Research: Science and Education edited by
Chemical Education Research
Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064
The Power of Practice: What Students Learn from How We Teach Amy J. Phelps* Department of Chemistry, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132; *
[email protected] Cherin Lee Department of Biology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0421
Currently, there is a national focus on improving science education in this country at the K–12 level, as indicated by the publication of numerous reports, standards, and benchmarks (1, 2). The science curricula advocated by these reform efforts challenge teachers to get students active in the process of learning science in a way that accurately reflects the way in which science is done (3). Implementation of this type of science education requires more than mere clear explanation of facts. Preservice science teachers, including those in chemistry, have trouble embracing new methods that support these science reforms due to their well-established preconceptions about the nature of teaching and learning that they have developed based upon their many years of classroom attendance (4). Typically, students have experienced twelve to thirteen years of school characterized by passive listening and regurgitation of information, followed by more years at the post-secondary level refining these skills (5). Modeling their instructors creates a situation in which new teachers teach as they were taught, emerging from their undergraduate education with a set of rules for teaching and learning that will govern their approach to teaching as professional educators (6, 7). The type of teaching new teachers mimic from their college instructors is not the type of instruction supported by educational research or advocated by the many reform efforts. There is an expectation that preservice science teachers will graduate from college ready to implement inquiry-based science programs that get students actively involved in the process of learning, even though college science is generally not taught in this way. Educators need to assess the preconceptions about teaching and learning held by future teachers and recognize the key role college science instructors can play in the K–12 science education reform process to bridge the gap between how new teachers will be expected to teach science and how they are currently learning science. Theoretical Perspective The authors believe that it is essential that students who are going to be teachers develop a notion of learning that is consistent with the constructivist philosophy of learning (8, 9). We want our preservice teachers to see students as active in the learning process, to view knowledge as a construction of the learner using prior concepts as building blocks for new information. Finally, we want our preservice teachers to understand that concepts held by the learners are resistant to
change, regardless of whether the concepts are right or wrong. This brief synopsis over-simplifies the tenets of constructivism, yet we include a description because it is a philosophy that drives our methods instruction in science education and is embedded in the research reported here. Research Methodology From 1990 to 2000, data were collected and categorized in an effort to elucidate the beliefs preservice science teachers hold about teaching. The students were enrolled either in a chemistry methods course (62 students) or a science methods (181 students) course and they were all juniors, seniors, or graduate students within a year of their student-teaching experience. The data were collected from various pieces of student feedback; journal entries, papers describing good teachers, ideal classrooms descriptions, lesson plans, and student critiques of the methods courses across the last decade. The data were analyzed using a constant comparison technique and have been organized into four categories (10–12). These four categories have been expressed in the form of assertions that paint a picture of the beliefs held by the majority of the preservice science teachers with whom we have been associated. Results: Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching Paramount in the minds of these preservice teachers was knowing their content area material. Another way to express this is “content is king” for most secondary science teaching majors, especially those with chemistry degrees. These ideas are summarized in the first assertion.
First Assertion: The most important thing is to know the content so I can give that information to my students Consider this typical example from a paper describing a “good science teacher”. This professor was first and foremost a very knowledgeable man in his field which was evident by his confident err [sic]. When I would listen to him talk I was overwhelmed by the amount of information he knew but I also felt completely sure that he knew what he was talking about and never had a doubt that he was right. ... When I think about myself as a teacher in the future, I usually try to model myself after Dr. Brown, as a teacher who was admired by many and loved by all (Female, Fall, 1997).
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 7 July 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
829
Research: Science and Education
Content is important and these preservice chemistry teachers spent a good deal of time worrying about whether or not they would “know their stuff ”. The preservice teachers believed that if they knew their stuff then they could give it to their students in a simple downloading procedure. This is an idea shared by many college professors who believe that the effectiveness of a high school science teacher depends solely upon the number and rigor of courses taken in the discipline (13). The following excerpts from the students’ papers on good teaching illustrate this point. They should be competent in their field and answer all questions posed to them (Male, Spring, 1991). Good teaching involves the transfer of knowledge... (Female, Fall, 1993).
The students believed that knowing the content was crucial, but it was surprising to hear them describe specifically what this crucial content was that they absolutely had to master. The nature of science, as they described it, was clearly that of repeating information given to them and calculating everything correctly. This type of routine problem solving characterizes many introductory courses, especially in chemistry, and does not lead to the conceptual understanding necessary to be successful in the high school classroom (13–15). Consider these comments about the nature of the discipline that summarized much of the sentiment shared by these students. We have to get them ready for college so everything is done under the excuse of making it more like college ... Rigor is defined by how much you can do and how fast you can calculate ... (Female, Fall, 1997). Chemistry is not creative—too much information and memorization in it ... by the time you get a degree you must be too repressed to be creative (Male, Fall, 1995).
These future science teachers came into their methods experience believing that content was the only key to being a good teacher and that once they knew that content then they could merely pass that information on to their students. They believed science, and chemistry specifically, was characterized by how well you could calculate answers. While knowing your subject matter is certainly an important and admirable goal, these student seemed to miss the idea that science was more than a body of knowledge to be passed on from one generation to the next. The second assertion addresses the uniformity of ideas preservice science teachers had about how they should transfer this information to their students.
Second Assertion: Teaching is about communicating your subject well, maintaining control, and not putting people to sleep Excerpts from papers these students wrote describing good teachers illustrate many of their ideas. Good teachers should control students to gain respect of students... (Male, Spring, 1991). They should present the material clearly (Male, Spring, 1994). Good teachers have good communication skills and present material clearly (Female, Fall, 1990).
These ideas are fairly consistent with a didactic, delivery-ofinformation approach to instruction, yet these ideas fail to 830
capture the variety of approaches supported by current learning theory where students are seen as active builders of knowledge and not merely empty vessels to be filled (8, 16–19). As part of the field experience required for these methods courses, many of these future high school science teachers tried out these didactic teaching strategies and upon reflection found them lacking. When I first started attending your class I feel my teaching philosophy would have been lecture, lab to confirm, review and test... (Female, Fall, 1990). I started out trying to lecture to the kids and I found out the kids went to sleep or passed notes... (Male, Fall, 1990).
These ideas were representative of what these future teachers had seen as science students. Even when reflecting on instruction after being introduced to other instructional approaches in their methods courses, the students’ memories of college science were very uniform. As far as college goes, it’s been pretty much all lecture and notes (besides the required lab times). ... I find this somewhat discouraging; here we are talking about how we need to incorporate all of these strategies, and hardly anyone teaches this way here. I do realize that it’s easier to lecture and more content can be covered (Female, Fall, 1998). At the University level, I cannot really think of any instructors prior to this semester that did anything other than lecture, instruct preordained labs, or lead teacher-centered discussions. ... Is there another way to teach college level science (Male, Fall, 1997)?
Many of the students were happy with the status quo and unhappy with our efforts to introduce them to new approaches. If teaching was not about lecturing and entertaining students, then they really questioned what role a teacher was to have in the classroom. I would let the students get more involved but then what would I do? ... I feel like I wouldn’t be teaching at all (Male, Fall, 1997). This whole thing has been a real downer—real depressing. I like kids and I like to entertain. I am funny. All this individual stuff and group stuff and program stuff... What do they need me for (Male, Fall, 1995)?
Doing demonstrations was one instructional technique mentioned specifically by the preservice chemistry teachers, but these were usually intended to be entertaining asides and a chance to “show off ” for the students. About the only other instructional approach that I was introduced to was demonstrations. My chemistry teacher liked to blow things up so I got to see a lot of that (Male, Fall, 1998). I love to do demonstrations for the high school kids. ... I love the ooo-ahs. I want to use a lot of demos when I teach because I think they will make chemistry more fun and interesting (Female, Fall, 1997).
All preservice teachers agreed that chemistry, or any science for that matter, cannot be taught without laboratories. None of the students said they would want to teach science without labs. Many of the preservice teachers “love labs” or
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 7 July 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Research: Science and Education
at least believed that “science means doing labs”, but when pushed further about why labs are so important these future secondary teachers had no developed rationale. This belief about the necessity of laboratory work and the uncertainty of its purpose is summarized in the third assertion.
Third Assertion: Laboratories are essential to the teaching of science, but the students are not sure why Some preservice teachers believed that labs helped to “prove that what I say is true” but others made lab sound like a liability in science teaching. You never know why your answers (in lab) are wrong ... they’re wrong, this is your grade, just accept it. I don’t think the professor knows why it’s wrong half the time. I know there must be a point to labs and lab reports but I don’t know what it is (Female, Fall, 1997). Students don’t learn from lab when the labs don’t turn out right (Male, Fall, 1995). We just did labs in high school and they never seemed to be related to anything ... just do it but why (Male, Fall, 1996)?
Although the instructors in these methods courses subscribe to a philosophy of science teaching that makes laboratory or hands-on, inquiry activities central to the curriculum, after discussing lab with these students it was clear that the use of the laboratory was more a habit for them than a pedagogical strategy. Science education research strongly supports the use and importance of laboratory work, but these laboratories should be of an inquiry nature, not standard cookbook-type activities (1–3, 20–22). In inquiry laboratories, the purpose of the lab is not a mystery. It is clearly stated or decided upon by the students before they begin working. The procedure may be left for students to develop on their own, but the purpose or question to be addressed is well defined. One of our goals as science methods instructors was to catalyze thinking about pedagogical decisions—to help these future science teachers make purposeful decisions about what teaching strategies would be best to help their students learn. Thus, we saw the preservice teachers’ questions about the role of a laboratory as a positive thing. Unfortunately, as we continued to explore the purpose of lab, some students decided that maybe labs were not even necessary, as summarized by this young man’s musing. I am not sure that labs are that important. After the first two years or so, lots of college science courses don’t even require them (Male, Fall, 1995).
In general, these preservice teachers’ notions of pedagogy were very uniform: communicate material clearly, be in control, be entertaining, and do labs. In fact, there was so much uniformity in their experiences as science students and in their beliefs about what good science teaching was that most of these preservice teachers saw little need for a course or series of courses designed to help them develop strategies or methods for instruction.
Fourth Assertion: Methods courses are not valued by preservice secondary science teachers The methods courses were uniformly not valued for a variety of reasons. First, methods courses lack validity because
they take away time from content and content alone is sufficient to teach. This stuff [methods] is dumb. The important stuff is content. I wish they would just let us take another science course (Male, Fall, 1997). Before this semester, I was of that “mightier than thou” opinion popular with those of us in the Arts and Sciences—that a higher education degree was more than sufficient to prepare one for teaching high school (Female, Fall, 1991).
These courses also lacked value because “you can’t teach teaching”. Some students believed that good teachers are born, not made, and therefore methods courses wasted their time by trying to teach them instructional approaches and techniques for planning. I have a teacher that definitely left an impression on me. However what made him such a good teacher can’t be taught in any class (Male, Fall, 1997). Ira, Richter, ... are the greatest and they just shoot from the hip. They don’t plan. They are comfortable and confident ... they just do it! And that’s how I want to be ... winging it (Male, Fall, 1995).
Other students did not necessarily believe that teachers were born, but certainly you did not need a whole set of courses to teach a person of average intelligence how to do it. I don’t know what I thought teaching would be like. I guess I thought they gave you a teacher’s edition of the book and those big packets and told you what to do. Maybe I was stupid or something but I never really thought too much more about it than that (Female, Fall, 1994). I am surprised that there are theories in education. Somehow I just thought we were technicians or something (Female, Fall, 1991).
While these ideas were prevalent among preservice teachers throughout the period of our research, a wealth of literature claims otherwise. Future teachers can and should learn the important skills required both to effectively break down information so that it can best be incorporated into their students’ existing cognitive structures, and to design lessons that facilitate organization of new information with existing information. While some of the knowledge and necessary skills are general to the profession of teaching, much is specific to the teaching of a particular subject (1, 3, 23–26). Discussion If changes are to be made in K–12 science teaching, then these ideas about teaching and learning held by preservice secondary science teachers must be addressed directly because they are not producing teachers that implement strategies in accordance with recent learning theory or research-supported best practices (3, 16–19). The images of teaching and learning described by these students are not unfamiliar to us. These images can be seen in science classes at the high school and college level across this country. However, if it is true that teachers teach the way they are taught, then the mechanism to make changes already exists. Some universities have already instituted programs for elementary education majors that try
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 7 July 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
831
Research: Science and Education
to capitalize on the fact that teachers teach the way they are taught. No one wants a fourth grade teacher to “lecture” to students about science, yet as educators we do want science taught to fourth graders; thus science is taught at the college level to prospective fourth grade teachers in an interactive, hands-on, discovery way. This is done not only in the elementary science methods courses, but also in the science content courses as well, often with instruction provided by faculty from traditional science disciplines (27–32). Unlike fourth graders, high school and college students will sit there while instructors “give” them information, but this does not necessarily mean that the students are learning or that instructors are doing what is best as educators. Preservice teachers deserve methods courses that allow them to develop the pedagogy specific to the discipline they are going to teach, but methods courses alone cannot compete with years of modeling from science instructors. The message is that all of us who teach science courses are in the business of teacher education whether we realize it or not. College instructors have an opportunity to influence the way science is taught at all levels by how we teach college-level science. Reform is not just a K–12 issue. In order for change to take place at that level, it must take place at all levels and we must recognize the role college and university science instructors play in science teacher education. The way in which preservice science teachers spend their time learning science content sends a far more powerful and long-lasting message than one or two science methods courses ever will. Literature Cited 1. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. 2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Project 2061: Science for All Americans; Oxford University Press: New York, 1990. 3. Pathways to the National Science Standards: High School Edition, Texley, J., Wild, A., Eds.; National Science Teachers Association: Washington, DC, 1996. 4. Lortie, D. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, 1975. 5. Fosnot, C. Enquiring Teachers, Enquiring Learners; Teachers College Press: New York, 1989. 6. Ost, D. H. The Educational Forum 1989, 53, 163–181. 7. Salish I Research Project. Salish Communiqué: A Publication of the Salish I Research Project, Vol. I and II; U. S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, 1994; Grant No. 168U30004.
832
8. Bodner, G. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873–878. 9. Appleton, K. School Science and Mathematics 1993, 93, 269– 274. 10. Glaser, B.; Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine Publishing Co.: New York, 1967. 11. Goetz J. P.; LeCompte, M. D. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research; Academic Press, Inc.: Orlando, FL, 1984. 12. Phelps, A. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 191–194. 13. McDermott, L.; Shaffer, P. S.; Constantinou, C. P. Phys. Educ. 2000, 35, 411–416. 14. Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 508–510. 15. Sawrey B. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 253–254. 16. Tobin, K., Ed. The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, 1993. 17. Gutwill-Wise, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 684–690. 18. Brandwein, P.; Glass, L. The Science Teacher 1991, 58, 36–39. 19. Saunders, W. L. School Science and Mathematics 1992, 92, 136–141. 20. Clough. M. P.; Clark, R. The Science Teacher 1994, 61, 34– 37. 21. Rezba, R. J.; Cothron, J. H.; Giese, R. N. Science Scope 1992, 15, 39–44. 22. Roth, W. The Science Teacher 1991, 58, 40–47. 23. Shulman, L. S. Educ. Researcher 1986, 15, 4–14. 24. Shulman, L. S. Harvard Educ. Rev. 1987, 57, 1–22. 25. Anderson R. D.; Mitchner, C. P. Research on Science Teacher Education. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning; Gabel, D. L., Ed.; MacMillan: New York, 1994. 26. Clermont, C. P.; Borko, H.; Krajcik, J. S. J. Res. Science Teach. 1994, 31, 419–441. 27. Boone, W. J.; Gabel, D. L. J. Science Teacher Educ. 1998, 9, 63–84. 28. Fones, S.; Wagner, J.; Caldwell, E. J. College Science Teaching 1999, 28, 231–236. 29. Greenwood, A. J. Elementary Science Educ. 1996, 8, 1–16. 30. Hammrich, P. L. J. Science Teacher Educ. 1997, 8, 167–185. 31. Mulholland, J.; Wallace, J. J. Elementary Science Educ. 1996, 8, 17–38. 32. Crowther, P. Electronic J. Science Educ. 2001, 5. Available at http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/resources.html (accessed Apr 2003).
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 7 July 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
