The science education community has been engaged in reform of one sort or another through most of the history of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Our current involvement is in elaboration and implementation of a movement whose initiation was marked by the publication of Science for all Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989) and whose importance has been reinforced by many writers and reports (e.g., National Research Council, 1996). Significantly, interest in such reform emerged virtually simultaneously around the globe, and its language is now part of the prominent rhetoric used by scientists, educators, and policy makers in many parts of the world. This reform focuses on four major goals which are by now quite familiar to science educators: science for all, teaching for understanding and application of science knowledge and processes, inclusion of a broader view of science in the curriculum, and "less is better."
These four broad goals provide an important guiding framework for the reform, because they are consistent with much of our current understanding of teaching and learning, and of the societal needs science can serve. However, this reform effort represents unfinished business for the science education community. Despite the seeming efficacy of the goals and claims that underlie current reform, there has been little formal, scholarly effort on the part of the science education community to ground the reform carefully in research. Moreover, there has been little public discussion about the efficacy of programs that are widely implemented in school and college classrooms and in other educational settings. As a result current research and development is a patchwork of studies and projects lacking in depth, coherence, and long-range guidance. National and state policies do little to improve the situation.
There also has been little serious discussion of those alternatives to the current reform which propose different directions for change or of how to address the concerns raised therein. Furthermore, we have not given attention to educating the public about the purposes and underlying rationale of the reform. Moreover, we have not given sufficient concern to factors that impede enhanced understanding between members of our community and those outside it whose values often do not coincide with our own. Nor has there been sufficient discussion about differences in perspectives and values held by colleagues within our own community, as well as those we seek to teach. This matter has important implications for our efforts in the particular cultures in which we each reside.
As we continue our reform efforts, we must ask difficult but important questions: Are we using available knowledge effectively in designing and implementing reform-based programs? Are there areas where our current knowledge is inadequate to achieve the intended goals? How can we formulate needed knowledge in an appropriate time frame to strengthen our efforts? Are our strategies based on values appropriate to only our particular culture or are they sensitive to diverse groups of practitioners and students whom we serve?
To engage in critical reflection and discourse that will help us move from rhetoric to reality, we invite members of the NARST community to prepare articles about the contemporary