of information for its ownsake.

DECEMBER 1 986/Jv�u4in' 198729

I

DECEMBER 1986/JANUARY 1987 25

tions of the proposed materials. That isespecially important in light of re-search on implementation, whichshows that educational innovationmust have support from within thesystem, not be imposed from the topdown (Komoski 1985).

The issue of perceived utility andimportance raises the critical questionof the extent to which curriculumdevelopment can promote innovation.Curriculum developers do not seek tomaintain the status quo; they desireinstead to promote change in the con-ceptualization of a discipline or in the-- r* ;.,.*~ ~teaching strategies used to convey aparticular conceptualization. Develop-

_ : ' '_ ers must. therefore, be willing to takesome risks. They live with the continu-ous tension between promoting inno-

/ vation through new materials, and_7 '~.sB~ -keeping those materials sufficiently

recognizable to teachers to ensuretheir use. If BSCS, for example, were

Many uv-cancepanrahzed currxuluts qkuidhy man seof--oeshe sbehvsaim-se aa Ofadto to forsake innovation in its materials,attend to the reaties of the caw and the backgrounds of the teachers for uhom the there would be no reason to maintainmatera/s are dee.oped the organization. Conversely, if newmaterials were so different as to ig-nore the realities of the classroom,there would be no market for them.Criterion 2: Do teachers and ad- Conversely, new BSCS modules The extent to which innovation is ac-ministratorspercewe theproposed ma- from the program Innovations: The cepted depends on the educationalterials as useful and important? Cur- Social Consequences of Science and climate. Some BSCS programs, thericulum development at the national Technology, have not been as success- versions, for example, were devel-or local level is generally based on an ful, despite excellent reviews in the oped during periods of strong supportassessment of what the target popula- literature (S-STS Reporter 1985). The for educational reform; those pro-tion needs. The distinction between modules have a sound scientific base, grams resulted in wholesale revisionswants and needs is critical. What sci- but they do not have an obvious cur- in the biology curriculum. Other pro-ence teachers want-for example, ricular home because they concen- grams, developed during less active"how to" activities-may not be what trate on the political, ethical, and eco- periods, acknowledged the need forthey need, which may be a clearly- nomic implications of rapid scientific incremental change. We believe thatarticulated, comprehensive biology and technological progress. The sec- the educational community is on theprogram. ondary science teacher must create a verge of a more active period whereIn our experience, teachers often new niche for the materials, thereby substantive change is again possible.determine utility and importance by excluding other topics, or must use Criterion 3: What is the relationshi passessing whether new materials can this program to illustrate traditional between the proposed curriculum ma-occupy a well-established niche in the material in new ways. The developer, terials and the prevailing context ofcurrent curriculum. BSCS, for exam- therefore, must overcome the com- general education?Just as a host of en-ple, has had little trouble with the pound problem of resistance to new vironments-from the cellular level toimplementation of Basic Genetics: A content and to learning new teaching the level of the biosphere-influences

Human Approach, because virtually strategies. the expression of individual genes, theall high school biology courses devote The problems of assessing the per- framework of general education influ-substantial time to genetics. The major ceived utility of new materials may not ences the development of curriculumproblem has been to convince teach- be quite as severe in the case of local and its ultimate expression in any giv-ers to abandon their traditional con- rriculum development where teachers en classroom. Curriculums must adaptcentration on plant and animal genet- and administrators may articulate to reflect the prevailing perceptions ofics in favor of human examples, and to needs more clearly and the curricu- the purpose of education (Boyer 1983,embrace pedagogical techniques such lum into which the materials will fit is Goodlad 1984, Sizer 1984).as role-playing and group discussion more familiar to the developers. Notwithstanding the many and var-of ethical dilemmas, techniques for- Nonetheless, local developers must as- led opinions on what the Americaneign to the average science teacher. sess carefully the teachers' percep- educational enterprise is intended to26

EDUCAioNAL LEADERSHIP

"Biology and otherdisciplines are saddledwith textbooks whoseconcentrationon minutiademonstrates thatthe developers didnot sufficientlycomprehend themajor precepts ofthe discipline,or consciouslysubordinated majorprinciples in favorof information forits own sake."accomplish, the curriculum developermust ensure that new materials reflectthe broad goal of preparing studentsfor effective citizenship in a democra-cy. With respect to science education,that means preparing students to com-prehend the components of a rapidlychanging society that depends heavilyin both intellectual and practical termson science and technology.

Early BSCS materials responded to aprevailing perception that scienceeducation should be organized on theknowledge base of the discipline andthat inquiry-oriented instructionshould help students to think andsolve problems the way scientists do.The organizational structure for thebiology curriculum was derived fromthe structure of the discipline itselfand from the processes by which biol-ogists conduct research. There waslittle concentration on the personaland societal implications of the biolog-ical sciences.

Beginning in the early 1970s, how-ever, BSCS materials began to reflectthe emerging opinion that scienceeducation should acquaint studentswith the ways in which rapid progressin science and technology challengelong-standing values and traditionsand raise new questions of ethics. Thatopinion is now a working assumptionfor science education and for generaleducation as well (Hurd 1986, Hick-

man and Kahle 1982, Graubard 1983,Bybee 1985).

The strong support for includingscience, technology, and societythemes indicates how the perceptionof biology education has changedsince the inception of the BSCS. Thistrend has also expanded the BSCSperception of inquiry. Formerly, in-quiry referred exclusively to an inves-tigation of the scientific method. NewBSCS programs include in the processof inquiry an emphasis on decisionmaking that results from the personaland societal implications of scienceand technology.

Lessons from 28 Years ofCurriculum DevelopmentThe three criteria described above-ability of new curriculum to illustratebasic concepts, utility and importanceof the information, and the relation-ship of the material to the goals ofgeneral education-help the BSCSstaff and board of directors plan, con-duct, and implement new projects.The BSCS board and staff strive toanticipate sound trends in biology andin science education and to bringthese trends into the educationalmainstream, often against consider-able inertia. The following brief dis-cussion presents four enduring prob-lems that contribute to that inertia, andsuggests how these problems mightbe resolved.

1. Implementaton. The best curric-ulum material is worthless unless it isused effectively by teachers and stu-dents. Many well-conceptualized cur-riculums quickly attain state-of-the-shelf status because they fail to attendto the realities of the classroom andthe backgrounds of the teachers forwhom the materials are developed.

The intensive teacher-education in-stitutes conducted with federal moniesin the 1960s and 1970s are unlikely tooccur again, particularly under thecurrent administration. Curriculumdevelopers must, therefore, dependon various cooperative mechanisms tointroduce new materials and newteaching strategies. Among those areworkshops supported by local schooldistricts and publishers. One publish-er of BSCS materials-Kendall/HuntPublishing Company--has trained tenconsultants (identified by the BSCS) topresent workshops ranging from one

hour to a full day on the content,philosophy, and instructional strae-gies of BSCS materials. A newly fundedBSCS project trains leaders fromschool districts in the Pikes Peak re-gion to conduct inservice seminars onthe use of the microcomputer in thescience classroohn. New BSCS materi-als will include comiputer software andprint materials to allow for dis-trictwide coordination of implfnenta-tion efforts.

2. Funding Curriculum develop-ment at the national level is costly.Consultants in biology and education,writers and artists, nationwide fieldtesting, and formative and summa-tive evaluation of field test materialsrequire substantial funding. Govern-ment support for curriculum develop-ment has decreased, and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act ensures that thedecline will continue. Yet the federalgovernment itself calls for new curric-ulums in science to meet the needs ofa changing society (National ScienceBoard 1983, National Commission onExcellence 1983) as the amount ofscientific knowledge continues to in-crease, and the implications of thatknowledge for citizens in a democraticsociety grow more troublesome andcomplex.

During the last half dozen years, theBSCS has expanded its funding base tosupplement funds available throughcompetitive grants from organizationssuch as the National Science Founda-tion (NSF). Indeed. many BSCS pro-jects are now supported by a consor-tium of funding organizationsincluding government agencies, pri-vate foundations, corporations, and re-search societies. For example, the de-velopment and distribution ofImmunology and Human Healhb wassupported by NSF, the American Asso-ciation of Immunologists, and the Na-tional Association of Biology Teachers.The development of a new module ongenetic technology is supported bygrants from the Monsanto Corpora-tion, E. I. du Pont de Nemours &Company, Ward's Natural Science Es-tablishment, and NSF. BSCS is current-ly conducting a design study for a K-6science and health program in cooper-ation with the Educational SystemsBusiness Unit of International Busi-ness Machines. A proposal to developK-6 materials based on the design

DECEMBER 1986/JANARY 1987 2'

study includes support from the GatesFoundation, the Adolph Coors Foun-dation, NSF, and School District No. 11in Colorado Springs.

Those developing materials for lo-cal use should attempt to establishsimilar funding consortia Contribu-tions need not be in the form of cash;many businesses will donate staff timeand equipment to improve the curric-ulum in local schools.

3. Publication. Publishers have notsupported curriculum innovation. TheBSCS depends on the commercial sec-tor to publish its materials. Increasing-ly, however, major publishers (manyof whom are owned by conglomerateswhose central concern is not educa-tion, but profit) are unwilling to riskpublishing innovative programs. Theyprefer instead to produce books thatpromote the status quo and offend noone (Apple 1985, Mayer in press,McInerney in press), least of all single-issue groups such as those that opposethe teaching of evolution or anythingrelated to sexual reproduction (Ben-etta 1986, Moyer 1985). These single-issue groups have convinced majorpublishers that innovation can be dan-gerous to corporate health. BSCS has,therefore, turned increasingly tosmaller publishers whose commit-ment to educational innovation andcorporate risk taking are more consist-ent with the BSCS mission. We hopethat more such publishers willemerge.

4. Teacher preparation. Teachersneed to be trained in the major princi-ples of biology and must understandthe process of teaching by the inquirymethod. Substantial evidence (Nation-al Science Board 1983, Moore 1984,the Holmes Group 1986) reveals thatmost prospective secondary scienceteachers are not, in fact, provided thatbackground during their undergradu-ate education. The BSCS, therefore, iscooperating with the American Insti-tute of Biological Sciences, the Nation-al Association of Biology Teachers,and the American Society of Zoologiststo improve the preparation ofteachers.

A Process of RefinementThere are many aspects to the devel-opment of a workable curriculum.This article has addressed some of themore important components of thecurriculum development process thatwe have evolved at the BSCS over aperiod of almost 30 years. We refinethe process continuously through our

28

annual interaction with numerous bi-ologists, science educators, classroomteachers, and students.[i

Author's note: I am grateful to my col-leagues on the BSCS staff for their valuableassistance in the preparation of this article.

1. The BSCS steering committee iden-tified the following themes which, takentogether, became the conceptual frame-work for the three BSCS versions: (1)change of living things through time-evolution; (2) diversity of type and unity ofpattern in living things; (3) the geneticcontinuity of life; (4) growth and develop-ment in the individual's life; (5) the com-plementarity of organism and environ-ment; (6) the biological roots of behavior,(7) the comnplementarity of structure andfunction; (8) regulation and homeostasis-the preservation of life in the face ofchange; (9) science as inquiry; and (10) theintellectual history of biological concepts.An eleventh theme, the relationship be-tween science and society, was added in1970

2. For purposes of analysis, Shymanskyand his colleagues distinguished between"new" and "traditional" curriculums asfollows: "New science curricula were de-fined as programs which (1) were devel-oped after 1955; (2) emphasized the na-ture, structure, and processes of science;(3) integrated laboratory activities intocourse discussions; and (4) emphasizedhigher cognitive skills and an appreciationand understanding of the nature of sci-ence. Traditional science curricula weredefined as courses which (1) were devel-oped, or patterned after a program devel-oped prior to 1955; (2) emphasized knowl-edge of scientific facts, laws, theories, andapplications; and (3) used laboratory activi-ties as verification exercises or secondaryapplications of concepts previously cov-ered in class."'

References

Apple, M. W "Making Knowledge Legiti-mate: Power, Profit, and the Textbook."In Current Thoughts on CurriculumAlexandria Va.: Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development,1985.

Benetta, W. J. Crusade of the CredulousSan Francisco: California Academy ofSciences Press, 1986.

Boyer, E. L. High School New York: Harperand Row, 1983.

Bybee, R W Science, Technology, Society.Washington, D.C.: National ScienceTeachers Association, 1985

Doty, P. and D. Zinberg. "UndergraduateScience Education: An Overview." Amer-can Scientist 60 (July-August 1972):

686-695.Glass, B. The Timely and the Timeless. New

York: Basic Books, Inc., 1970.Goodlad, J. A Place Called School New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.

Graubard, S. R "Scientific Literacy." Dae-dalus 112 (Spring 1983).

Grobman, A. B. The Changing ClassroomThe Role of the Biological Sciences Cur-r/crlum Study. Garden City, N.Y: Dou-bleday, 1969.

Grobman, A_ B. "The Biological Educationof Citizens" BioScience 34 (October1984): 551-557.

Hickman, F. M. and J. B. Kahle. New Direc-tions in Biology Teaching Reston, Va.:National Association of Biology Teach-ers, 1982.

Holmes Group. Tomorrow's Teachers. EastLansing, Mich.: The Holmes Group, Inc.,1986.

Hurd, P. DeHart. "Perspectives for the Re-form of Science Education." Phi DeltaKappan 67 (January 1986): 353-358.

Komoski, P. K "Instructional Materials WillNot Improve Until We Change the Sys-tem." Education LeadersIip 42 (April1985): 31-37.

Mayer, W. V. "Biology Education in theUnited States During the Twentieth Cen-tury" Quarterly Review of Biology, inpress.

Mayer, W. V. "The BSCS and Its Influenceon Biological Education." In BiologyTeacer's Handhook, 3d ed., edited byW. V. Mayer New York: John Wiley andSons, 1978.

Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological ThoughtCambridge, Mass.: Belknap/HarvardPress, 1982

Mclnerney, J D. "Biology TextbooksWhose Business?" American BiologyTeacher, in press.

Moore,J. A. "Science As A Way of Knowing:Evolutionary Biology." American Zoolo-gist 24 (February 1984): 467-534.

Moyer, W. A. "How Texas Rewrote YourTextbooks." The Science Teacher 52(anuary 1985): 23-27

National Commission on Excellence inEducation. A Nation at Risk. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1983.

National Science Board Commission onPrecollege Education in Mathematics,Science, and Technology EducatingAmericans for the 21st Centuy. Wash-ington, D.C.: National Science Founda-tion, 1983.

Shymansky, J. "BSCS Programs: Just HowEffective Were They?" American BiologyTeacher 40 (January 1984): 54-57

Sizer, T. Horace's Compromise. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin, 1984.

Spencer, H '"What Knowledge Is of MostWorth?" In Herbert Spencer on Educa-tion, edited by Andreas M. KezamiasNew York: Teacher College Press, 1966:121-159

S-STS Reporter 1 (November 1985):9,15,16,25

Joseph D. McInerney is Director, Bio-logical Sciences Curriculum Study, TheColorado College, Colorado Springs, CO80903

EDucAT.olO. LEADERSHIP

_-

dreas M

"

'edi,

New

York: Teacher College Press, 1966:

121-159.S-STS

Reporter I (November 1985):

9,15,16,25.

Copyright © 1986 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.