National Science Teachers Association Press:
Arlington, VA, 2001. 192 pp. ISBN 0-87355-193-1. $24.95

The purpose of the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (1) is to provide a vision of how the K-12 education system can develop scientifically literate citizens (understanding that science is inquiry rather than a collection of facts to memorize). The 32 NSES cover a broad range of areas from science content and teaching to assessment and entire science-education systems. You are probably thinking, "It would be nice to have a scientifically literate people, but what do I have to do with K-12 education? Nothing! I teach college chemistry!"

Apparently that is the view of most readers of the Journal because little has been written here about the importance of the NSES. Three editorials come to mind that were published several years ago when the standards were first touted. Crosby pointed out the importance of the standards as a way to improve science education (2). But he did not stop there. He lambasted higher education by reminding us that the K-12 teachers are educated in our institutions of higher education and use them as role models. So we need to be familiar with the NSES. In the next editorial, Ware discussed content-related issues (3). She explained that although it appears there is little chemistry content in the NSES, there is actually quite a bit considering the inclusion of inquiry-related standards such as asking questions, investigating ideas, and judging evidence. She ends by pointing out that the ACS was preparing a document to help people involved in first-year high-school chemistry teaching interpret the NSES. This book is now available from the ACS (4). Moore also discussed the NSES in an editorial in 1998 (5). He explained how the standards are for all students, will take time to implement, do not limit chemistry content, and require learning through inquiry. He also pointed out that the content-related standards are only one of six different areas of the NSES.

The NSES include standards in these areas: teaching, professional development, assessment, content, program, and system. They explain that improving science education to develop a scientifically literate citizen goes beyond what happens in classrooms. Consistent and coherent programs must be developed that build on students' understanding of science content and inquiry. And finally, such programs can only develop with alignment of system-level resources for program development. These issues sound far removed from college science teaching. But they are not. And after reading College Pathways to the Science Education Standards you will have a better understanding of these issues in your own situation and will understand how you might effect positive changes.

College Pathways makes these important issues easy to read and think about in the context of higher education. The text starts with a brief introduction about the origin of the NSES, discusses differences between "traditional" and "constructivist" classrooms, and ends with an explanation of why college-level science faculty should be involved in science teaching reform. The first six chapters cover the six standards areas in a manner similar to the presentation in the NSES. Each chapter begins with an overview of what the standards in that chapter address. However, the editors of College Pathways have added some useful research- and policy-based discussion to support the four to six standards presented in each chapter. Each standard is presented verbatim from the NSES. It is then discussed, and this is followed by a "From The Field" section authored by various contributors. Each chapter finishes with an up-to-date list of research- and policy-related references that may be new to some readers and are good sources of information.

The contributors to the "From The Field" segments come from many scientific and institutional backgrounds. Most of them have biology, chemistry or science education backgrounds. Additionally, most are from doctoral-granting institutions; yet there are people from two- and four-year institutions and from nonprofit organizations involved in various aspects of science education. This heterogeneity of contributors enables the book's editors to show how the standards might be realized in different settings. For example, in the standards addressing science education systems, Stanley Pine wrote about a variety of resources and programs related to the NSES that the ACS makes available. However, because of the wide range of contributors, I do not think that these "From the Field"sections read as smoothly as the similar vignettes found in the NSES.

The epilogue is weak. It addresses only the issue of meeting the science education needs of all students. It discusses the presence of special education students in academic classrooms and the need to address different learning styles. I think the editors should have discussed other questions when placing the NSES into a higher education context. For example:

1. What have been the consequences in terms of learning outcomes for students at the K-12 level in places where the NSES have been embraced? How have policy and funding changed in these places to enhance the system, program, and classroom science learning experiences for K-12 students?
2. Do K-12 and higher education systems have identical missions in terms of preparing literate (including scientifically) citizens? To what extent do system, program, and classroom experiences in higher education align with developing a scientifically literate person?
3. To what extent is it possible to teach science as an inquiry activity if students do not have sufficient content preparation?
4. How would the standards fit into current tenure and promotion systems?

These are just some of the issues that came to me as I read College Pathways. It would have been useful if the editors had explored the extent to which the NSES taken from the K-12 science education system can be placed into a higher education context. Are the missions of K-12 and higher education the same? Are there conflicting missions in higher education that might affect the implementation of the NSES? Consider teaching science as an inquiry activity to business majors at a large, Research I university. Will small classes, with adequate classroom and laboratory resources, taught by high-quality faculty (not teaching assistants), be offered to these hundreds of business majors so they can understand the nature of scientific inquiry? Probably not--this use of resources is not aligned with more important missions of such universities. A simpler question to ask in this area of program development and resource alignment concerns laboratory fees. To what extent do these fees actually go to support laboratory and course design and implementation for non-science majors? These are issues not so relevant to K-12 science education but they make me wish that the appropriateness of the NSES in higher education had been discussed in College Pathways.

With all that said, who should read College Pathways and why? Higher education science faculty should read it because it might help them to reconsider what content to teach (perhaps inquiry-related skills), ways to teach (that are more active than lecture), and approaches to measuring learning (going beyond paper-and-pencil testing). Department chairs should read it because it might help them to provide curricular and instructional leadership for faculty. It might also help them rethink how to develop consistent and coherent programs for majors and nonmajors and ways to consider the support of professional development activities for faculty that would help to develop scientifically literate students. Deans and other administrators who have programmatic (and fiscal) effects on science education programs should read it because it can be a way to encourage efforts to align their science education programs with available resources.

We, as science faculty, should be aware of the ideas in the NSES because we can make a significant and positive impact on a number of levels. Overall, I think the book provides a useful starting place for college-level science faculty who realize that they are involved in the U.S. science education system and that they should become actively involved in doing their best--from the classroom through the system levels. Reading College Pathways will help science faculty see how they can contribute at all these levels. The classroom is the most obvious place where we regularly affect the development of scientifically literate citizens. But we can also affect science education many ways at other levels. At the program level we can effect change by participating in department committees that develop courses or review programs for majors and nonmajors; here we can encourage more inquiry experiences for students. Through tenure and promotion committees we can work to require evidence that standards are being met for teaching, assessment, and professional development. At the system level we can effect change by getting involved with activities that affect science education in our classrooms. For example, we can volunteer to serve on a test-writing committee for the ACS Examinations Institute. The point is that there are many ways to affect the development of scientifically literate people that go beyond our classroom. The ideas and vignettes in College Pathways are good starting points. We need to be involved at all levels or others will make decisions for us.

Literature Cited

1. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996.
2. Crosby, G. A. J. Chem. Educ.1996, 73,A200-A201.
3. Ware, S. A. J. Chem. Educ.1996, 73,A307-A308.
4. Chemistry in the National Science Education Standards; Division of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997.
5. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ.1998, 75,391.