Transforming the Science Curriculum

by Rechelle Sender Beauchamp and Lisa Avedon

Think back to your science and math classes in high school, college, or university. Did you and your classmates sit passively while the instructor lectured, delivering a series of facts and formulae which you noted and memorized in order to regurgitate later on the exam? There was little or no dialogue with the instructor and the interaction among students was largely limited to "what mark did you get?"

Contrast that with your experience in arts classes where there was stimulating, provocative discussion, topics that engaged you and related to real life, to which you felt you could contribute something meaningful, and that you could continue debating between classes.

Why can't science and math be taught in a way as engaging and relevant as the arts? Of course they can. One of us is a graduate of a high school science course where concepts were learned from field trips and hands-on experiments, where solid geometry and shop became a passion.

The other of us had an all-girls physics lab where the instructor encouraged us to prepare fabulous meals over the Bunsen burners. Despite this beginning, all of the students in that lab majored in science in university and three out of four received Ph.D.s.

Things haven't changed a great deal in the quarter century and more since then. In fact, today, fewer students, men as well as women, are choosing to study science, math, and technology.

Peggy McIntosh of the Stone Centre at Wellesley College in Massachusetts has developed an important five phase model of interactive curriculum development which is relevant to the education of women in science and technology (2). In the first phase, women are absent from the curriculum and their absence is not noticed; in the I second, a few female Nobel prize winners - women who have succeeded on male terms-are included. Phase three is the "ism" phase in that it - acknowledges and focuses on the barriers women face. The fourth and fifth phases are the "good stuff," the moving toward inclusive curriculum which reflects everyone's experiences and arrives at new definitions of greatness.

Our experience with the Women Inventors Project demonstrates that most educators are now at phase two or three. The challenge now is to make the leap from phase three to four. We need to move from a emphasis on women's access to a "status quo" curriculum, toward the implementation of a curriculum relevant to the entire population. The articles in this issue reflect the latter step, ranging nom various kinds of program structures (Bohnen and Klie, Anderson-Clarke) to more fundamental changes in the way that the courses are taught (Rogers). Some include the voices of women who express their experiences (Davis and Steiger, Inch and Frize), and lest we assume that the transformation is well on its way, Binden's contribution reminds us of the resistance to change from professional groups and educators.

Finally, we want to acknowledge Margaret Benston's contribution to science and feminism in Canada and we dedicate this issue to her memory.

Radtdle Sender Beauchamp and Lisa Avedon are co-Guest-Editors of this issue of Women's Education des femmes.

1. Sheila Tobias, They're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking The Second Tier. Tucson, Arizona: Research Corporation, 1990.
   
   
2. Thanks to Professor Janice Kock of Hofstra University for this interpretation of curriculum development.