considerations for a program in science education preservice teachers

Considerations for a Program in Science EducationPreservice Teachers

Carl StedmanAssociate Professor of Science Education

Austin Peay State UniversityClarksville, Tennessee 37040

Too often, colleges and universities embark upon a program ofpreparing science teachers without adequate rationale or purpose.While occasionally a new course or proposed major or minor mayprompt some serious thoughts about purposes and goals, more oftenthe total preservice program for elementary science teachers is con-trolled by lists of courses, requirements and other aspects of traditionwhich have not been scrutinized for lengthy periods of time. Theproblem may be compounded by interdepartmental requirements and,in at least a few instances, the vested interests of some departmentswho have momentarily won the battle for large numbers of students.

It would be presumptuous to propose any single program or curriculathat would meet the obviously varied needs of preservice teacherseverywhere, but the posture taken here is that certain basic consider-ations can be identified and they will permit generalizations that shouldbe carefully considered in designing programs which will more ade-quately prepare preservice teachers to eventually meet their profes-sional responsibilities in the classroom. The most legitimate concernmust be and remain a consideration of what is perceived as the bestway to prepare teachers to help children learn. What happens tochildren in the classrooms of teachers we are now preparing musttake priority over tradition, college catalogs, state requirements andthe vested interests of departments and schools within the collegeor university.

It is assumed that the development of a program for elementaryschool science teachers, especially one that prepares specialists forthis level, should be designed with at least two fundamental consider-ations in mind:

(1) what kind of science teaching is viewed as appropriate for the grade levelsfor which these teachers are being prepared?, and

(2) what kind of experiences would lend themselves to optimal efficiency in preparingfuture teachers for the role they will or should play?

Any attempt to answer question one leads quickly to a considerationof at least three additional areas of concern: (1) current theories oflearning and instruction; (2) an agreement as to what role scienceshould play in educating the citizen of tomorrow (the majority of

236

Science for Preservice Teachers 237

elementary school children will deal with science as generalists, notspecialists); and (3) what is considered good science instruction forelementary school students by educators and scientists.A cursory review of some of the more prominent nationally produced

elementary school science curricula indicates that the developmentaland instructional theories of Piaget and Gagne have been consciouslyapplied to the programs. A liberal interpretation of Piaget’s ideassuggests that elementary school children have thinking capabilitiesthat relate best to concrete rather than abstract conceptualizations.1Gagne’s ideas, roughly translated, indicate that instruction should besequential and that learning problems are likely to relate to an absenseof prerequisite knowledge and skill rather than an innate lack of capacityto learn.2 Casual exposure through a lecture or two on "the waychildren learn" will hardly be adequate to develop the understandingsand skills essential in using the new science cumcular materialsappropriately nor will it be adequate for developing a sympatheticand realistic attitude toward children and how they learn. Theseoutcomes will be achieved only if instruction is specifically plannedto achieve them.

Future teachers must be made aware of the realistic assumptionthat children learn by doing. Science instruction must involve thestudent overtly and telling about science or demonstrating scienceis not enough. Failure in science for children too often representsa failure at the verbalization and abstract levels and seldom reflectsa child’s inability to comprehend science when he is taught appropri-ately. Future teachers of science should have practice in learningscience in ways similar to those in which their students will be learning.If the majority of their science learning has been associated withlectures, note taking and "covering" materials and topics, it seemsvery unrealistic to assume that a single exposure to a methods courseis miraculously going to provide them with the attitudes and skillsnecessary to successfully teach science to young children.Although volumes could probably be written on the role which

science plays or should play in man’s future, one substantive consider-ation must be faced. Does science, as an intellectual endeavor ofman, have a common core from which every educated man can benefitthrough a direct encounter and experience with the discipline? Ifso, what aspect of this common core, this attempt to develop scientificliteracy, should filter down to the elementary school. Attempts toaddress this problem will certainly produce divergent responses, butit is the view here that explaining the period of a pendulum, defininga thrust fault, or memorizing the characteristics of an Arthropod doesn’tappear to be the optimal path toward scientific literacy or a meaningfulunderstanding of the role of science in tomorrow’s society for tomor-

238 School Science and Mathematics

row’s citizen. Each new science curriculum project is an attemptto address this problem for elementary school children, and thedivergence exhibited among these projects is obvious. Other nobleefforts have been extended such as the Educational Policies Commis-sion’s statement of seven values of science3 and the NSTA’s TheoryInto Action In Science Curriculum Development4 Although this prob-lem is difficult and frustrating for a school or university as it plansits program of teacher education, it cannot be escaped or ignoredany more easily than one can escape or ignore his shadow.

If the nature of science, the way it arrives at its truth, the wayit is integrated into man’s existence, the limitations it posesses, andthe role it should play in man’s future is of any consequence, thefuture elementary teacher must be exposed to more than the "funda-mentals." They must be given direct experience with the nature ofscience as well as the knowledge of science.Any attempt to define good science teaching is predestined to be

controversial, but we can identify one thing that is common to allof the contemporary elementary school science projects. The studentsare viewed as active participants and not passive listeners. Becausethe old adage’ ’teachers teach as they have been taught’’ has recognizedmerit and reasonable face validity, future elementary teachers ofscience should be given experiences in science which demand directinvolvement and active participation. If we desire future citizens tobe problem solvers, analysts of information (data), discriminators ofvalid vs invalid conclusions, discrete observers, and analysts of thepremises behind certain truths, can we afford to neglect these consid-erations in their education? Can we afford to assume that these willbe natural by-products of what we are already doing or must wedesign instructional programs specifically to achieve these goals? Canwe produce good science teachers without providing opportunitiesto analyze data, design experiments, or any other of the skills necessaryto function in the active phase of science? Can students adequatelylearn science from instructors who consistently use a textbook asthe primary authority to which they must direct their attention?The discussion thus far has been an attempt to provide considerations

to be made in attempting to answer question one rather than an answeritself. Attempts to arrive at an answer to question two, which relatesto developing experiences with optimal efficiency for preparing preser-vice teachers, will probably be even less definitive than were attemptsto answer question one. In fact, logic dictates that question one mustbe reasonably answered before question two becomes meaningful andcapable of being answered. Because this presentation is viewed asan initial attempt to provide guidance to those making curriculardecisions, a model has been generated which will hopefully offer


some reduction to the infinite number of considerations which mustbe faced when honest and reasonable efforts are made to plan aviable curriculum for preservice elementary science teachers. Ratherthan a list of courses, it is a collection of types of experiences whichcould be oriented into courses, integrated across courses or usedto develop mini-courses from which students, in cooperation withinstructors, could arrange their own curriculum. Because it is ageneralized model, it also has the potential to serve as a guide forthe preparation of performance criteria for a preservice curriculumin science for elementary teachers.

A MODEL FOR DESIGNING A PROGRAM

FOR FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SGIEKGE TEACHERS

Considerations for Curriculum Development

SCIENCE AS A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE

Concepts, Principles, Laws & Theories

^\PhysicalBiological

f (int’j^r’aUid Science) ^^_^

\! Observing

[Classifying|___.� -�«�^A� ....V-

[ MeasuringInterpreting DataCommunicating Data

o’’_-�«-.�. . --�- -’�- �� -��H Inferring 1__

^ PrQdict-ifg ., _L_ ^_^...._

^ ’Operational Definitions

§N ^Formulating Models�n,. Hypothesizing j<Q ^pfeLnipulating Variables

Experimenting IOthers"""’ T

SCIENCE AS A PROCESS

FIG. 1

The model presents the following categories of experiences whichshould receive serious consideration prior to and during curricularplanning sessions. It indicates that preservice science teachers shouldhave experiences:

(1) for developing an understanding of the nature of science and the scientificenterprise. Questions to be addressed include: (a) What is scientific truth andhow is it acquired? (b) What role should science play in man’s future? (c) Why


is the study of science an essential part of man’s total education? (d) Whatis the relationship of technology and society to the scientific enterprise?

(2) in using the techniques applied by scientists to expand knowledge, i.e. processes;(3) in learning certain basic concepts, principles, laws and theories which are

considered essential to understanding science as a body of knowledge and whichare especially appropriate for consideration at the elementary school level;

(4) for learning and practicing strategies of instruction and pedagogical techniqueswhich are critical for presenting science appropriately to elementary schoolstudents, i.e. inquiry and problem solving, science in open concept schools,individualizing science instruction, classroom and lab management, evaluatingstudent progress, etc.

(5) in studying and teaching selected materials and lessons from recently developedscience curriculum projects; this should include an exposure to the philosophicalbase upon which the project was designed and opportunities to use the materialsin teaching sessions with elementary school students.

A defense of this model can easily be made from a wide spectrumof the literature in science education. Weller, for example, discussedan inservice program for science curriculum innovation which suggest-ed that teachers are now being asked to accept a completely differentset of values with respect to teaching itself, and it is imperative thatthey not only accept new materials but understand the philosophyinherent in these materials as well. He believed that this could onlybe accomplished with a comprehensive program which included sciencelaboratory experiences, teaching laboratory experiences, critiques andseminars. He further emphasized that to bridge the gap between whatis and what should be, certain questions must be addressed and fewelementary school teachers are able to give immediate and meaningfulanswers to any of these questions.

Why should children study elementary school science? What kind of knowledgein science should children have? What should they know about the nature of thisknowledge? What should they be able to do with this knowledge? How shouldscience be presented to children?5

The NSSE Yearbook of 1960, which was devoted to science teaching,listed the needs of science teachers as: some content, a grasp ofthe social impact of science, and an understanding of scientific inquiry.6

It has been suggested by Rosen, et. al. that current courses arenot specifically designed to meet the needs of prospective elementaryscience teachers and that too many leave "the course" that theyhave had in physical science feeling as one who has had the measlesand that it is a relief to be done with it. In an attempt to alleviatethis attitude, the University of Illinois developed a course with aclose blend of physical science and teaching methods which producedfavorable student response.7The author has also experienced favorable changes in students’

attitudes toward science teaching by blending science "content" witha variety of teaching strategies and methodologies. Other efforts to


bend or break the traditional mode of preparing science teachers canalso be located in the literature. For example, Welch reported ona case study involving a college physical science course for nonsciencemajors that included many preservice elementary teachers. The coursewas designed to improve attitudes toward science and give studentsa feeling for the scientist’s approach. One goal was cited as to havethe students look forward to the science period with anticipation ofcooperative exploration and not with anxiety about being unable toanswer questions.8

Future science teachers cannot be expected to use the sciencematerials of new curricular projects appropriately unless they havereceived specific instruction toward this end. In discussing secondaryschool science projects, Hurd stated that two-thirds of the teachersusing the new curricula in science are not teaching it according tothe philosophy of the program and are not sure how to effect inquiryand discovery. He recommended that we need methods suitable toreach these new goals.9 It is not difficult to generalize his commentsto include elementary school teachers.

Science teaching, as viewed here, demands teaching skills that cannotbe left to an osmotic process, but they must be skillfully taught througha program specifically designed and oriented toward new goals andobjectives. In questioning whether teaching is a profession, Nygaardsuggested that professionals have special competence in that they:(1) know things that most other people do not know and have skillsthe average person does not have, and (2) have a rational understandingof the how and why of one’s special way of functioning.10 A reasonableextrapolation might well be that a professional science teacher shouldmeet these requirements and that their professional program mustprovide them.The vast numbers of teachers who are recent graduates from our

colleges and universities who vigorously apply for funded and non-funded summer programs and workshops in science education suggeststhe strong possibility that their educational experiences while attendingschool as undergraduates were not adequate in meeting their needs.Although it is recognized that education is a life long process andcannot be completed in four brief undergraduate years, it is alsorecognized that optimal efficiency in science teacher education requiresconstant evaluation of programs and curricula and the model proposedhere is submitted in the hope that it will offer some helpful directionfor this purpose.One characteristic of a "good teacher" discussed by Hamachek

was a willingness to experiment and try out new things." One wouldhopefully assume this to also be characteristic of a "good curriculum"or a "good university."


REFERENCES

1. PIAGET, JEAN. Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child, Rand McNally,Chicago, Illinois. 1970.

2. GAGNE, ROBERT M. The Conditions of Learning, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NewYork, 1965.

3. EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMISSION, Education and the Spirit of Science, NationalEducation Association, Washington, D.C. 1966.

4. NSTA CURRICULUM COMMITTEE. Theory Into Action In Science Curriculum Develop-ment, National Science Teachers Association, Washington, D.C. 1964.

5. WELLER, CHARLES W. "A Comprehensive Model for A Comprehensive In-ServiceTraining Program for Science Curriculum Innovation.’’ Illinois Journal of Education;March 1967.

6. NSSE. Rethinking Science Education, The Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the NationalSociety for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.1960.

7. ROSEN, SIDNEY; WELLER, CHARLES; GAIDES, EDWARD. "Science Methods forTeachers-To-Be." Elementary School Journal, December, 1968.

8. WELCH, W. W. "Strategies for Curriculum Evaluation: Three Case Studies inScience." NARST Research Training Session, Pre-session Information to Partici-pants. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1969.

9. HURD, PAUL DEHART. New Directions in Teaching Secondary School Science, RandMcNally, Chicago, Illinois. 1969.

10. NYGAARD, JOSEPH M. "Is Teaching Really A Profession?". The Indiana Teacher,Spring 1969, 138-140.

11. HAMACHEK, DON. "Characteristics of Good Teachers and Implications for TeacherEducation." Phi Delta Kappan, Bloomington, Indiana. February 1969.

PORT COMMERCE

Worldwide leaders in shipping and port commerce met in Milwaukee recentlyto discuss changing technologies in U.S. port operations and related environ-mental concerns.The delegates, included directors and economists from U.S., Canadian

and foreign ports. They discussed Port Planning and Development; LaborUtilization and Its Effect on U.S. Planning and Development; EnvironmentalChallenges of the Future; and Ports and Services to Less Developed Areasof the World.The questions faced at our ocean and Great Lakes ports are more than

timely, they’re critically urgent. These discussions are bound to have a stronginfluence on our country, in fact, on all the countries with whom we trade.For this reason, there was remarkable interest and representation at thisconference from overseas.

considerations for a program in science education preservice teachers

Documents