Chemical Education Today
Report
Implementing the Professional Development Standards
W
An Innovative M.S. Degree for High School Chemistry Teachers by Stacey Lowery Bretz
Nature of the Problem The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (1) have had a profound effect on curriculum development, assessment of student learning, and pre-service teacher education. States across the country are revising both graduation requirements for their students and certification requirements for their teachers. Ohio now requires secondary teachers to complete 30 graduate hours within 10 years of the initial license. Unfortunately for high school chemistry teachers, the NSES for professional development have yet to attract interest sufficient to result in design of new and applicable programs. Existing M.S. programs fail to embrace the professional development standards of (a) learning science, (b) learning to teach science, and (c) learning to learn. Chemistry graduate programs typically emphasize the first standard, while education M.S. programs emphasize the second. Neither graduate discipline emphasizes the third standard.
learni
learni
teach ng to School of Education Graduate Programs
pedagogy
M.S. Chem Ed
pedagogical content knowledge and action research
ng sci enc
e
Department of Chemistry Graduate Programs
content
⇓
learning to learn Figure 1. Integrating the professional development standards.
Degree Structure Our primary objective in the Department of Chemistry at Youngstown State University (YSU) is to provide a new kind of masters’ degree—one that is tailored to the needs and talents of high school chemistry teachers while acknowledging their background and preparation in chemistry. We have added a concentration in chemistry education to our existing M.S. in Chemistry. With funding from the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) program in the U.S. Department of Education, our degree provides for integration of pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge (chemistry), thereby modeling an innovative approach to operationalizing the NSES argument that “mechanisms and strategies for connecting and integrating science courses, pedagogy courses, and clinical experiences…are needed for practicing teachers.” NSES also argues that “effective teachers know how to access research-based resources and, when faced with a learning need, pursue new knowledge and skills that are based on research or effective practice. Teachers of science need to develop the skills to conduct research in their classrooms on science teaching and learning and be able to share their results with others.” Consequently, our program empowers teachers with the skills necessary for continual professional development throughout their careers. Teachers graduating with an M.S. in Chemistry from YSU will be able to 1) integrate their pedagogical expertise (for example, learning theories, misconceptions frameworks) with a deeper understanding of chemistry; 2) access research-based resources to pursue new knowledge or skills to improve classroom practice; 3) develop a portfolio
of instructional materials aligned with the NSES; and 4) conduct action research in their own classrooms on the teaching and learning of chemistry. These strengths of our program, as contrasted to traditional graduate programs, are summarized in Figure 1. Teachers complete 35 hours, as do all students in the M.S. program at YSU. After completing the three core courses in chemistry education, students must take two more graduate courses in chemistry, as well as address any deficiencies in their undergraduate preparation, such as taking physical chemistry. The M.S. degree at YSU requires a thesis. Students in the chemistry education concentration have the flexibility to choose a research project that could be considered traditional “wet” chemistry or chemistry education or a combination of the two. Faculty advisors work closely with the high school teachers to design a thesis tailored to their individual needs and interests. Project Results Two cohorts of teachers have entered the program, with a third cohort slated for entry this fall. Teachers enrolled in the program have from 2 years to 28 years of classroom experience, including two teachers who already have masters’ degrees in education but wish to now pursue the M.S. chemistry degree with a concentration in chemistry education. Almost one-third of the teachers enrolled actually teach more biology than chemistry; this points to the broad appeal of the degree structure and inherent value of the courses. The
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
1307
Chemical Education Today
Report school districts in which these teachers are employed range from inner-city urban to suburban to parochial to rural.
Chemistry Education Research Three graduate courses in chemistry education have been developed. CHEM 6971, Teaching and Learning Chemistry, is a tour of the current literature in chemistry education, including many of the seminal works. The readings list for CHEM 6971 draws heavily on this Journal and reports findings of chemistry education research (CER) with regard to student misconceptions (2–4) and perceptions (5) of chemistry, problem-solving (6–11), guided inquiry in both the lecture (12–14) and laboratory (15–17), and assessment (18–22). The readings also address systemic reform (23–27), the importance of learning theory in conducting CER (28–38), and the methodologies for doing so (39–45).W In CHEM 6972, Research Methods in Chemistry Education, teachers design and execute two pilot research projects. This course requires close workings with YSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) regarding the important topic of human subjects. Teachers’ course projects, no matter how preliminary in nature, still require IRB approval. High school teachers who conduct research on their own students must consider the requirements of investigating students under the age of 18, because they are a protected population. CHEM 6973, Chemistry and National Science Education Standards, requires students to build portfolios around one of the NSES content benchmarks. Detailed syllabi, reading lists, the CHEM 6973 NSES portfolios, and assessments of student learning have been developed and are available through the project Web site at http:// www.as.ysu.edu/~chem/fipse.
know what’s behind what you’re saying…Not to be in such a big hurry to get things done. To be more processoriented.”
The respect between the faculty and the teachers as peers who teach chemistry, and not in a hierarchical relationship between “ivory tower professor” and “high school chemistry teacher” has been most fruitful. The teachers themselves are incredibly effective at helping to promote and disseminate the program: “…the strength of the program helps. I took a curriculum class in the spring…there were several science teachers…complaining about the College of Ed. And our enjoyment of the class…led me to talk to [them]…tell them that even if they don’t go for a chem ed degree, if they’re going for a secondary education curriculum degree, they can take…[Chem 6971, 6972, and 6973] as electives.”
As the program grows, biology teachers are now contacting the biology department expressing interest in an analogous program. YSU chemistry faculty have audited CHEM 6971 for their own professional development. Several other chemistry departments around the country have expressed interest in adapting this program to the needs of their region’s teachers. And, most notably, teachers from across the country have requested that an online version of this degree program be made available to accommodate those teachers outside the commuting distance from YSU. W
Supplemental Material
An annotated version of the CHEM 6971 readings list, including links to the JCE manuscripts in portable document format, is available in this issue of JCE Online.
Evaluation Mary B. Nakhleh of Purdue University leads the project evaluation. The evaluation team has conducted surveys, focus groups, analysis of classroom discourse, and a site visit. The STEBI (Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Inventory) (46, 47) has been modified for in-service secondary teachers. The RTOP (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol) (48, 49) has been field-tested for use in the teachers’ classrooms to document their practices as consistent with the NSES. Early findings from the evaluation team indicate the importance of flexibility, relevance, and respect as key factors crucial to the teachers’ success. The program’s flexibility with regard to research interests and recognition of prior knowledge in chemistry support teachers as they make the transition into a graduate program in chemistry. The relevance of the courses as they integrate content with pedagogy has encouraged teachers to try new teaching methods and assess their students’ understanding in more substantive ways, as expressed by one teacher during the focus group: “…[I’m] much more reflective in a classroom with students…not just allowing an answer to surface but to
1308
Acknowledgment Support for this project was received from the U.S. Department of Education, FIPSE Comprehensive Program, Award P116B011231, 2001–2004. Literature Cited 1. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. 2. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 385–388. 3. Nakhleh, M. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 95–499. 4. Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 819– 823. 5. Tobias, S. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier; Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 1990. 6. Driver, R. Beyond Appearances: The Conservation of Matter under Physical and Chemical Transformations. Children’s Ideas in Science; Open University Press: Philadelphia, PA, 1985. 7. Nakhleh, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 52–55. 8. Nakhleh, M.; Mitchell, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 190– 192.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Chemical Education Today
9. Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 508–510. 10. Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 254–255. 11. Sawrey, B. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 253–254. 12. Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570–574. 13. Mazur, E. “Understanding or Memorization: Are We Teaching the Right Thing?” From Proc. Resnick Conference, 1996, New York: Wiley. 14. Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 566–569. 15. Coppola, B. P.; Lawton, R. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 1120– 1122. 16. Ditzler, M. A.; Ricci, R. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 685– 688. 17. Ricci, R. W; Ditzler, M. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 228– 231. 18. Bowen, C. W.; Phelps, A. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 715– 719. 19. Gurley-Dilger, L. Science Teacher 1992, 59 (3) 50–57. 20. Nicoll, G.; Francisco, J.; Nakhleh, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1111–1117. 21. Phelps, A. J.; LaPorte, M. M.; Mahood, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 528–531. 22. Tobias, S.; Raphael, J. B. Journal of Science Education and Technology 1996, 5 (4), 311–320. 23. Anthony, S.; Mernitz, H.; Spencer, B.; Gutwill, J.; Kegley, S.; Molinaro, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 322–324. 24. Cracolice, M. S.; Deming, J. C. Science Teacher 2001, 68 (1) 20–24. 25. Gutwill-Wise, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 684–690. 26. Nakhleh, M. B.; Bunce, D. M.; Schwartz, A. T. Journal of College Science Teaching 1995, 25(3), 174–180. 27. Russell, A. A.; Chapman, O. L.; Wegner, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 578–579. 28. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873–877. 29. Bunce, D. M. Online Symposium: Piaget, Constructivism, and Beyond. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107. Full text at http:// jchemed.chem.wisc.edu. 30. Finster, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 659–661. 31. Finster, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 752–756.
32. Herron, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 146–150. 33. Nurrenbern, S. C. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107–1110. 34. Bretz, S. L. Online Symposium: Piaget, Constructivism, and Beyond J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107. Full text at http:// jchemed.chem.wisc.edu. 35. Nakhleh, M. B. Online Symposium: Piaget, Constructivism, and Beyond. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107. Full text at http:/ /jchemed.chem.wisc.edu. 36. Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 915–920. 37. Towns, M. H. Online Symposium: Piaget, Constructivism, and Beyond. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107. Full text at http:/ /jchemed.chem.wisc.edu. 38. Wink, D. J. Online Symposium: Piaget, Constructivism, and Beyond. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107. Full text at http:// jchemed.chem.wisc.edu. 39. Bowen, C. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 184–190. 40. Bunce, D.; Gabel, D.; Herron, J. D.; Jones, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 850–852. 41. Eybe, H.; Schmidt, H-J. Intl. J. Sci. Ed. 2001, 23, 209– 225. 42. Metz, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 180–181. 43. Nurrenbern, S. C.; Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 181–183. 44. Phelps, A. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 191–194. 45. Pribyl, J. R J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 195–196. 46. Riggs, I.; Enoch, L. Science Education 1990, 74, 625–637. 47. Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument. http:// www.unr.nevada.edu/~rmcfarla/STEBI_A.html (accessed Aug 2002). 48. MacIsaac, D; Sawada, D; Falconer, K. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Seattle, WA, 2001. ERIC Document ED452070. http://ericae.net/ericdc/ ED452070.htm (accessed Aug 2002). 49. MacIsaac, D; Sawada, D; Falconer, K. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/rtop (accessed Aug 2002).
Stacey Lowery Bretz is in the Department of Chemistry, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555;
[email protected].
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
1309
