• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Science Education

Posted on: Sunday, 23 January 2005, 03:00 CST

Evidence of the need to improve science education in elementary school, especially in the lower grades, is not far to seek. The recently released results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS) 2003 show that achievement by U.S. fourth- grade students is not what this nation expects. Between 1995 and 2003, fourth-graders in the United States did not improve their average science scores on TIMSS. In "Precollege Science Teachers Need Better Training" (Issues, Fall 2004), John Payne poses the question: Could part of U.S. students' problem with science achievement have its roots in the way and extent to which elementary science teachers are being trained to teach science while in their college programs?

The short answer must be yes. Although many factors influence student achievement, the preparation of science teachers is certainly one critical factor. One analysis, based on the Bayer Facts of Science Education, suggests that elementary teachers do not teach science daily, do not feel "very qualified" to teach science, and do not rate their school program very highly. What could an undergraduate program do to help alleviate these problems?

In 2007-2008, the No Child Left Behind legislation mandates that school districts assess all students in science at least once in the elementary grades, thus elevating science to the same tier as literacy and mathematics. The result: More science will be taught in elementary schools. So we have a response to the first issue, but it is not a result of teacher education.

What about the second issue? One of the limiting factors for elementary teachers feeling qualified to teach science is their understanding of science. I suggest that colleges design courses specifically for elementary teachers. Often, the response to such a suggestion is that they should take the standard courses such as introductory biology, chemistry, physics, and geology. Well, at best they only will take two of these courses. And these courses are usually not in the physical sciences, where our teachers and students have the greatest deficits. Colleges and universities can design courses that develop a deep conceptual understanding of fundamental science concepts and provide laboratory experience based on core activities from elementary programs. There is research supporting this recommendation that comes mostly from mathematics education, but in my view it applies to science teacher education as well.

The third issue, exemplary science programs for elementary schools, could be addressed by an emphasis on National Science Foundation (NSF) programs in future teacher education programs. The reality is that undergraduate teacher education has some, but not substantial, impact on the actual program used by a particular school district. State standards and the economics and politics of commercial publishers all play a much more significant role in the adoption and implementation of exemplary programs.

In the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources, programs related to the issue of teachers' professional development and exemplary programs have been severely reduced because of recent budget reallocations. Without such external support, the likelihood of major reforms such as those envisioned by Payne and proposed here is very low.

RODGER W. BYBEE

Executive Director

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study

Colorado Springs, Colorado

rbybee@bscs.org

I completely agree with John Payne's comments about the success of efforts by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and others to improve the quality of in-service teacher education activities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. However, he seems unaware of the equally aggressive efforts by NSF to improve the quality of pre-service teacher education in STEM fields.

Between 1991 and 2002, I served as a program officer and later as division director in NSF's Division of Undergraduate Education. That division was assigned responsibility for pre-service education programs in 1990 in recognition that teacher preparation is a joint responsibility of STEM faculty and departments as well as schools and colleges of education. The division incorporated attention to teacher preparation in all of its programs for curriculum, laboratory, instructional, and workforce development. The flagship effort was the Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) program, which made awards from 1993 to 2000. The CETP program was predicated on the realization that effective teacher preparation programs require institutional support and the concerted effort of many stakeholders, including faculty and administration from two-year, four-year, and research institutions; school districts; the business community; and state departments of education. Funded projects were expected to address the entire continuum of teacher preparation, including recruitment, instruction in content, pedagogy, classroom management, early field experiences, credentialing, and induction and support of novice teachers. Attention was also given to the preparation of teachers from nontraditional sources.

Two evaluations were done of the CETP program. The first was an evaluation of the first five funded projects released in March 2001 by SRI International. The report concluded that CETP was "highly successful" in exposing pre-service teachers to improved STEM curricula, more relevant and innovative pedagogy, and stronger teacher preparation programs. The program was also judged "very successful" in involving STEM faculty. It also noted that "the potential for institutionalization looks positive." The other evaluation was performed by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota and was a summative evaluation of the entire project. This report, released in March 2003, concluded that "the establishment and institutionalization of the reformed courses stand out as do improved interactions within and among STEM and education schools and K-12 schools." Furthermore, when comparing graduates of CETP projects with graduates of other projects, the report noted, "CETP[- trained] teachers were clearly rated more highly than non-CETP[- trained] teachers on nine of 12 key indicators." These indicators included working on problems related to real-world or practical issues, making connections between STEM and nonSTEM fields, designing and making presentations, and using instructional technology. I wish STEM faculty were as well prepared for their instructional responsibilities; but that's a topic for an article in itself.

It's unfortunate that the CETP program was ended before we could obtain rich longitudinal data that might inform us about the actual classroom performance of the CETP-trained teachers. Of greater concern has been the volatility that has followed the expiration of CETP. The CETP program made new awards over an eight-year period (or two undergraduate student lifetimes). CETP was followed, briefly, by the STEM Teacher Preparation program, which was later folded into the Teacher Professional Continuum along with the previously separate program for inservice teacher enhancement lauded by Payne. This compression was necessary in order to pay for the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program at NSF, an ambitious effort that focuses on partnerships between institutions of higher education and K-12 school districts. After three rounds of awards, there is now an effort to remove MSP from NSF and add funds to a similarly named program at the Department of Education that now functions more by block grant than by competitive peer review. So on balance, Payne's call for new efforts is entirely appropriate as long as we amend his call to request that, when indications are that they are successful, programs also be sustained.

NORMAN L. FORTENBERRY

Director

Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education

National Academy of Engineering

Washington, D.C.

nfortenb@nae.edu

John Payne correctly identifies the most serious problem in science education: the poor learning of science in the elementary school years. He also recognizes that the poor teaching of science by elementary school teachers is at the core of poor learning by students. I applaud him for calling for better educating those who will become elementary school teachers. Finally, I extend my appreciation and congratulations to him and his company for their long-term commitments to helping improve the situation.

Having said these things, I would like to make some observations and take exception to a few of his claims. Having followed the reforms in Pittsburg, I suggest that the early and dramatic improvements in student performance and attitudes toward science there should be attributed to the use of elementary science specialists. These teachers have uncommonly strong backgrounds in science from their undergraduate years, and they make up a small percentage of all elementary school teachers. By contrast, most elementary teachers and teacher candidates are fearful of science, many to the point of anxiety and dislike, and took only few science courses in college (which are often large lecture classes in the general education curriculum).

Many of us have long noted that science (and mathematics) anxiety in elementary school teachers is one more consequence of poor teaching inthe elementary (and often in the secondary) years of a teacher's education. Bad attitudes and practices are passed from generation to generation. I assert that meaningful progress in reforming early science education would be best served by converting to the use of elementary science specialists, parallel to how specialists are used for instruction in art and music.

The practice of inquiry-based science deserves further comment. I don't doubt that Payne accurately quoted published figures, such as 95 percent of deans (of education, I presume) and 93 percent of teachers say that students learn science best through experiments and discussions where they defend their conclusions. And that 78 percent of new teachers say they use inquiry-based science teaching most often (compared to 63 percent 10 years ago). However, based on my personal observations over many years, the observations of many colleagues who visit classrooms regularly, and the continuing poor performance of elementary students in science nationwide (selected communities like Pittsburgh excepted), these figures simply cannot be believed. I have administered many surveys to teachers myself, and one has to expect that most teachers report what they wished they were doing rather than what they actually do. Learning by inquiry is difficult for most science majors in college. Expecting most elementary school teachers to become comfortable and skilled at teaching this way is completely unrealistic unless the budget for teacher professional development activities in science is increased a hundredfold.

Investing in and requiring the use of elementary science specialists is a cheaper and more reliable solution to the K-8 learning problems.

DAN B. WALKER

Professor of Biology and Science Education

San Jose State University

San Jose, California

dbwalker@jupiter.sjsu.edu

Copyright Issues in Science and Technology Winter 2005

Source: Issues in Science and Technology

More News in this Category