IMPROVING SCHOOL REFORM BY CHANGING CURRICULUM POLICY TOWARD CONTENT-AREA INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: A RESEARCH-BASED MODEL

An emerging trend involves linking and applying research-based advancements in content teaching and learning with systemic school reform. By integrating interdisciplinary research perspectives with systemic problems of school reform, this paper raises the awareness of the potential for increasing the allocation of instructional time for in-depth content-area instruction in science (and other content areas) as a research-validated, curricular approach for accelerating the achievement of all students in both reading comprehension and writing). Described are two research-validated models (Valle Imperial Project in Science, Science IDEAS) that exemplify such potential changes in curricular policy by replacing traditional reading/language arts instruction with in-depth science within which reading comprehension and writing are integrated. Presented is a reform-oriented rationale for changing curricular policy to increase the instructional time allocated to teaching science and other content areas at the elementary levels. An emerging trend in education is the attempt to dynamically link ongoing research initiatives for advancing the quality of K-12 teaching and learning with the more generally evolving process of systemic school reform (e.g., Secretary’s Summit on Science, 2004). In advocating an operational strategy that integrates and applies paradigmatically different interdisciplinary research perspectives (e.g., Bransford et al, 2000) to the persistent problems of school reform, the objective of this paper is to raise the awareness of educators and policy makers regarding the potential for in-depth science as a form of content area instruction to serve as a critical element in furthering school reform efforts that, to the present, have emphasized the improvement of achievement outcomes in literacy (e.g., reading comprehension, writing) as ends in themselves rather than as a vehicle for meaningful contentarea learning. In doing so, this paper provides evidence in support of the related questions of how and why increasing the allocation of instructional time for in-depth science instruction at the upper elementary levels (grades 3-5) offers a research-validated means for significantly accelerating the achievement progress of all students in both literacy (e.g., reading comprehension, writing). Despite a continuing national emphasis on educational reform for the past 20 years, student proficiency in content-area reading comprehension (and writing) and achievement in content areas such as science have remained systemic problems. When reaching high school, many students representative of all SES strata do not have sufficient academic preparation in prior knowledge or reading comprehension proficiency to perform successfully in contentoriented courses. In addition, there are indications that the lack of emphasis for in-depth teaching of science and other content areas in elementary schools is a systemic barrier to successful school reform (Hirsch, 1996; Vitale & Romance, 2006). Within a framework of school accountability, a predominant school reform strategy has been to increase the time allocated to schoolor district-adopted basal reading programs by reducing the instructional time allocated to science and other content areas, especially for those at-risk students most dependent upon school to learn. However, allocating increased instructional time to prepare students for non-content-oriented reading tests _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2006, San Francisco, CA 2 Preparation of this paper was supported by IES Project R305G04089 and NSF/IERI Project REC 022835. Improving School Reform . Page 2 effectively withholds opportunities for meaningful content learning for school-dependent children across grades 3-8. In turn, the resulting lack of curricular preparation of such students for high school content courses is likely a major contributor to the magnification of the “black-white” test gap from elementary to the secondary levels. Although the short-term pressures of accountability might be difficult for schools to overcome, of even greater importance are the negative long-term curricular implications for student general reading comprehension proficiency and preparation for high school science courses that ultimately become manifest at the high school level (NAEP, 2002, 2003; Rand Report, 2003). In addressing the challenge of amplifying the role of science and other content-area instruction in school reform, this paper (a) overviews the research-based theoretical perspectives relevant to reform issues that provide the foundations for considering in-depth instruction in science and other content areas as a critical element in school reform, (b) summarizes research findings and presents implications for school reform of two multi-year developmental research initiatives (Valle Imperial Project in Science, Science IDEAS) that improve student reading comprehension and writing through in-depth science instruction in which reading comprehension and writing are embedded, and (c) presents a reform-oriented rationale educators can use to advocate for changes in curriculum policy that would result in the increase of instructional time allocated to science and other content areas as a reform strategy for improving student reading comprehension and writing. Emphasized as part of the rationale presented is how a curricular policy of improving achievement in reading comprehension and writing through increased in-depth content area instruction also would result in better preparation of all students for success in high school content-area courses in both the science and non-science areas (e.g., history, literature, geography). Finally, considered are specific opportunities associated with the school reform movement that would be facilitative of efforts by educators to change curricular policy to increase time for content area teaching and learning at the elementary level. Consensus Research Perspectives and Findings Underlying the Importance of Meaningful Science Learning to Literacy in School Reform Recent appraisals of interdisciplinary research related to meaningful learning summarized in the recent report by the National Academy Press, How People Learn, (Bransford et al, 2000) provide a foundation of why and how in-depth science and content area instruction can serve as a core element in literacy development (e.g., reading comprehension, writing). In their overview, Bransford et al summarized the findings of established research studies of experts and expertise as a unifying concept for meaningful learning. Such studies have repeatedly established that in comparison to novices, experts demonstrate a highly-developed organization of knowledge that emphasizes an indepth understanding of the core concepts and concept relationships in their discipline (i.e., domain-specific knowledge) that, in turn, they are able to access efficiently and apply with automaticity. Although the instructional implications of such a perspective (discussed below) are highly supportive of the importance of in-depth content area learning, these same implications are in direct conflict with the present lack of emphasis on meaningful curricular content in popular approaches to reading and language arts that presently dominate elementary schools (e.g., Hirsch, 1996; Walsh, 2003). In this section, a combination of theoretical perspectives and empirical findings are presented to establish the relevance of elementary science instruction implemented as a form of in-depth content area learning to the development of student proficiency in reading comprehension and writing, a critical reform goal. Cognitive Science Foundations of Knowledge-Based Instruction Models In considering the operational characteristics associated with disciplinary expertise as a foundational framework, the notion of knowledge-based instruction provides a methodological perspective for approaching curriculum and instruction. Implemented originally in computer-based intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), the distinguishing characteristic of knowledge-based instruction models is that all aspects of instruction (e.g., teaching strategies, student activities, assessment) are related explicitly to an overall design that represents the logical structure of the concepts in the subject-matter discipline to be taught, a curricular structure that optimally should C:\Documents and Settings\pspringe\Desktop\Project Papers etc 10-2007\AERA 2006 Improving School Reform v005 3-17-06 FINAL.doc Improving School Reform . Page 3 parallel the knowledge organization of disciplinary experts. In considering this design characteristic as a key focus for meaningful learning, knowledge-based instruction is best illustrated by the original ITS architecture developed in the early 1980’s (e.g., Kearsley, 1987; Luger, 2002). As Figure 1 shows, in ITS systems the explicit representation of the knowledge to be learned serves Insert Figure 1 Here as an organizational framework for all elements of instruction, including the determination of learning sequences, the selection of teaching methods, the specific activities required of learners, and the evaluative assessment of student learning success. In considering the implications of knowledge-based instruction for education, it is important to recognize that one of the strongest areas of cognitive science methodology focuses on explicitly representing and accessing knowledge (e.g., Luger, 2002; Kolodner, 1993, 1997; Sowa, 2000). The research foundations of knowledge-based instruction models are consistent with well-established findings from cognitive science. In particular, Bransford et al (2000), in the recent National Academy Press report, How People Learn, stressed th