Robert Yager, Professor Emeritus The University of Iowa, Iowa City USA We can identify the needed changes in science teaching. These “needed changes” are included first in the U.S. National Standards – perhaps because they are the most important changes needed. Interestingly, these were developed without serious disagreement. How teachers teach is more important than what they teach. And yet, the emphasis too often is on what we teach and what we have left out. The nine changes recommended in the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (page 52) include some common situations, which should be de-emphasized and correspondingly some which should be given more emphasis as indicated:

Less Emphasis On:	More Emphasis On:
Treating all students alike and responding to the group as a whole	Understanding and responding to individual student interests, strengths, experiences, and needs
Rigidly following curriculum	Selecting and adapting curriculum
Focusing on student acquisition of information	Focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes
Presenting scientific knowledge through lecture, text, and demonstration	Guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiries
Asking for recitation of acquired knowledge	Providing opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students and use of the information and skills, in new situations
Testing students for recall of factual information at the end of the unit or chapter	Continuously assessing student understanding
Maintaining responsibility and authority	Sharing responsibility for learning with students
Supporting competition	Supporting a classroom community where there is cooperation, shared responsibility, and respect
Working alone	Working with other teachers to enhance the science program

Some argue that all teacher education and staff development efforts should focus first and longest on these nine basic changes. Four basic questions are often used as another way to change science teaching. These are:

1. Is the information taught seen as useful and/or related to the lives of students?
2. Is the organization problem/issues centered? Does it start with questions, curiosity, or wonderment?
3. Is it tied to local conditions? Is there relevance at the school and community level? Or, is it too broad, too complex, too much “something” that others must solve?
4. Is it related to real current problems? Is it related to information and issues found in the current news?

Science courses and the whole curriculum are good if students see the material and approaches as personally relevant, related to local conditions, and of immediate importance. How can these features be included in textbooks and curricula guides? By definition text and pre-set curriculum are not related to the lives of learners, not focused on local issues, and not current. These factors need constant attention if successful reforms are to be found.