Seven goals for secondary science education with spatial consequences¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The paper organizes science education goals into seven reference words: power, social impact, product, process, enquiry, world view, and individual responsibility for learning. Each goal is argued as an alternative with direct consequences for space requirements, and composite goals are formed by merging others, e.g. enquiry merges process and product with emphasis on process. The paper notes that "teaching for all seven goals in any one year of the student's program is impractical and inefficient." The taxonomy establishes a concise vocabulary for later chapters on methods and facilities.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Local debate should select which goals each course adopts, since goal selection determines methods and facilities

Constraints¶

• Some goals, such as power, lack educational-measuring instruments, limiting evaluation of their attainment

Target Learners¶

• secondary school science students, including those terminating schooling at twelfth or fourteenth grade

Target Learning Objectives¶

• science literacy, understanding science as process, content mastery, individual responsibility for learning

Claims¶

Related Theories¶

• Four basic determinants of spatial adequacy in educational specifications
• Eight laboratory method types from three classificatory adjectives
• A procedural goals-methods-facilities model for planning science facilities

Examples¶

• Select a few goals per course rather than all-inclusive goal statements when designing facilities
• Draft flexible educational specifications stating activities and needs rather than fixed dimensions

Key Sources¶

• Engelhardt, David Frederic. (1966). Space Requirements for Science Instruction Grades 9-12. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. Graduate School of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED022353