BSCS Programs: Just How Effective Were They?

Abstract

Public support for science education decreased progressively during the '70s and hit rock bottom in the early months of 1982 when the Science Education Directorate of the National Science Foundation came perilously close to extinction. Contributing to this demise of science education was the perceived ineffectiveness of the science programs developed with public monies in the '60s and early '70s. The general sentiment was that the new science programs were a waste of money and were the cause of declines in student scores in science and math throughout the '70s. But were the new programs ineffective? On what evidence were these conclusions based? We recently completed a quantitative synthesis, or meta-analysis, of 25 years of research comparing student performance in the new science programs to that in the more traditional courses. We found the new science programs to be consistently more effective than their traditional counterparts. Moreover, we found Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) biology to be the most effective of all the new high school programs. In this report we will present the details of the BSCS research synthesis, showing how the BSCS programs compare to each other and to other science programs and how various student groups performed. We think these data are especially valuable in view of the recent swing in support of science education precipitated by the documented shortage of qualified science and math teachers for our elementary and secondary schools. Though huge investments in another round of curriculum development are not anticipated, policymakers and science educators will be looking at the interaction of teacher materials in an effort to come up with a working model for improved science instruction. We feel elements of programs such as BSCS should be considered in this search.