LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State
Unlvorslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE
’ Id so 322012 ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

woo mum-4659.14

 

o
In
‘ -

.mv- “'1‘? |.'\7‘ ‘-
I ’V' ‘
\..>T aru-

.x-a—n

n—Iv-‘n '~vv' " T... .
p . \\n :\ oa-
‘ | to. ‘

‘,..v _'-‘;Ab

SCIENTISTS ARE FROM MARS, EDUCATORS ARE FROM VENUS:
RELATIONSHIPS IN THE ECOSYSTEM OF SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION

By

Don Duggan-Haas

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Teacher Education

2000

' \
Em.» II-IJ ‘3‘. \ .
.- w- ""1 ‘ I f1 77 v
I' \\..:\ |ut hl \
‘ . Hue-'5. It... 5“
...-
‘ -
‘51' “V'h .
’ ' \ t
L.m..l ,;."\ 1“.“ ‘t‘. \

‘32. 9+. xsr, ~_

'.-un.. _

.. “’ _

‘u... T. l'*" 10- ‘ ‘, .

. ""n ' H B‘ “L \
I C

vur J

'. ”-0. I
u. ‘ 3'!“
‘. u \ H
A no. “I“ {a}. \
. “\ ..
%
Q

:I‘.'f-'~.' .
.V .
Mm (
LA .1 \lcw’\c .
"" 's._ o
W. I
t \.\rfif P' l” H
t u..‘\
“_

 

‘ “‘3' j .
\ Tl .
' «x \\ n .
c .U ‘\ 1' '7'
I.‘
z:-
I".
do QD"‘:‘
' ”'0 3mm oL
” ‘ ~-i’\ '
! A ‘9‘
'4“. ‘
r‘," - .
.':?;.c’ ‘
I Q. ‘
h-n re“ ‘1‘
k‘fl‘ \l
".
Ki‘lv‘p,
‘ L
W. “’6 I. "9'
‘ h.‘i‘|'~ I
‘ I
PM ‘4: ~
FF... ~.
‘~\‘ ‘.
v \\ .
P'.
MIC|\‘

ABSTRACT

SCIENTISTS ARE FROM MARS, EDUCATORS ARE FROM VENUS:
RELATIONSHIPS IN THE ECOSYSTEM OF SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION

By

Don Duggan-Haas

Great problems exist in science teaching from kindergarten through the college
level (NRC, 1996; NSF, 1996). The problem may be attributed to the failure of teachers
to integrate their own understanding of science content with appropriate pedagogy
(Shulman, 1986, 1987). All teachers were trained by college faculty and therefore some
of the blame for these problems rests on those faculty.

This dissertation presents three models for describing secondary science teacher
preparation. Two Programs, Two Cultures adapts C.P. Snow's classic work (1959) to
describe the work of a science teacher candidate as that of an individual who navigates
between two discrete programs: one in college science and the second in teacher
education. The second model, Scientists Are from Mars, Educators Are from Venus
adapts the popular work of John Gray to describe the system of science teacher education
as hobbled by the dysfunctional relationships among the major players and describes the
teacher as progeny from this relationship. The third model, The Ecosystem of Science
Teacher Preparation reveals some of the deeper complexities of science teacher education

and posits that the traditional college science approach treats students as a monoculture

When great diversity in fact exists.

 

i . é ‘g. '_ . -_ .. “mo .
“.O'v - .
. v f ) ' A ~ ' ‘
.."' i: \\ ‘\. _.- g _
. . ..-u
A.~o. ' . '
.
‘ I
. .3, n .t R ..
.\.Ir ‘a ‘ ~ fi |
IV V. - .uA av‘r 1 -
. \
.
"‘ ‘ ' on hr ' ..

l

‘c- n
I. ' ‘
an”... a,

h a
A
ulhh

 

.‘. ‘ - -. .
' l -I‘ o ..,... .
I...‘ \ . .'
..-. “V1,... .1 .
s .
., .
. , ‘
I.“ E \ 4 , p t .
\ --A. -.\‘-._ L\. \‘
D~O‘ .
"-‘Aé-v-~ “ g
' "u5\ .‘ ' \ .- v v.
”hwy. u; \‘ ,
"U ""‘a \
‘fl‘h‘Oxak \“\\‘\" ..
-~
.1. ‘
. ""a |
\ a . .
I"‘-I\-‘ o-n‘ 'Lt),‘. '
_ Inuit. ”4 1 lit n ‘
‘ ‘ .5 _.' \
s.

.‘g.

. '-
.s._‘-“ i‘

\

 

 

n ‘ n

M“! 0.
\.~ , . '
\--.,. ‘k‘ LR \' .
' “ \\"\‘"‘ ‘0
9 ‘l1 .

\

Sl.‘ v
.- '5
H" . ,‘. II, ‘
“I N1\ 0. '

humie Q: \\ \rn”

“-Ii \.

The three mOdels are described in the context of a large Midwestern university's

teacher education program as that program is construed for future biology teachers. Four
undergraduate courses typically taken by future biology teachers were observed and
described: an introductory biology course; an introductory teacher education course; an
upper division course in biochemistry and a senior level science teaching methods course.
Seven second semester seniors who were biological Science majors were interviewed.
All seven students had taken all of the courses observed. An organization of scientists
and educators working together to improve science teaching from kindergarten through
graduate school is also described in a case study.

The three models described in the dissertation build upon one another and the
third model, that of the ecosystem is recognized as both the most accurate portrayal and
most complex and therefore most difficult to apply. The system of science teacher
preparation is in many ways a system under stress and that stress will result in system
evolution. Through better understanding Complex Adaptive Systems and applying that

understanding to the system of science teacher education, individuals may be able to

influence the nature of system evolution.

Copyright by
Don Duggan-Haas
2000

For Katy

-.. . .
Io-
.
.- 0 osr '
_‘. ..
' ‘ . ~ .-
\ u ruse 5‘ ~
.4: -
_ p. u.
.- .~ a . h r

u
.g.‘ .lol. y" N'. )\ .llW'Q” C
-N 4‘. -o.... t. b \-~1l! t o
y

 

 

.
_--I 4 1 v7. ;-' "
1‘. To. 3“- “\.‘.~u-‘ .-
a-
"'r\\'\‘\"."‘ "
. .
._.._,.~ , .5 opu'5 '
.
.
.m.
r \ ”a" "o'tv ’ '
..t..~...’\..-_t ssus ‘
ram—- .' .
‘~-~‘-¢. ' . ’
. --.wi..~\ sun' A
.
\
.“ ‘pt .
§-I_~ “s“- 1“ ’ ‘ '
, . ~v k‘u
. ,
i' m... ,
§ ‘-
u‘ -‘ k“
«I e... “4‘ “ "'
.4. ’ \
.-‘ a
y
In" ‘t '
‘ ,- .~" _ A
a..\ *‘ '. '
-..‘,.g‘.‘i. ‘C‘ ’ °
\-..
h.
5- y
a,“ , .
“3‘ 1 , ,‘ho . i
P o u' g V.‘ I
:- . um '
’; 'V.
‘ . ‘1 a
.. " L '
-s. ’ .
~"§\U‘_)i '9‘ \ '
- b
a
.
.I.
C
a]: - .
. Is I .
. ‘3‘“ 1r ")5 .
‘ u L \ L.»
a
v.
n.
\‘v\".'fl I
R“ 'm
Ash“. ‘ V‘s
~L‘D s, ‘
'H
‘ 6".
..,pw\,‘ ,
v\ i‘ "
o‘ ‘ F
$t“ ’v" ' '
“u\.\, t" ‘ 9
EM...“

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To thank all of the people who have helped shaped the thinking that resulted in
this dissertation would generate a document longer than the dissertation itself. There are
many individuals who contributed to my growth into the teacher, researcher and person I
am today. Teaching works best when it includes modeling of desired learning. Had my
parents not taught by example in the way that they did — to read, to work and to care for
humanity, I would assuredly not be the man I am today.

Countless people have mentored me over the more than ten years I have taught.
My first formal mentor teacher was Janice Bryant at Bloomfield High School and without
her good example I may have lost my passion in the crushing work of my first teaching
job. In my first job, I worked with Sam Shama, whose kindness kept me sane and who
showed me that teaching is intellectual work. Since working with Sam, I have tried to
follow his example of reaching out to new teachers and offering support where I could.

Where I taught the longest and learned the most about work in classrooms was
Norwich High School in Norwich, New York. I now know how lucky I was to work with
the people I did. In the science department, there were people who helped me to
understand teaching especially Patti Giltner, Jim Wysor and Joe Stewart. Patti and Jim
were experts at understanding their students. Joe was a department chair par excellence
who was knowledgeable about the special considerations of science teaching more than
any teacher I know. He understood the legal and safety issues, he was aware of coming

reforms and he knew how to teach physics in a way that his students understood. Rich
Bernstein is perhaps the best teacher I have known and his work along with Dave Paul in

the NHS English Department is the best model I have ever seen for professional

vi

”s R -h "' ' i ' |
,..- , ‘

H :A- Roy" .‘ " L .-

,.

_..o.0v"

."_._-,. .o-n ‘

V; 6.79. .12. :.

I .- --—- "t'k: .a I “-I ..

,g'. . i........~\ I..-

Q
."“" ......p. g c 3‘ . .-.
urn; .o...... u... .1. a b»:

v...“ --~~.- :0. u; " " '
r. .. -u...“ .'. .s‘?‘ --‘

~ “:9. n:_o~ f\
a...‘..,, ' K 11 | ' .

‘\ I o
n

| u
‘. -\
u
7‘
t ‘2“ .3". ‘0 l
"n ‘x ‘fih‘ I Q
5T... ‘ ' h
9
. _ LA... .
3“.
\\‘-> ‘

\ “ ,
\"- " .3".

U.“ a k. . .
~ w; - I" - I
s...” ‘1‘ U

.".‘
\.»I’~"~o ' 'f“
v “'\-.,_ ‘- ,.
‘had.\ I a" 'F
to. “\ i.
‘ !.
Axk‘

 

:‘ AI: 1‘ n.’ 10-
mm ht
. 4‘ ‘.
L‘kg“ I; n
A“ “k!" ‘ {.0
"HI“ ‘Ll‘i‘v.
~ wlL \\
gray
-,..‘;‘o: 3}.
.~"‘
\A ‘ IT'WK
‘ I 1'
E1... ‘~
’ If ‘R 0 I
. ‘ g \L "r I .
'\
\. .
.l ”k"
‘5 53H ‘
1.4.1E|"4. :.L
5 “Uta. “II...
3e. .
.‘.I\.

hi. I
lug-3" 1.-
“I. mu KO
t _."

 

 

development. Rich and Dave both showed that the work of a teacher is the work of an
intellectual and that is fortified by working together — a model not in common practice.

My work at Michigan State University has been guided by both the members of
my formal committee and by members of the larger MSU science education and teacher
education communities. Jim Gallagher, my advisor, was wise enough to recognize the
correct amount of responsibility to give me and the guidance to help me grow these
through experiences. Joyce Parker manages to move back and forth between the two
cultures described in this dissertation as part of her daily routine and to do so successfully
and diplomatically. David Labaree taught me how to read and write at the graduate level
and often had me chuckling as I was learning. Doug Campbell gave me my first broad
exposure to ethnography and his mentoring of groups of grad students through
dissertation study groups is an invaluable service. Jim Miller is a bench scientist who is
also an excellent teacher and has an understanding of the big picture that is essential to
making meaningful changes in education. These are the members of my formal
committee, but Ed Smith, Deb Smith and Andy Anderson were also effectively parts of
my committee. My work together with Ed and Jim Miller allowed me to work with great,
“big picture” thinkers. I was very lucky to work shoulder to shoulder with Andy
Anderson in teaching future science teacher for two years. I regard all of these wonderful
people as teachers, mentors and friends.

Saving the best for last, I thank my love, Katy for her patience and support
throughout the long ordeal that is dissertation writing. Not only is she a wonderful
Woman, she is also an excellent science educator who keeps me grounded in the realities

or schools. Thank you, Katy, for putting up with my irritating ways. The end is here!

vii

5(kn1'1‘L‘ art

thtm~hip~ in ‘1'

.III: |\ ’ ".A\(:‘ fifvs
bL—&\

.p.--I»r\ ’

.- ~ 5

u--' '

-.-:. H'f‘.‘

- .. .--.:.:5

1.... “A
' - \. I'v‘\
n
..- . .
:“:’:.:h‘r~\.n
a v- a.
j; \t' KIRK
..

l
.......

u ‘I -e. '9’ I. ‘
-o~~vs.u.\ ‘.. “1‘ uc“
'- . ,

'5 2-9 -0 u"

_ . 1

.. 0. at D.\\;"'.
5.“

"u e."

‘E-un I

‘1

:j-‘i .u'\1\‘b TI\:'
Hm? R -'.x

:i-

anu

.2:;.’..‘1.‘:~:‘ Tic I‘M V

L- .
,-

.......

.. . Is’C\ n? "t . ,
‘.~" ”’1
M .
.l’ n
1
\

""""
......

\,;\\ H.“ \n'
l I\l'\'
:‘uu‘n ‘ I
T':A\lp£
P”, “‘“Grli nI‘
lg; -., "P IJ
I.'."\'
31:23". ...........
i,“ .I o

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Scientists are from Mars, Educators are from Venus:

Relationships in the Ecosystem of Science Teacher Preparation

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
How is the relationship of scientists and educators like a dysfunctional marriage? ...4
The Ecology of Science Teacher Education ............................................................. 6
Cutting three ways ................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions: .............................................................................................. 10
The Structure of the dissertation ............................................................................ 10
The Tone of the Dissertation .................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 1
TWO PROGRAMS, TWO CULTURES: THE DICHOTOMY OF SCIENCE
TEACHER PREPARATION .................................................................................... 18
Background ....................................................................................................... 19
Describing the Two Cultures: ................................................................................ 23
On Science ........................................................................................................ 25
THE CONTRASTS: .............................................................................................. 27
® “Weeding out” vs. Nurturing all the flowers, weeds or not: ............................ 27
C2) Meritocracy vs. Democracy: ......................................................................... 31
® Male vs. Female: .......................................................................................... 38
Risk and Ambiguity ............................................................................................... 39
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 43
Consequences of the rift between the two cultures: ............................................ 43
Chapter 2
HOW COLLEGE SCIENCE AND TEACHER EDUCATION WERE
IN VESTIGATED ...................................................................................................... 45
Why Biology Teacher Candidates? ........................................................................ 45
What Classes? ....................................................................................................... 47
What Is the Nature of the Data? ............................................................................. 49
Classroom Visits: .................................................................................................. 52
Interviews and Group Discussion: ......................................................................... 56
The Seniors: .......................................................................................................... 57
Conventions used in class and interview excerpts .................................................. 57
Chapter 3
A VIEW INTO SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION ........................................... 59
Science Classes: .................................................................................................... 64

viii

I!

u A
. -_ \ur‘ a.‘
.51.. -~ ‘P‘ ' ‘
o

r. "
7...” _ s
'a
...h,‘ bfigvo -. ~- .-
v
,4.. _

."

- ....
F ‘ .
"‘A'b' I ,

.:Ik--L ”ion... ¢ I
K‘ g _,.. 1‘ t ‘ .
.--.b..\- on.» * u I

7
\-..... . ‘ “gm- ,'

.L.-.-I-'..q-~¢, so-

A
’4’“, ...T D. ..
L a... \m-n In .s‘
'...,t
”A...
N' "U' ’7‘ Y' It
A‘. \P\' . I.‘\ o ‘.
um 1‘5..L,. ]\ I V “

..I ...i." ”uh

.
.QP'N h g 4 Ix. .
" ..- U... ‘ncv. ...g

“,4 -. n~
I own:

a .
K'
..- O 1 9 .....
h. C
.
”-0. ....... H.
. ’-.
"\'“’ "Uh...
c. l'" a
"‘ ‘---v. ‘\“\\ o
h- f
I v
* \\ ‘b"v\ . '\
‘. Lu. - ‘u .
a ' s. J '
Os 0 I
t t I t'
1.1,”. l ..
'1 .
v ~3'vn‘ .\.R :\
-~~..1- .H "\ .\'
p
L"‘a _ - .
a 4- u
. ..Imfit‘ ” ‘1‘. SJ \
" s.
\"".'.
\\~. 4 . .t
‘ ..‘\ “X \:I-"..'~q':\
'. . ..
V436. }\£\
9 . " .. .....
~ \‘ \|.'.
.o H“ H
‘ .1” ......
I..."
“.

I ' .
.2. J: .0: C h
I o...
“I.

“L.“‘KER

a.

' .
‘klw
l‘ .' -

“‘.’\

'2
"o..,__

we
9 F
‘. (M

;,.V.:"‘~A. 3:1J‘I“r'.-

L\

»K\ BMW‘T‘B. ‘

[1“ U:\ \:.'
MN r

o. 1“\‘: “02“.". ..
C ‘ 'u. \

wk ‘ \\ 'f {V
I”. 4‘Cw't: 1
1‘ i? .n t ‘
\1 ’ b. ~.‘ . F. L-
.‘g “H”; \ R
.‘It‘\ ' I.
.~, "‘4“ the \1 H
~ “- ‘w\l'-i
.25}. “n.
‘1. ..‘."-...‘
\5 'n. ‘
‘ill F‘

 

Biological Sciences 111: Cells and Molecules ................................................... 64

Biochemistry 401: Basic Biochemistry .............................................................. 93
Teacher Education Classes: ................................................................................. 1 18
Teacher Education 250: Human Diversity: Power and Opportunity in Social
Institutions ....................................................................................................... 1 19
Teacher Education 401: Teaching Subject Matter to Diverse Learners ............. 136
Natural Sciences 401: Science Laboratories for Secondary Schools ................. 161
Summary and Interpretation ................................................................................ 163
Comparison Tables .......................................................................................... 165
Chapter 4
WHAT THE SENIORS HAD TO SAY ABOUT THEIR COURSEWORK ............ 171
The Interviews ................................................................................................. 172
Joseph, Bill and Brad ....................................................................................... 172
The words of Bill, Brian and Joseph ................................................................ 173
Bill .................................................................................................................. 174
Brad ................................................................................................................. 178
Joseph .............................................................................................................. 181
The Group Discussion ..................................................................................... 185
What’s Your Major? ........................................................................................ 186
Was it good for you? ........................................................................................ 187
Patterns of Response ........................................................................................ 187
Comparison to Salish and Seymour and Hewitt ................................................ 188
NSC401 as the connection between science and education ............................... 191
Other Issues ..................................................................................................... 192
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 193
Chapter 5
A CASE STUDY IN FOSTERING A HEALTHIER RELATIONSHIP — SMEC 194
Rationale for Collaboration .............................................................................. 196
Precursors ............................................................................................................ 196
Catalysts for Collaboration .................................................................................. 196
Program Structures .......................................................................................... 197
Case 1: Brown Bags and Controversy .............................................................. 199
Case 2: Institutional Support ............................................................................ 204
Case 3: Grant Proposal Development ............................................................... 207
Obstacles faced along the way ......................................................................... 210
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 21 1
Chapter 6
THE DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP OF COLLEGE SCIENCE AND
TEACHER PREPARATION .................................................................................. 214
Scientists are from Mars, Educators are from Venus ........................................ 214
Why Is the Relationship Dysfunctional? .............................................................. 218
Did Mars make the Martians of did the Martians make Mars? ............................. 229
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 23 1
Chapter 7 .................................................................................................................... 233
THE ECOSYSTEM OF SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION:
DECONSTRUCTING THE DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP ....................... 233

ix

it ..l': ,5 o “\p
v ----’\ h.-.
3. ‘ ‘ '0 at v- .-
u...» ,. ~ _
I s
‘ I
u . .
II .
.K. :‘t\ ~ . .
l-" - 9. -
5; ‘!‘.'~ g. 'A‘
0 b
y.
I ‘ 0- .
o‘.k._ ‘50:”: '.‘~ .I '
"l ..
H\t,|‘(‘.'u_ .
- 'T‘ ‘ .31.. u
I. .
“I o .-- .. .
mu;. \_L.-. \‘\ _-
' a
\- v
t r 1 ,..
..—. .\.\. .f‘ . ' tr
:- O ‘
1" _
~.-‘ -\ 5.
~-
‘9-
tin. Mn
. u v.
. V‘.‘
\- ..
.-. 1‘71.
._-. ‘13.
~__ .
v.
. ~‘v-
1"" Pt“ T‘L' vH
Mu. .1’ ‘
‘-_ . l .\ ’
n..“?‘ '
. ‘ ‘3
-‘l
\‘m
.~u\ '"i'l‘Lni' ,, '
Db.‘\:; R )hr.
5- 5:, Il\ \
n0,"‘\‘vp "

l

 

.
‘| ;.. .
“w \

.

;"

'n ‘A.

'V“ I:

a ,0
o- . ”I
1 ”to
5'! i .k .
...4. I" .
. _
o 'H -~o o 1
of. 4.. I" ..\\ ‘
.a-fi- .,
.
, _ . ',.
\ ‘; .. \ \’
‘ \ -. ‘1' .
' Iv-’
. ’-‘ v.1
._. .\ ‘_‘., s
' .
e: 0‘" " ‘1 '
I .' v s '9
,
.
co: 1.
-‘._..:-..u
. .
D’s-0‘
‘D o
.11 ~-‘-‘
\ ~.
.. ..o-
—. - p o... .. 0—. ..-
\ 1 a
-.1... In .90 D's «‘-

R-afl'a '1‘

‘§ int-vs»

 

 

 

 

 

What are Complex Adaptive Systems? ............................................................ 234

Emergent Properties ........................................................................................ 238
The Ecology of Science Teacher Education ......................................................... 240
Niches and System Evolution .......................................................................... 252
Universal Treatments Pessimize the System .................................................... 255
Linearity and Cyclicity .................................................................................... 258
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 263
Chapter 8 .................................................................................................................... 265
SO WHAT? ............................................................................................................. 265
Implications for administrators, policy makers, science and education faculty ......... 265
Ok, Science education programs are really two distinct programs that have
separate agendas. So what? ............................................................................. 266
Ok, the relationship between the two cultures that make up science teacher
education programs is dysfunctional. So what? ............................................... 268
Ok, the system of science teacher education operates like a poorly managed
ecosystem. So what? ....................................................................................... 270
Back to where we began .................................................................................. 275
Positive Offputs ............................................................................................... 275
What can scientists and educators do? ................................................................. 276
Some Resources for Doing What Needs to be Done ............................................. 276
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 278
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 281
APPENDIX A
TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................. 282
APPENDIX B
NEW TEACHER PRESERVICE PROGRAM INTERVIEW .................................. 285
APPENDIX C
Scientist/Science Educator Collaboratives Webpage ................................................ 287
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 292

‘ '» - Q. -- -‘
.' “ a. .~-~-
Ai‘o - .
. I "-v—- 0 p .3.
I ‘. I ' ‘-
‘yio- hu.u..~~-... ‘
. mi. -. _,.'.
."'\ “ t.‘l‘..4 . u
0-- s . .
...o. 1;..."9 ‘\ ..
I. i ‘5.
h... nu... ...
' I I I
' . -o-‘~'_': ‘ )-
...— ... .... .‘ h\ I
o .l 4.. ”‘0“ I F
.- \ ‘. ‘ ‘
- .. ~....._ .
Q . _ '
‘ - ‘-.-'. 1‘»
v - "
"l-o -\..... LA .‘
o , . '
n.. )a "| 5““ (
.1 . - w‘.‘ ‘A "
I "
.n'.. s. 5' .h .-
.." “£v¢--b\\' “
' I
D’. i‘l"g 3‘ ’ 'v
s) . . .u\~\“ ‘\
' c . .
“ \f“:“ )1 ..n
Au- . . .ys.‘.‘ ~‘
‘ I' n
0-.‘ Ad). "\ '|'.
.- . u .s\.§_‘ ‘\ .
.I
u'.‘ i (8"- J \.
§o .t ..... ,~‘ \- .
.
. "- ,n
"' 1 k2-.. , . .
.‘. ‘
.s "-1.‘ ‘HH
0 " n
, L “I- h -
§ . . |
h C t....t_.'\. -.

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Two Programs, Two Cultures ....................................................................... 24
Table 2.1. Information regarding target courses for observation taken from Midwestern
University’s on-line course catalog. ....................................................................... 48
Table 2.2 Transcript excerpts showing conventions used when quoting individuals ...... 58
Table 3.1: Sophomore Level Courses Observed .......................................................... 166
Table 3.1: Sophomore Level Courses Observed (continued) ........................................ 167
Table 3.2: Senior Level Courses Observed .................................................................. 167
Table 3.2: Senior Level Courses Observed (continued) ............................................... 168
Table 3.3 The professors’ reasons for going to class in B81 11 and TE250 .................. 169

Table 4.1. Selected excerpts from Bill’s New Teacher Preservice Program Interview. 174
Table 4.2. Selected excerpts from Brad’s New Teacher Preservice Program Interview 178
Table 4.3. Selected excerpts from Joseph’s New Teacher Preservice Program Interview

............................................................................................................................ 181
Table 7.1a: Complex Adaptive Systems and Science Teacher Preparation .................. 237
Table 7. lb: Complex Adaptive Systems and Science Teacher Preparation .................. 238
Table 7.2. Comparison between a mechanistic and a relational approach .................... 242

xi

.-
. " Inc‘. “
‘vfl‘ 1t.,.--
.-t" o
a
.Q '
'.'.

m ' coo ' ' I
I ' _ ‘ . 0"
_..,. h‘ 3 . ’
‘~‘. \.\IO‘ '.
w. A
o
.U- '.

 

J c__-- \ '
.u.. v- ‘0" "~ ‘
o o F " '
.‘.;‘\' ‘ k, D'.r .l
~o..- s» ‘- | ‘ '~' .
”A... I “
.--". q' o
.-\.o UI\II*.4 c\ be
. .. . «
\.,, .. .— ..
rt. . .‘y\ .. ... :s
\\ ‘\ .3 -b'.‘ F \
~«b9. “\s. .u -- é
. . _
"D-‘“ 1- I I
. v- .9 h ' '
tit. .h “\~ac\ \..\u
o ._
"'2.‘ '-
‘-I. 4 |’. ’é .‘ .
. .- “‘I'I‘ \i-\ o
.
. u
‘- 'I" L‘ Jo‘-\ 0' I
~. s.\\ .,. n
. -
.~...‘J . .
n‘ .
"D. . 44“..\‘ (‘1‘... \
b ‘ ‘
I. . ‘
".4 O F . -
su. '. lf’. |. . . vk "
. us . ..‘
‘ o
...,"- y-
la
. t- .
“‘ '3‘. i
I . ‘. . 9‘
. L.\5_. _ .
'9 ' . u-s ‘
,,._ 4: '. C- ..
. ‘ ‘ u \
D. . .

.v
"
s.
. ..... ..H’ ‘
r. ‘
i. I
g‘_ -
. .‘ Iti‘T'é .
~-. \\ H
-
‘O u ‘
§ “
u .~”..\l' .
.‘ ..

 

'
‘3‘
”'th‘1
-.-. ~u.,.
._; ” '
. -..t Q. .
b‘ . '-
‘;I. L“‘ .I“ ‘
tn B -. 3 "‘
\ l '
_‘ ‘0. ‘5 h
.u.‘ “A" .
...
,.~ B 1 .
\. "-'

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 A typical senior biology teacher candidate’s schedule ................................... 62
Figure 3.2. B108 Gilmour Hall: .................................................................................... 66
Figure 3.3 The text written by Dr. Peters on the overhead projector near the end of the
first class in B81 1 l. ............................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.4a: Excerpts from the B81 11 Cells and Molecules Syllabus. ........................... 80
Figure 3.4b: Lecture schedule from B81 11 syllabus ...................................................... 82
Figure 3.4c: Strategies for success in 881 11 from the BS] 11 Syllabus. ......................... 84
Figure 3.5 Sample items from Exam #1 in B81 1 1. ....................................................... 91
Figure 3.5 C108 Kreher Hall: ....................................................................................... 97
Figure 3.6: BCH401 Student Survey ............................................................................. 99
Figure 3.7 Notes from the BCH401 course-pack describing the biochemistry behind
issues described in a New York Times article on PKU (Brody, 1990). ................. 102
Figure 3.8a Lecture schedule from BCH401 syllabus. ................................................ 104
Figure 3.8a Lecture schedule from BCH401 syllabus (continued) ............................... 105
Figure 3.8b: Excerpts from the BCH401 Basic Biochemistry Syllabus. ....................... 107
Figure 3.9: Practice Questions for the BCH401 class described below. ....................... 110
Figure 3.10: One of five pages of notes from the BCH401 course-pack for 9/1 1/98. 113
Figure 3.11 ExCerpts from test number one in BCH401. ............................................. 116
Figure 3.12a 103 Crop & Soil Science Building, before class. TE250. ....................... 120
Figure 3.12b 109 Crop & Soil Science Building, during class. TE250. ...................... 120
Figure 3.13 Theme 4 from the TE250 syllabus. .......................................................... 127
Figure 3.14 Course assignment descriptions and requirements from the TE250 syllabus.
............................................................................................................................ 129
Figure 3.14 Course assignment descriptions and requirements from the TE250 syllabus
(continued). ......................................................................................................... 130
Figure 3.15: The course schedule for Theme 4 from the TE250 syllabus. ................... 131
Figure 3.16 TE250 Discussion summary recorded on chalkboard. .............................. 134
Figure 3.19 The list of topics seniors wanted to learn before the internship as recorded by
Karen on the overhead. ........................................................................................ 147
Figure 3.20a: The course Goals as stated in the TE401 syllabus .................................. 152
Figure 3.20b: The class schedule and list of assignments from the TE401 syllabus. 153
Figure 3.20b: The class schedule and list of assignments from the TE401 syllabus
(continued). ......................................................................................................... 154
Figure 3.20c: Grading and course requirements from the TE401 syllabus. .................. 155
Figure 4.1. Bill’s map of connections between science and education coursework ...... 177
Figure 4.2. Brad’s Concept map of connections between science and education
coursework. ......................................................................................................... 180
Table 4.3. Selected excerpts from Joseph’s New Teacher Preservice Program Interview
............................................................................................................................ 181
Figure 4.3. Joseph’s map and description of connections between science and education
coursework .......................................................................................................... 184
Figure 5.1: Some connections of topics within Chapter 5 ............................................ 195
xii

 

.‘iws
.-

- l- l
4 g 1.). u

‘
.,,... \‘»;C u. ‘
....- bsvssvs-
.

v‘
.~.-- ("a”N ’-
.—- 95'5“. .w on

 

D I

.I' " up ‘ .
' - N \s \ '

..i a to! .aA ‘0‘

 

': 1....- ’ I .
. .1 a.--

' ' ' F I I
3, u i u..- .3 .‘ .
..

Cu.

V c.
f‘ ...,_ L\
i ' .
o
. I
' ". -. £4 fin
on. ‘ .‘ It a'
‘ ken. . “
.
. " ‘P
". \ ...
..H ‘ ‘. 3 ‘ha '
5-5. . ‘
.
. 3"“.
‘5 .V'
' .
' n
at. h
.‘. " ,-,..,, .
. _ .~\ 9 ..

'O c. ‘
"-; ”"~ I '
us. ' I, _
\ “I”: 4 | "'
h - '
-;
.-.
. ‘ Q .
m. . .
‘C. . I 1‘ ,o O u. .
..1 q," I .

 

Figure 5.2: The Aims of SMEC ................................................................................... 199

Figure 5.3. Guiding Educational Principles for Midwestern University ........................ 208
Figure 6.1: Scientists Are from Mars, Educators Are from Venus ................................ 217
Figure 6.2. The Mercedes Model for Teaching and Learning (Gallagher, 1992) ........... 221
Figure 6.3. Varied Teaching Strategies for Different Educational Goals ...................... 221
Figure 6.2: Cycle of Blame .......................................................................................... 228
Figure 7.1 AtKisson’s description of system dynamics. (AtKisson, 1999) pp. 69 —72.
............................................................................................................................ 236
Table 7.1a: Complex Adaptive Systems and Science Teacher Preparation .................. 237
Table 7.1b: Complex Adaptive Systems and Science Teacher Preparation .................. 238
Figure 7.2: The illustration for emergent properties used in the B81 11 text (Campbell,
1996) p. 26. ......................................................................................................... 239
Figure 7.3: Mapping some of the complexity of science teacher preparation: .............. 244
Figure 7.4: Two examples of tightly controlled ecosystems that assume a monoculture.
............................................................................................................................ 246
Figure 7.5: Two examples of apparently loosely controlled ecosystems that assume
diversity. ............................................................................................................. 248
Figure 7.6: Reconfiguring a classroom to the suit the needs of one culture ................. 250
Figure 7.7 Theme 4 from Chika Hughes’s TE250 syllabus. ........................................ 255
Figure 7.8 A model of the movement of information in college science courses. ........ 260
Figure 7.8 A simplified model of group work in teacher education classes. ................ 261

xiii

 

.l u.
“I...” . .
.1 ”'0 ' ‘-
‘ ‘\ .3. .. .
.. -- .

 

 

V I. .- J g -. I I-'
qh.‘ u... -.‘i‘ ~.‘ \.
‘ I
1"”; I."\",4t 5‘ ..
5‘“ .55 u. ”'1‘. ..
.
..
.'.‘- r ‘A ',.~-‘ "I
5»... ‘ _-“ . ‘
s
s» w. ‘ \I—xfr‘ .
“ B '1
~. . . I
r§u.n‘.. . .‘x. .
5
\~ ‘
i - ~’\ ‘ao- .
.‘ h r4 ..
--
\.\-4§\ ‘~“
‘~.
L: - »_‘ t- ‘ t. .. ~
w.‘ wk" , , .-.
.h: “ «n~ .
\n .
‘1‘.' .
‘. -"'-

 

   

O
‘
- ‘\
--O
\ u.
k, n _
1“ .’
U. .D V
~ \
‘ b 1 '-
\k_‘ I: H.
I I
P A
‘ n.
x
4‘.
t “‘
\' I
.\I
. ~ .:
. U

 

INTRODUCTION

Scientists are From Mars, Educators are From Venus:
Relationships in the Ecology of Science Teacher Preparation

This dissertation sets out to tell a story of connectedness and disconnectedness.
College science and teacher education are separated by a wide gulf, but at the same time
that they are distantly separated they are closely connected. The connection is the future
science teachers they both work to prepare.

Great problems exist in science education spanning at least from kindergarten
through college (NRC, 1996; NSF, 1996; Schmidt, 1997). This study looks at the system
that prepares science teachers for the secondary level. One way to frame the problems of
science teaching at the 7-12 level is to begin by noting that future science teachers go
through formal instruction in science content and in how to teach. The problem, stated
baldly, is that the typical teacher fails to successfully integrate science content and
pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987). The causes underlying that problem are
immensely complex but are rooted in the disconnect between the science content and
pedagogy portions of science teacher preparation.

The catalyst for this dissertation was a series of interviews completed for the
Salish I Research Project' asking new secondary science teachers to reflect on their
teacher preparation programs. More specifically, the interview asked these teachers a

series of questions about their college science courses and a parallel set of questions

 

1 The Salish Project was a three year study involving nine universities and their recent graduates in science
education. Salish sought to identify linkages among teacher education programs, the way in which new
teachers taught and the outcomes of their students. It is described briefly in Chapter 1 and the executive

summary is available online at: <Whlflu£mmmmflmflwmm>

 

l}‘

 

 

l - Q .
. I,a;9 '

.7 a
s’- ~c'LJL bvvhbu. -- b

.--r; .. b _. J
“‘~"" «ck-4n, . I

' v ,—

..

. I e . _
i \ I I I '
... ‘ “in“ f .a . .
fl _
' r

," 'vw-‘u
- n-é..;..£.«

1

 

iflf "\ "‘
l..u'

,
.7‘ ~.
I . K.‘
“n...” ‘g. '. O-s
‘I .a
“AK
i.
‘k
u 0‘
I
N..*;\ .
" II
:‘-v~
\
o
_

 

about their coursework within colleges or departments of education. The trend of
responses in all nine Salish institutions was striking — in analyzing responses to questions
about teacher education courses, I found that if I imagined what the opposite response
might be, this is what was said about their science courses. This pattern is laid out more
completely in Chapter 1. Initially, I had planned to frame this dissertation adapting C. P.
Snow’s Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution as a framework, and indeed, I begin
with such a framework.

Snow’s description of the growing rift between the cultures of science and the
humanities can be seen to correspond to the rift between science and teacher education on
large university campuses. I found that Snow’s framework helps to portray the sharp
dichotomy that is science teacher preparation, but it is not a terribly rich way to
investigate the relationship between the Two Cultures (college science and teacher
education) and that relationship is the most interesting piece. The more I delved into
science teacher preparation, the more I realized that Snow’s framework was too simple to
explain what I was seeing.2

A barroom conversation (a gossip session is perhaps a more telling label) about
some friends whose marriage was ending led me to another framework. There were
many reasons that these friends separated, but two struck me as particularly salient for
my dissertation. First is a communication failure; the partners in the marriage were
failing to communicate how they felt about what was happening in their relationship and
the husband was largely clueless that the wife was moving closer and closer to divorce

until she had effectively made up her mind. Second, the most simplistic view is that he

. t '.

—- 3
‘ ' “I . .bo‘ .--
g.‘ V ‘5”.-

. ,; 4 ‘5 9.”?

" \ ...b
--J .. . u. 4

.- .‘o 'h’; I; '

 

--1~- .0 9. "- ~. on

‘ ' \ '\ \
‘—‘ . I-. v. .I- 'u ‘4‘ l
“ '_“.' O' . - .

. . “(A

v...»» ‘.- . a-.. _ ‘

~ . -

.

 

   

.-_. 0'-
~'_- ’\ \ " a '.-~
--~- d..\ .
“\ ~§ u§
-' ‘\ . ’ .
\~ g — m.
~‘_ -‘~ \
n" ‘ '
-v
‘ «I .. —‘3-'.‘.o___ . .
v... 5g...‘.‘~. .
‘\
I:
“In ' ‘23—-
. ._ ‘~~... .ov—o
\
' s ' ‘ .. I
“ \.- \ ‘..~. ‘
.,_,“~ on
a. .
.-)..
‘.._ "‘ ".h
-
-. .
“‘ *«4': A 's
h
._
‘-‘..
.‘ ‘ .
. >--..
"‘.'...‘ x VA...‘
\ o C
‘ L
‘w
l‘ .
x c
.. M-
'v ‘«.)'~ 1‘ '
- ‘¢_..\\ s
. e‘
'I. ~\’ x r

 

 

was too much like his father and she was too much like her mother for the relationship to
stand the test of time.

Both of these characteristics of a failed marriage are mirrored in the
characteristics of science teacher preparation programs. There are two primary
components to most such programs — content training housed in colleges and departments
of science and pedagogical training housed in colleges and departments of education.
The norm is poor communication between these departments, particularly in larger
institutions. Science teachers, like most folks, have the desire to affiliate with a culture
and with cultural norms. It seems teachers affiliate with content-centered teaching or
with student-centered teaching as are the norms in their schools.

By content-centered, I mean that the focus of the classroom work is on the
content, and students’ needs are often ignored. By student-centered I mean something
different from the way this is often described. Student-centered is often used
interchangeably with terms like constructivist. Student-centered can mean hands-on, but
without deep connection to content, or, in the extreme, it can mean kid-friendly with no
real connection to content.3 Few teachers affiliate with understanding-centered teaching,
which places the understanding of material at the center of one’s teaching (Anderson,

1996). Making the leap to the marriage metaphor, science teachers end up like the

 

2I also came to agree with Snow’s critics who say his description of science and the humanities is also too
simple. See D. Graham Bumett’s overview of criticism of Snow’s Two Cultures, for one example.
(Burnett, 1999)

3An example I have witnessed in my work with teacher candidates and their supervising teachers: a middle
school teacher working with teacher candidates shutoff the lights so that students in her social studies class
could watch the impressive thunderstorm outside the classroom window. She provided incorrect
information about the nature of thunderstorms as students watched.

 

-.. ., [‘0' a.

O
'-
.—zm‘-Afi\ ..

%'-'~- -*~ 50,—.

.‘>—. . —u- .~~wv.v-|

O

O

1

I
”a

 

4 ‘-‘;-o 0‘

it

(A.

-‘
--_«-.._. ‘_

- :3
‘ . ..-
. “‘8 "9
‘ - ‘.'-
0 \~
‘
a 3“
‘9'- ‘v-
‘; T‘ON
' 2‘u.1 r
‘ . §
’\
..‘~
,-
>~‘O‘-n.
"‘ \
‘ x\ ‘ ,
". ‘
...4;
n\ *
Q -. ‘
._ -"‘.
l\ _
s. . ".
“I I‘—
‘q\ l’% ‘
u. ‘-
i4. \

-Q‘:.
4‘ :‘o‘.
H 'V‘
‘. "-‘nr
. \
\ 1:3--
\A\“'
I ~‘
L‘\\

scientists who taught their college science classes or like the educators who taught
their education courses — too much like Dad or too much like Mom and not some
synergistic spot in the middle.

The divorce of pedagogy and content are central to this study. The unification of
pedagogy and content through pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is fundamental to
good teaching (Shulman, 1986, 1987). This dissertation resonates with Shulman’s belief
that “TE [Teacher Education] programs would no longer be able to confine their activity
to the content free domain of pedagogy and supervision” (1987, p. 20).

The identification of the marriage metaphor led me to read Men Are from Mars,
Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting
What You Want in Your Relationships by John Gray. I found his descriptions of the
relationships between husbands and wives strikingly similar to what I saw happening
between scientists and educators. Gray provides a framework that is useful for thinking
about the relationships between scientists and educators and some thoughts on how to

improve those relationships.

How is the relationship of scientists and educators like a dysfunctional

marriage?

There are progeny involved — the science teachers who go through the divided or
divorced program. The marriage is an arranged marriage of sorts. Neither the educators
nor the scientists would necessarily choose the other as the ideal mate, but the evolving
system of education first forced them together as normal schools grew into colleges and
universities and as universities broadened their missions. As normal schools transformed

into universities, science departments moved away from schools of education. As

' u

" ' l‘.
.-3 '9, W' I .,
_.‘.,s 5" ~ ,

- i

r I I
......p‘ tvi‘ \TK‘.‘
' ._ h '
‘-....... . .

 

 

 

 

 

v . . .
‘,~.--¢ >‘- \
4-
..th u. . o- '-
l
. C.— ..-. . g
, a. 01.}. . I c
a..- ‘-~‘ ..~-. ... u
‘1'. . ’ fv .
ll A
' I
I“- ' -"\“\- \\¢:
'3‘-’ tap ‘~ . _ .
».‘_ > use.“ ..
.
.
p
v» .
5"" §. ‘ 1
" ‘ "‘ is _
‘ .‘ -1 -
“-~\.\ 'L- \3“ ’“u ..
x s... o1
-9.
' o -
¢_I r 9.. ,5
"“~. , .
s.....‘_l‘ ‘- g
.0

‘.
\ “-b‘ ' '3‘ o.
"ew. in. ..\
.,‘
I “I . -
‘ u“! . I
.- \ | .2
‘ .. '5...
‘.' »;
‘ u- I "
1‘. . u‘ .
", . .;\ ,.
I ‘ .
.‘3‘.
~ ‘ n
.. .t\ ‘1 ,g ‘L ‘
.~< “ ‘1‘
Hui
‘-
-'\ ‘ -
l a .
a...“ .A!

 

 

universities grew, they assumed roles of teacher preparation. As the size of these
institutions grew, specialized professional communities also grew, and teacher education
grew further and further away from scientists teaching “content”4 courses.

Communication problems are central to both the relationship of scientists and
educators and often in a failing or dysfunctional marriage. The placing of blame outside
the individual is also common in both situations. This is sometimes justified, but
generally unproductive if it is an end in itself.

Even when there is talk between scientists and educators, it is often
misunderstood - see the writings of Hugh Gauche and Stephen Arch - scientists who
have written critically about science education without understanding it (in my opinion).
Arch says, “It just may be that counterrevolutionary, old-time lecture hall education is
still with us after all these centuries because — although everyone agrees it is a terrible
way for students to learn — it's still the best thing anyone has yet invented." (Arch, 1998)
We too often talk past each other, or unjustly demean the work of the other. I believe
Arch does that in the quote above — he demeans educational research by making the
claim that lecture is the “best thing anyone has yet invented” for teaching college science.
I have spoken unfairly of scientists who teach poorly by neglecting to take into account
the constraints they face such as little or no pedagogical training and often having to
teach classes of hundreds. Even though I have thought about it long and hard and
understand better than most, I do not come particularly close to understanding the role of

the scientists who. share with me the responsibility of preparing new science teachers.

‘ I place content in quotation marks to highlight that such labels used to describe science classes wrongly
imply that teacher education courses do not teach content.

.
..,.
V - "”‘"' ..L-
J \-h.'~b. . .

. .

  

up,

tiers-Cy of Scien;

9.; o. .- . .-
"“‘ ..‘ .- 5 o h.
u
we. ' .
.-...'..a I ‘ \
.‘. _.. _“'"__ h“
‘
---.- ‘ .J ‘ ‘ '
%-i- s. ,‘~ w“ \
-.o .‘ .3 . ._ .‘
0
\ ‘.,A\\-§\ ... \ I»..,
.‘go‘ , - I. .9' 1w...“
v _ -§. L0. . \..‘_.
o
. .- ‘ ‘
m". .- \ .. .
m . . V“ \H \
a.
c ~__~1 1
“".£ -.'.~ “.sv ,1 a
\\ my... “\. MK-
‘ 1‘
.- . J‘ ‘ T" .-. ,
‘ -"\ a. .
.
“..‘. a.“
‘ ~. ‘f‘c-I ‘ .‘
:.,:,_,,..5. 3,, ..
.1 ‘-
g ». . —.
.... u ,._ '1’ .1“ T
"‘ ."' v.
.- “'~ ‘I
‘
by ,3‘ -;
hi ‘ ‘ x
a. .. -
.. _“\ ) W
s.,
1‘ .
~ n,

 

o
., \ '
v‘x.‘ .,
...4?“ .w {
“”Q r:
\
K.
‘~
M‘ .3 's“
K‘. "4‘-
“.“\c "l-‘r
‘A‘. 9

Feminist researchers also have much to say about scientists and educators. See
for example, Sheila Tobias’s and Angela Calabrese Barton’s work (Barton, 1998; Tobias,
1990). Science is a traditionally male bastion. Education was one of the very first

professions to welcome women.

The Ecology of Science Teacher Education

The dysfunctional relationship model is, like the Two Cultures model,
incomplete. Both models fail to account for the larger context. The place of the schools
and required fieldwork in those schools does not fit easily in either representation.
Important issues like family and community are neglected. These issues do not fit into
either model in any simple way, yet they play a fundamental role in the shaping of future
teachers. The Salish I study showed that there was more variation in outcomes within
each science teacher education program than there was among the nine institutions
(Salish, 1997). This implies that we must go beyond, far beyond, science teacher
education programs to understand the development of new teachers. Neither the Two
Cultures model nor the Dysfunctional Relationship model can take that step well.

Both of these models are vast oversimplifications. This does not mean they are
without utility. Karl Popper said, "Science may be described as the art of systematic
over-simplification" (Andrews, 1993). Over-simplification of complex systems is often
essential to making progress toward understanding those systems, but it also essential to
remember that these are over-simplifications.

The third model I employ, that of the Ecosystem of Science Teacher Education, is
the most complex and most accurate depiction of the system of science teacher education.

This more accurate model is, naturally, substantially more complex. It is, therefore, the

 

~.. \.

.n‘

.a_,

a‘, ~.
9., ‘ \ ‘ .
"‘4‘ “VS" \
.L‘
. U;
-.| '1': _
‘ e
. .1 _
L ‘ M~1"‘fh'
0 \’
.. .,
'7 C
. h A '
‘ r- . r.
t “Hr \ .
as
‘
N.‘ 7.;
s‘l‘ ‘0: ... .
.o\ “‘\ ~. . .
: —.~ ,
{32w- . ‘
u ‘ ‘Q‘
..
b .
....:C d _ .
l‘.‘ w ,
t .
R. n
. .
‘. \u.
~;':"_-_...
. \ . - .
’k. \
. kn Ir‘ 7‘
l. .C
«s \t,
s: ,1
. c k.‘\‘ ‘1‘ .
o
H
‘a
K ‘s. .
r‘
'~. '1'. .
.u ',-.‘ .
. ‘g.-\k H .‘
\_
V
i‘ ~
M. ._ _
u, l\ A ‘
-. ‘1 ,
\.‘l\" \‘
..
‘ '\
\
C ‘-

 

 

most difficult to understand and least developed of the models. Cronbach (1988)
reviewed James Gleick’s Chaos (1987) in Educational Researcher, with an audience of
educational researchers and other social scientists in mind. In that review, Cronbach
notes that the ideas expressed in Chaos have important implications for educational
research, but he predicts that use of these models will be necessarily metaphorical
descriptions and not use the complex mathematical modeling involved in chaotic
mathematics. I will not prove Cronbach wrong with this dissertations.

The genesis for this model is also more complex — at least four books helped form
this thinking. In the order they came to my attention, they are (D Murray Gell-Mann’s
The Quark and the Jaguar (1994), (which introduced me to the idea of Complex
Adaptive Systems). (2 Robert Jervis’s System Efi‘ects (1997) which more directly applied
CASS to social systems. ® Claudia Pahl-Wostl’s The Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems
(1995) gave me a deeper understanding of ecology. And @ James C. Scott’s Seeing Like
a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1998)
which gave me insights to metaphoric use of ecological modeling. These books helped
me better define a long held personal belief that my role as a science educator must be
that of a generalist, in many ways more akin to a naturalist or ecologist than to a bench
scientist. My goals as a science educator map onto the relational goals of the ecologist as
described by Pahl-Wostl (p. 47). This is described in Chapter 7.

In most ecosystems, there are niches for both generalists and specialists. This is
true in the ecosystem of science education as well. Over the past several decades in

education and in the past several centuries in science, there has been movement to

 

 

5The term “ecological models” often refers to complicated computer models involving higher mathematics.
These models mimic specific ecosystems. The model I use is purely metaphoric.

    
 

-‘...r... -3R’J .J,'-
' .. \.su~h “..va

. u.._,;, ‘ "H
.s .' uru «d...
-._\\. i ... 5..
'--»-., ‘ -
u ' U" n.
s
'O,. ‘
O a
.\ .- .
-. u-» Ln‘ g. '
'
u
-
\
LL,I~‘~F -.
. ““$-\ ‘
.
‘ o
p‘... ‘.-
g. I. m
- “,5“ ..a
b. .
- \
.o‘;c,
‘* I, I! '
.h .§‘~_‘-‘ . ‘v‘g .-
ta ‘ ‘
~
.
-I'o‘
”‘4‘" .:.
~-... a. v,»
l‘--‘ . w
5 ~ - .
. .
‘n‘. N. t,‘ g
-. ‘. ,
f‘.
‘3
\fi ‘e‘;‘
‘. ~-.
: ..‘i‘ .3 F
C _ .
O

 

\ V" . ‘ .
. ‘_‘
\‘ .1 W. .
N.‘ .111 .
‘4.
xx _
‘.:.~’C .v
~‘ ..‘7- 3
'M“
k 3., _
‘
~i
‘Lq' .
3: ..
.. 1-
Q -:.1. ,
"\-
\e\\.¢'-‘
Mull
.\ _ .
;-'.
.\.‘e-" ‘
N5. 'L_
s ‘4‘ e
. ,4 __
C .,

increased specialization. This change has both costs and benefits. The most obvious
benefit for science teacher preparation is the increasing understanding of individual
aspects of science and education. The cost is the loss of ability to see significant
connections and relationships between the two fields. One important example is
described by Shulman in his conception of pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman,
1986, 1987) as mentioned earlier. In many ways to be described in this dissertation, we
have lost sight of the big picture of science teacher preparation as we have moved into
our own unique but worthwhile specialties.

In any complex system, properties emerge which cannot be predicted solely from
the study of less complex levels within the system. While it is useful to study college
science teaching and teacher education in and of themselves, this kind of study can never
reveal the actual workings of the total system. The emergent properties of the
combination of the parallel systems of science education and teacher education do not

fulfill the goals of either program component, of either science or education.

Cutting three ways

When Leonardo DaVinci dissected cadavers, he found it necessary to dissect
repeatedly, at least three times as organs are complex and cutting in certain directions
only allowed him to understand certain aspects of an organ. It was necessary to cut each
organ at least three ways. Each cut tells something different about what is dissected —
likewise, it is necessary to view this complex adaptive system from multiple perspectives,

using at least three different conceptual frameworks.

 

 

 

,J "‘ “A ' ’3' 9‘ \I
..t..‘ -h‘ .is‘. .5 5 n -
.. 1

's.
u

1, 9'“.\1'\:'. P21: 1'

' u
a F‘ O. |
-..\ "‘\ T " '
‘ "‘IH¢.HV§ Oo!“- \
..k‘
\Us.

_ x 9"
sd ...l \.

 

“‘- ‘.‘.i\ T 1 0%.. I

|
A l; "

 

s. \
u. ;\ n _
\7.‘I‘.‘I:5i
‘-
‘“ -..,_'\. w 0L,
« -; .., Q» 1
b ‘ 4
5.
‘~““‘ i-r
—. I ‘
Al‘ H‘.~ ‘ ‘
quagu y,“
x '1‘
". n 3". J
..
6..., ,-.:
Halj‘
\-
‘\

 

 

The three models employed here are also akin to the different models of the atom
used by chemists and physicists. Lewis dot structures are useful simplifications for
understanding certain aspects of chemical reactions. They fail to reveal much of the true
nature of chemical interactions, however. The Two Cultures framework is my Lewis dot
structure — a vast, but still useful, simplification.

Atomic and molecular models that include electron orbitals are more complicated
and difficult to understand than Lewis dot structures, but they paint a more realistic
picture of how atoms interact. The relationship model derived from Gray’s work
parallels this next level. Models applying quantum-chemical understanding are more

accurate and allow for predicting how more complex molecules interact. This work led
to the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for John Pople and Walter Kohn. The Nobel Prize,
Of Course, indicates that the complexity of such models is well beyond the realm of
understanding of most individuals". The same is true of the system of science teacher
Preparation. The first two models seek to decomplexify science teacher education in
Useful ways. The third model, the complex adaptive system, digs deeper and
reComplexifies.

This dissertation will look into the practice of secondary science teacher
Preparation using three frameworks: Two Cultures (defined by Snow), the marriage
relationship (defined by Gray and others) and the complex adaptive system (described by
G811 Mann, Jervis, Pahl-Wostl, Scott and others). The frameworks for investigating the

r elationship are grounded in a philosophical framework of social constructivism.

\

6 .
ph‘zh‘le it could be argued that the brilliance of a Nobel laureate is in the ability to make complex
"omenon understandable, it is rarely made truly understandable to the layperson.

'1' fm

I .1 Q
- -,¢ .

‘ .
\
. . 5 5...
..-e“ u , W. .

.
. e I

‘ .1 ; -v.’a ,0 ,1.

. -..u \a a» b- e ~s—s

' . -v- c. .-.
. c;\ ’9 I) 'p .
n .5 -. H15 . .‘

avast Questions

“‘ on e‘

. .. R
“e-«.. ”I‘ . .5
h 1
.\ Ova.-‘J 'I "
T *‘s\ “.5 Q

l I
nu. ._ ..
-' a ‘1
> A
ib..-_‘\
\ ‘1, a
7H I
. .y
.> t L“ V' “:‘\
‘ I
Q . ‘ ‘
-- ls ‘ ‘~--...
«1‘ MI. ‘.\
\h‘
' 1
.\-“ r
u\. CuJ\

. 1“.
K" 3!».
ll.
‘9»
4.3...
._v_~..:_
'. \n ’1'
”hp .
~ 1\ m.
In.
‘.“ h? ‘
hit,l\ Cryun‘
I“ I" Y .
I'LA tk'
'v
.13- . L
." I ‘
”a .
“h. ‘. H,

 

 

This dissertation makes the argument that deficits exist in teacher preparation
because the interconnections of pedagogy and content necessary to develop strong and
applicable pedagogical content knowledge are severed by the gulf between the culture of
college science and teacher education, the dysfunctional relationship between those two

cultures, and the dynamics of the larger system of science teacher preparation.

Research Questions:

To paint the picture of science teacher candidates’ struggles with cultural
dissonance the following questions are addressed.
1. What are the natures of college science and teacher education classroom
cultures?
2. How do these two cultures compare and contrast with each other?
3. Is the difference between the classroom cultures of college science and
teacher education a problem? If so, why and according to whom?
a. Can these differences act as strengths? According to whom?
b. How might problems of the dichotomy be minimized while

benefits are maximized?

The Structure of the dissertation

Before giving an overall outline of the dissertation, I will note one apparent (but

“Qt aCtual) omission. In scanning the Table of Contents and the dissertation as a whole, it
may appear there is no review of the literature. I chose not to make a literature review a
StanCLalone chapter because my use of the literature branched in multiple directions as I

W01- ked on the various problems associated with my research questions. The literature

10

 

A. ..4
. . It .

' \

‘1'” A \ \. _
t... .w. a. u». v-

o
a
w~§..

. .
. w . o.
.-.- ‘ _ 3 _

-._.. no. d-s-c
-

-u.,;o -‘n

:c:&~£i.-u.1jl 5‘

 

:' ’0 ' —~'; -~.

.
l ‘ I
~~-.~.u.....\ I__ .

~A.-o., “
” . ‘. A. ' v- I

1
Wk... -.. ml“. \\§., _
.

'-' o .
. .5" . .
.. ,I,.\n.\“,|s\t\‘:~

:HC'Y‘ '- ,'
5‘ ‘ fi
‘1‘ \ ‘ne kt
.‘1‘
Mr? 0 o

I‘ , l. ‘ v.0
.. .. ‘1”:de
Hi

\§
-‘ ‘ 1.
‘N. F In:

. 1.....Cfi‘vi1ng l»,

\
1

if».

‘\

t

-:1:..tn,hlp

“:2 . I
. J W1
1.“!
“‘1
\ "
N43" 1' t“.
‘
‘ hp
i

 

Cain.
"s. .
' I
‘\ 411i I‘J; .L
“‘5 I '.
l“u“
.E-
‘ . ‘Q‘ I
' 4
rt‘ 'h
. N

referenced in this dissertation is wide-ranging, some might say too wide-ranging. Before,
during and after data collection, I read broadly. This ties to my conclusion that my role

as a teacher educator is that of a generalist. There is a cost. By drawing from a variety of
types of literature, it was not possible to go to the same depth I could have had I instead
focused on a more obvious review of college science teaching, teacher education,

teaching for understanding and pedagogical content knowledge. Benefits outweigh costs,
however. I believe this dissertation portrays the system of science teacher education

more holistically than most and offers insights into that system not possible in more
narrowly focused research.

This broad focus ties not only to the literature referenced but also to the
dissertation as a whole. Any of the three conceptual models described here could have
stood alone as the conceptual framework for a dissertation. Any one of the data sources
could have been the focus of a dissertation. Indeed, I began with a proposal using the
first framework as the conceptual framework of the dissertation. As I collected my data
and began to write about it (while still collecting more data) I found the Two Cultures
framework interesting but lacking.

The relationship between the two cultures seized my attention, and I began to
Consider its importance. This led me to the second framework, which I eventually came
to See in a similar light as the first: interesting, but lacking. Part of what led me to the
third framework was my growing interest in, and reading about, environmental education,

environmental issues, and systems thinking. I came to see more value in connecting
these three models than writing a dissertation on a single one of them. I believe I have

developed three conceptual models that are each useful in and of themselves but more

11

useful when viewed collectively. I also believe the data collected analyzed along with
the literature cited gives ample support to each model and lends credence to the
conclusions derived from those models.

This dissertation is backgrounded by the idea that good teaching is rooted in the
ideas of social constructivism. That is not to say that those who teach need to know the
terminology used by educators to describe social constructivism, but that they must have
at least an implicit understanding of learning as an interactive process and provide
structures that facilitate the necessary kinds of interactions for students to learn the target
material. In addition, to teach science effectively using a social constructivist model,
deep understanding of science concepts is essential.

This kind of teaching has been described in several reform documents. The most
relevant of those documents to this dissertation is NSF ’s Shaping the Future: New
Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology (NSF, 1996). Lesser known, but also very relevant is OERI’s Issues of
Curriculum Reform in Science, Mathematics, and Higher Order Thinking Across the
Disciplines (OERI, 1994). This includes a synthesis of literature on constructivism and
defines constructivism as including the following:

1) Learning is dependent upon the prior conceptions that the learner brings to the
experience.
2) The learner must construct his or her own meaning.

3) Learning is contextual.
4) Learning is dependent upon the shared understandings that learners negotiate
With others.
Constructivist teaching involves understanding students’ existing cognitive
Structures and providing appropriate learning activities to assist them.
Teaching can utilize one or more of several key strategies to facilitate
cOnceptual change depending upon the congruence of the concepts with
Student understanding and conceptualization.

12

 

A. »
I‘. -... 0.0.x. Ahm~sc ..
w

- 00"- e. ..n
.. -~. \
’\ z 0- \
PA... I. ..
.

' t. t I
5 .‘\ \' “‘ \ I.
““‘ "" --- .h.
. ' ' O -r u . .

 

 

 

v
.. g 5 ..1 .
..... t...
- !

.)’..-cq .. u ~ '
~.-I.. -.. _‘-. .
. \

 

 

 

 

7) The key elements of conceptual change can be addressed by specific teaching
methods. “. . .To elicit and highlight the existence and nature of competing
points of view” ((Pines & West, 1986), p. 595) cited p. 27.

8) Constructivism leads to new conceptions of what constitutes excellence in
teaching and learning and in the roles of both teachers and students. Teacher
changes from disseminator to facilitator (p. 28) “Students The role change
from ‘student-knowledge acceptor’ in a transmission model of learning to that
of ‘student-knowledge constructor in the constructivist model of learning that
requires students take an active role” (p. 31).

9) In constructivist teaching and learning, more emphasis is placed on learning-
how-to-learn than on an accumulation of facts, creating a philosophy of
content in which “LESS IS MORE.” This understanding of (or bias toward)
teaching and learning is the foundation upon which this dissertation is built.

Adapted from (OERI, 1994)

 

A related framework that informs this dissertation is an understanding of The
Learning Cycle. This has been described in various ways, but I find the language used by
Charles Anderson to be the most concise and comprehensible. His description is
grounded in the work of Collins, Brown and Newman (Collins, Brown, & Newman,

1989) and defines the Learning Cycle as including the following steps: (D Establishing
the problem; ® Modeling, how one works through the problem; ® Coaching the learner;
@ Fading as the teacher removes him or herself from coaching; and © Reinforcement
(Anderson, 1999).

Throughout the dissertation, I make references to my own changes in thinking and
how one idea may have supplanted another. Changes in conceptual understanding occur
as existing conceptions are drawn into question. The explicit sharing of my own
COnceptual change is intended not only to reveal my thinking process to the reader, but

a180 to aid the reader in making their own conceptual change.

The first chapter lays out some of the initial understandings I had of the Two

Cultlll‘es of science teacher education before I began this study. It is intended to establish

the Problem of the dissertation. I presented an earlier version of this chapter at the

13

   

F I
1| ' __._._.., I-Oo

.40-

3'5“” a, H 0

,,..~ .-
a

 

_. -54. .. . \\ -.

. v ..I-.‘, -§ - a, a

v, n .-

5 ..s ‘. unn- . | h\
‘

 

 

 

e. o F I
. ‘ ‘\ ' '
“- - «nbe. ..

 

 

 

 

‘ v
-
1‘
y.
' .
A
3..
k...“ .' 0 .
. \.~ ’ Q '1’
‘5. ,\ .\

 

American Educational Research Association meeting in 1998 (Duggan—Haas, 1998). It is
derived primarily from interview data from the Salish Project. It lays out some findings
from the Salish Project, and describes that project briefly. Again, my work as a graduate
assistant for that project was the genesis for this dissertation.

The second chapter describes the methodology used for the new data collection
for this dissertation. It tells of how and why I went about collecting the data I collected.
It answers questions about what classes I chose to focus on, who I chose to interview and
not interview, and the descriptions of what it was that I did to collect and analyze data for
this work.

The third chapter describes what I saw in my classroom observations. The fourth
chapter describes what the college seniors who were about to become science teachers
had to say about their teacher education program. Chapters three and four include both
science and teacher education classes.

Chapter 5 looks at an approach that promises to reduce some of the problems
rooted in the problematic relationship of college science and teacher education. It is a
Case study that begins to look at the actual relationships among scientists, mathematicians
and science and math educators. Up to this point in the dissertation, the relationships are
either suppositions or the relationships as seen by the students among their classes (not
atrlong their professors). Chapter 5 offers a glimpse of direct interactions between
Scientist and educators.

Chapter 6 reshapes the conceptual lens described in Chapter 1 to look at the
r elatiOnship between college science classes and teacher education classes rather than

Identify the differences between them. The locus of analysis moves from the individual

14

O‘ .
.v'e s. ,

I‘ . \
.. I ‘\ b ”‘5 '
a..—

 

.
. .- . _ ..- ‘
:I ...---..o5 a\--.

 

 

 

v
“r N .J*' ‘ .s‘ 'u‘ t,
M. a..'\-.~ ~5‘.
";‘0- . J 1.; ‘V';'
inr‘...s “5". \.~ o§\
- ‘ ‘
e‘v ‘ '
_~..‘ y‘ ’n n'...’ p n'
“‘srb a.-. .,5. . , ~
.
.. _ . -
‘ . . i.1'~\ ‘
‘- -.«.. ‘. “...h \
h v

 

 

- \L: a. 'Lv- -
n ‘u r“ -9 . ..
\ .\\“':’t W
H,
\
~‘ I.
‘Q Q h ‘
... \‘_h\.
M
1
2‘... .
.
K , ~.. ~
‘ 34.1' .v-r
\ ,.‘\ nu”
“\ v
.. .-‘
\.
' 3,3 tr. ,1
..l\,q\\., n
l

 

 

 

 

cultures to the relationship between those cultures. Chapter 7 expands and complexifies
the ideas of Chapter 6 by identifying and describing the larger system of science teacher
education. Here the locus moves again from a single relationship to a more systemic7
view of multiple relationships. In both of these chapters, I move beyond the description
that fits neatly into the Two Cultures framework and develop deeper explanations of the
problems associated with the tensions between and among aspects of the program.
Chapter 8, the final chapter, explicates why the issues raised in this dissertation
matter. It identifies reasons for hope and apprehension about the success of reforms
targeting college science teaching and secondary science teacher preparation. It includes
strategies that offer hope for small scale, localized change and why successful large-scale

national change may continue to be profoundly difficult and excruciating slow.

The Tone of the Dissertation
This dissertation is written in an informal tone. This may put off certain readers,

hilt I believe it will make the dissertation accessible to more people than it will drive

away. It will also become clear to the reader that I hold the lecture method of instruction

as a primary method in great contempt. It might even be fair to say that I am openly
hostile to the lecture method. Some undoubtedly will see this as bias. Perhaps it is, but is
bias grounded in substantial research. The lecture method does “work” for a minority of
Stu(lents, but it has never worked very well for most students at any level. While lecture
has a role in classrooms, it is a limited role. Using lecture as the primary method of

‘nStr'uction is inappropriate at any level.

\
7
I use systemic in the biologic sense, with parallels to ecosystems. '1 his is importantly different from how

15

73: Win:

a- . .
-.--'-..... ,-

‘ a t .
.Aus. s , nub“ n...-

 

. ..
.yrb"« a. .

- t-.‘.. 4.1. ....‘ ..-

“h VI " “ ‘ )vv‘np.
2 ‘~- - L.‘ b.. . . ..
. 0

ill sludrflb in
education in \\
Ill SIDdtnts its
1913 prttthw ~

.-.,_~v'
at - \

i
h-‘.".- 'I-u.

.-.W--\PI". a -r
~“."‘.~il\\ .“

~

~‘. -‘Q:\ ‘ ‘ .4 I. .
f 'pau nN

'.‘-. ~

‘ - W-

 

N40
‘1‘ :‘rr‘. L
l ‘5 ‘-“ ' r
' A. \
affix, .
x “6;. .“ "h ‘
a. . ‘
*-..- 1
r9

...W‘ \
.‘s‘
\g.._ ‘1‘.”
a...“ ‘l .a ‘
‘M’H\ . ‘
x ““I““
g.
‘92-“, ..
. ‘E'JHJ'O
‘-.‘\"»""~)
‘ I
\Il»\\
up}
“ ‘V. _ ,
' "a 'u
A-) '.
‘ ’1‘ \..’,. ‘
I s u

 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National
Research Council and The National Science Foundation all have published important
work that back this claim (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996; NSF, 1996). Indeed, NSF
states their goal emphatically:

All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate

education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology, and

all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods

and processes of inquiry.

America’s undergraduates - all of them — must attain a higher level of

competence in science, mathematics, engineering and technology.

(NSF, 1996) p. ii (emphasis in original).

While some apparently believe that science classes “weed out” students who are
not capable of doing science, it appears that the nature of teaching in science programs
discourages people who are capable of doing the work but put off by the nature of the
teaching (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990). It seems likely that some of the
discouraged, those who Seymour and Hewitt refer to as switchers, would make good
teachers.

My openly hostile tone is clearly unorthodox for a dissertation. It is my hope that
a Somewhat unorthodox approach will have greater impact than the typical, more gentle
(and I think less interesting) approach. If you are reading this as a scientist who teaches
and you find this inflammatory, fine. All I ask is that you consider the data that you have
about the effectiveness of your approach. Consider alternative hypotheses for test scores
beYond good score = understanding; bad score = misunderstanding. I recognize there are

ConStraints for the scientists who teach and address this in Chapter 6. I invite the

Scientists who teach to identify the constraints and work around them or work to change

\
this ‘efin has been used elsewhere in education, including the NSF funded systemic initiative programs.

16

 

 

3.... .=. ...

 

" "s .«h I.
. r. C
~05..__,_r.’ H‘

 

 

_... ‘_ .
n - \"‘
>~~i v a.
. u -..‘. .
5 \
v m. 1.

 

1F“ .'
(1‘ " v ' ~
..K.‘,.)“ N ‘
a
#-
J
-5
{’1-
«'In.‘ .I‘ “t ‘
“' K’ .. .
f s.
‘ f
.. .
3...“. .."
‘l
. su.‘ . J ‘
~hs \ \
s
's
.In
\ ..\~'
a“ .-
(“uni

 

them. My approach makes no pretense that I am unbiased and acknowledges that all
research has bias regardless of whether the researcher acknowledges the bias or not.

The reader should also remember that the study setting is not a typical science
teacher education program. Midwestern University’s Teacher Education Program is
recognized nationally as exemplary. This reputation is grounded in the College of
Education, not the College of Natural Science. The education courses are atypical for a
large university and the science courses appear to be typical. My apparently critical take
on the science courses contrasted with a comparatively favorable portrayal of the
education courses is in line with what others have said about exemplary teacher education
programs and typical university undergraduate science courses.

The teacher education program at Midwestern University has benefited from
years of thoughtful redesign and the hard work of implementing that redesign. Nothing
on a comparable scale has occurred in science at Midwestern so the reader should not
eXpect as favorable a portrait. In spite of this, the teacher education program is far from
Perfect. As stated at the beginning of this overview, science teachers fail to meld their
science and pedagogical knowledge into a coherent whole that is in the form which
research indicates is appropriate. The onus of responsibility for helping teachers make
this integration is on the education faculty. Herein lies the problem of science education
at all levels: teachers typically fail to successfully integrate content understanding with
Pedagogical understanding so that all their students will come to understand science in a

deep and meaningful way.

17

...-“".b
a ’1 I..
.....V.

“cl..‘l\. .‘
w 'J0 - I J
t-&\5.' L... A I‘
:Y . A‘.) “ID,
\.._‘ .'¥. \“ .
tr... 3 ..s ' ¥ ‘
h H. a ‘Kuu .. v.

.

I ‘0}? a a ‘
'“w-s.\ c

0.
"ax “'5\a .
\v
f . ‘ ‘ . . '
b“..\t. ‘\ “'3: '.'
~
' t

 

". i'D‘i
.~.‘ g

..

 

CHAPTER 1

TWO PROGRAMS, TWO CULTURES: THE DICHOTOMY OF SCIENCE TEACHER
PREPARATION

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas
in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald as quoted in Trilling 1945 essay reprinted in The Liberal
Imagination

Teachers differ from biologists, historians, writers, or educational
researchers, not necessarily in the quality or quantity of their subject
matter knowledge, but in how that knowledge is organized and used. For
example, experienced science teachers’ knowledge of science is structured
from a teaching perspective and is used as a basis for helping students to
understand specific concepts. A scientist’s knowledge, on the other hand,
is structured from a research perspective and is used as a basis for the
construction of new knowledge in the field.

Cochran, King, and DeRuiter (1991, p. 5)
Second quote excerpted from Veal & MaKinster (1999)

This chapter establishes the problem for the dissertation and was generated
tl‘uough my work in the Salish I Research Project. It draws from data collected from
Science education graduates of nine universities. The primary Salish data source relevant
to the dissertation was the New Teacher Preservice Program Interview. The interview
Protocol is included as Appendix B.

The data for this chapter was collected and analyzed before the work of the rest of

the dissertation and it was a catalyst for the bulk dissertation work. In short, the work of

18

 

'3 .
. ' ‘
..n ‘f- ."v’cb v. I \.~

D; ~- on._

‘ i

lL—c c.. has ..n\

- ' 1 ' ' 'io'
' '-\ .\' .3 .

""- 3—.~ ubu§| -

5.}. H:"‘.‘.}" F,
‘ .
“'-‘-v¢»-.— _\
nlfineu‘ v. .1 -.fi'
Al.~l_~‘.-."‘.i.‘\‘
,

 

-... - _ o ».
\ ‘i' \3 t In n
..- . .. . ... __ _
”2.. a“ '5‘ '1).
.
\~ 5... in...ug.~ ' -.. u.
.
‘ t
" l ‘ C. .' .-
‘- ..u "us‘. *H

 

.at,‘ \C'e.

..e} 9’.
.:~\, “‘1‘

 

. 9v:

. \

‘\

 

this chapter establishes the problem of the dissertation. It reveals my earlier thinking
about the nature of science teacher preparations.
Throughout the dissertation, I refer to classroom cultures and to academic

cultures. I also refer to classroom climate. These terms are not synonymous. Culture
refers to a broader context than climate. When I refer to climate, I am referring to what
happens in a particular class under tutelage of a particular instructor, the prevailing
Conditions or set of attitudes in that classroom. A culture includes peoples acting in many
different climates, though there are typically similarities running throughout the climates
that are included within a culture. The culture is the totality of the socially transmitted
behavior patterns, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of the relevant community.
The climates in upper and lower division courses within a college may be quite different,

but each course, and the climate of each classroom, contributes in a different way to

Shape the culture9.

Background

As science teacher candidates move through their teacher preparation programs,
uley move between the meritocratic, masculine culture of their science classrooms and
the democratic, feminine culture of their teacher education classrooms. Both cultures

attempt to win the allegiance of the teacher candidate. Furthermore, the keepers of the
Culture of the college science classroom intentionally distance themselves from education

in general and teacher preparation programs in particular. This chapter describes the

 

 

8 . . . . . . . . . .
As noted in the overvrew, I include mentions of changes in my understanding m hopes that this wrll gurde

:he reader in their understanding.
This relates to the linearity of teaching methods mentioned previously.

19

..1

m
”('1
[/0
‘ I
’2
I

0‘02.
\

_.—vu

w. .~
D
o

n.
' b

V-

.s...

M‘.

‘ ‘a- ‘1'“.3.”
’I' lk.*\5
H .

u you v" ~ ~

.u

.. .". Sin...-

1." f.’£'.=f‘kfl

  
 

...1

trinkets, 1:.
71 ~.':'_\ "w ~-

HN Mu.

.- ' 91- .
......\_~..~ ‘ 1

 

" .'
r.. . I “~“ .0 ’
QM ..‘~‘\ .A 4'
i l...
‘~_\ : 91.“..‘v
‘ ‘ i.
t‘\.
Mu‘ : “'0'
. bo.-‘ ‘\..
.
‘

 

Q ‘7,
Int" n ,
‘ s ‘ a- .
‘ st
Lo 3.1""
I \A‘
‘I
IS. ‘
\‘f

o
\J i '
*mCs
\
us
an“-
.~ ‘g
‘ ' K
~.k\e"v.‘
\ l' 1‘ |
'1‘.,- i,
C ”:2
.32
a. a.
X M-
‘5'i,-'_ .

53'
.1“.

rivalry between science and teacher education by describing and contrasting the
nature of the two cultures that were defined by distilling the interviews of new teachers in
the Salish I Project.

C. P. Snow’s timeless work, Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959)
inspired the framework I employ in this chapter. In Two Cultures, Snow described the
growing rift between the academic cultures of science and of the humanities. Such a
framework suits the cultures of the college science classroom and the college teacher

education classroom. It is important that I stress neither of the cultures I refer to are the
Same, or even particularly similar too, the cultures that Snow wrote about. He addressed
how academics work and speak with each other. I am addressing how academics work
With and speak to their students.

In this chapter, I portray these two cultures through a series of three contrasts
between the culture of the science classroom and that of the teacher education classroom:
® “Weeding out” vs. Nurturing; ® Meritocratic vs. Democratic; and C3) Masculine vs.
Feminine. These three contrasts are obviously overlapping; the first two contrasts, in
fact, combine to make the third. I will also draw conclusions on the impacts the
dichotomy has on the preparation of science teachers and discuss differences in the levels
of risk and ambiguity of the two classroom cultures. Before laying out the contrasts, I

Will give a very brief overview of my own background which may be useful in
understanding this paper, followed by a brief introduction to each culture.
As a graduate student in teacher education I had worked on the Salish I Research
Project researching the relationship between teacher education programs and the way

new science teachers teach. Prior to entering graduate school, I taught high school Earth

20

. .
“.----v-— .G HP.\’.‘
.'.. 0-» -» f ‘- j
0

fl
v w—bn‘\.:‘ ...L I‘-
\--—D "' . '

- wv
' 2-. H‘ ‘

HL’S‘I“’ .. 1.
.a..5§.“_t to...

.- "‘5 ‘_‘.. . n
“‘ -25...~‘\ I

 

H a .
' .‘O . .
-._‘: ‘_.:) Tb""“ o.

‘
.-.Li”i ...")"‘-' ‘ .
" “. ‘ ' .‘
t"‘w~ , .
“X “.3"! 36".: 0%.:
~ ‘5 .Ac\
\—.,'
.
‘ e 9 1 ‘ .s ..
‘w‘ R “'3 .
s n': \ u.
:5.
5" '.\ ‘* .
k L ‘ toéx£ ' .| I
”it,

v
“‘5 ‘R .L '- r r
”AJA- L‘;.c \
‘1’ . ."

 

\ .“
...,\.:“tfi\ _. '—
. -¢. dk.1‘\\ \
"
~Js‘.\ :3 VL.
‘§.“_ T.“ I |
‘:.a‘ 3.". r
us,” 1 a
‘5‘“ 'CN‘ ‘
t h ‘
‘l
x4-
‘ n
q, \I')
"n a ‘a 3
\.5 L-
I,
.,.,_ n
K '.
5 :‘IC'A ...
EU“ a,
s‘L‘ 1
|~‘:~:“_ n
”are
In
“‘“i‘lrx ..
- i . k
\
\ F-

l
t

t’

 

 

science and physics for eight years. I began my undergraduate work as a dual major in a
3-2 program in physics and engineering. Halfway through that program, I changed to a
straight physics major with a minor in education. The descriptions and contrasts that
follow use my background in teaching and teacher education as a lens to focus on college
science teaching.

Here I have adapted C. P. Snow’s framework of two cultures (Snow, 1959) to
describe the largest portions of science teacher candidates’ college classroom
experiences. There are of course, more than two cultures. Field biologists speak and
work very differently from theoretical physicists in their research, but what they do in the
classrooms where they teach is remarkably similar to each other and remarkably different
from what is going on in teacher education classrooms on the same campus. Teacher
educators behave like teacher educators. Scientists who lecture act like scientists who
lecmre. Within each set of classrooms (that is, within each culture), “. . .without thinking
about it, they respond alike. That is what culture means.” (Snow, 1959, p.11)

In comparisons across several universities, striking similarities were found in the way
SCience is taught. Two studies, each describing several universities’ science programs,
are referenced extensively. The Salish Project involved nine universities and their recent
graduates in science education"). The second study referenced is Elaine Seymour’s and
Nancy Hewitt’s study of why science, mathematics and engineering (S.M.E)

Undergraduate majors change majors at a higher rate than most other undergraduate

majors.

\

It) . .
Some universities also included recent graduates in mathematics education.

21

q

.

“an. 0 "‘ "
.

x|nu.bo ‘o" "

(p.4-

! v~‘ .
55-....§--

I

, I r.
“U“ n..
. a ‘
,. o .
.4. .~ )\ F,
'+_A..-~.u . l - i

a ‘ a i 1
‘3‘} J 3‘ , '
\ hauidngs. In“... u..
.

 

 

0 ~

‘ b.» -s p n .l .
I ' ‘ . .

« -4“ . . . "*

.. N." ' "P‘ \ "

“"5 H» .o\ u.

.., . . A

,. a u ... | 'T
- ~. at: 5.1 .

\‘p. :

Y. ..VC‘F.

""‘.\. ..~‘\ q". .'
b' h
A

 

'0.
9 ‘ a .‘
‘- ‘ 3M\
n _ 9‘ W-
as... 5‘.

  
     

“'7‘”? ..
. . r.
'.“"‘5' ‘J
.., . \
1“ -
.p ..
u. Eels": \ ‘nwl ,
- ‘ Vs..‘\
‘i‘ u‘.‘ A!
#1:.3 ' 1
. Alt
.\_
‘R 'P
x... H‘\\ri ‘3
l' In‘ '.
;~.'
.‘ ‘9
. I
\
' ““11110"
San
.‘ :. j
“‘u L39
“b" o
a\. ‘hd pr“..
. -;\
"A
\g‘" _

\fi‘ei .
‘1‘». R. ’
‘h,‘[1."- .
.1] Uerl
\ ‘q.
a: -’- I
'-..l'. '
.. n:
“ Walt
“‘41s l
“ L

 

Seymour and Hewitt’s book, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave
the Sciences, chronicles their ethnographic study of 335 undergraduate students who
switched from S.M.E programs as well as students who stayed in S.M.E programs at
seven colleges and universities. The study design included slightly more switchers
(54.6%) than non-switchers (45.4%) and women and minorities were intentionally over—
represented in the sample. All participants scored 650 or higher on the mathematics
portion of the SAT. The seven universities were chosen to represent a cross section of
the types of universities teaching future mathematicians, scientists and engineers. Four
public and three private universities were included, varying in size and in the nature of
their students (Seymour & Hewitt, pp. 25 - 27). Again, the purpose of the study was to
determine why S.M.E students change majors at higher rates than undergraduates in most
other disciplines. In making this determination, Seymour & Hewitt describe the culture
Of the typical college science classroom and also factors counter to that culture that seem
to encourage students to stay in the S.M.E pipeline.

I was only able to find one large-scale study that looked at the culture of teacher
education classrooms -— the Salish I Research Project. The Salish Project was an
exploratory study involving nine universities and their recent graduates in secondary
SCience. Here, the project goal was to explore the nature of the links between teacher
education programs, the way new science teachers teach and the outcomes of their
SIUdents. This involved both teacher candidates and college faculty in both science and
teaCher education describing the coursework in their programs. An underlying
assumption of the study was that both science and education faculty are teacher

edllcators. Like Seymour and Hewitt’s work, this study described the culture of the

22

v
. \""en~a‘ "\'
C's \.~ub\ on.

..- u
v

‘ v- 1 ..
“‘o”\0 d b
‘\..w\-. ...u._

.

‘ v.3 0.; P g.
'

as...“

; ‘8';4._
.‘ ‘ \ .
. 5-.““ in \I.‘ ‘
Vu‘ . ‘
Vt. 1'." "l“ "
\.. . '.\ “Ia,“

 

 

‘.‘ ‘
II
a: a u.“ ~.'
"4““ . \
" \\‘
‘
I.
b .
x» .3. ‘ _
" “W‘ "W n.
“‘ “Ix.
3.
f ..
\k‘ L'-
v“u,\ .',,
h‘ .
‘-
" \ -
., w ‘
"-'.'. .v H
.‘ .._ h '
~
-‘ ‘_ Y
‘. u ‘ 1'
..‘e. “‘-l.l\ ‘.)'
l
“
, an. '
. -, .
"e.’ .

 

college science classroom. It also described the culture of the teacher education
classroom. I worked on the Salish I Project for the two and a half years.ll

In the Salish I Project all participants were volunteers. What might that mean? It
seems reasonable to assume that volunteers for such a study would be more aligned with
the culture of teaching. The culture of science is not known for its respect of either
qualitative or educational research. If new teachers subscribe to the culture of science,
they may wish to have no part of such a project. Certainly, by using volunteer subjects,
the data do not reflect the total population of new science teachers in every aspect. I

know, from experience as a research associate for the project, that those who dropped out

 

of the study (at least at Midwestern University) were less likely to have valued their
teacher education coursework. This is important to keep in mind as the reader evaluates

the conclusions drawn in this chapter.

Describing the Two Cultures:

Both Talking About Leaving, and The Salish Project describe striking similarities
in the teaching of science and the broader culture of college science programs across the
universities in their respective samples. In college science classrooms, it is common place
that students are lectured to, competition is fostered and collaboration is discouraged.
Little support from faculty is available or encouraged (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997,
Dllggan-Haas, 1997). In teacher education, according to Salish findings, instructors
generally attempt to foster a classroom community by requiring collaboration and

discouraging competition. Students work in groups and are supported affectively by their

\

l
I The Executive Summary of the Salish Final Report, Secondary Science and Mathematics Teacher
reparation Programs: Influences on New Teachers and Their Students, is on the World Wide Web at
<http2/Ied-web3.educ.msu.edu/cvsme/original_cvsme/salish.htm>.

23

 

~ ;--' 2'; '2'“ m'
—‘:\'-'. m5 bull'bl‘n

 

 

@11th ngr

 

Inn P, 'I-
—-‘ -~‘—.. .\ . ..
.
D. . . | ' '.
.bu.‘ _‘ ._,\{‘ p‘ 'l

 

 

 

 

e i
i I
’ b. I.

v-..

.. .

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

professors. (Duggan-Haas, 1997; Salish, 1997) The dichotomy is very real here and

those who are familiar with both cultures instantly recognize the contrast.

 

Table 1.1: Two Programs, Two Cultures

 

It is little surprise that students see little relationship between their science and Teacher
Education course work. It seems that every instructional characteristic of one program is
reversed in the other. Unless otherwise noted, quotations are taken from New Teacher
Interviews of Midwestern University graduates.

 

Characteristic

Science

Teacher Education

 

Course Instruction

Lecture, “...mostly lecture. Not much
labs, not great labs when we had them.”

Group work/discussion, “I would say a
little bit of everythingbesides lecture.”

 

 

 

 

content dissemination: to learn facts

use of lecture Frequent Rare

use of cooperative Rare frequent

learning

class-size large small

Programpurpose/goals Goals are well-defined and understood: Goals are poorly defined or

understood. Many different goals are
identified.

 

fittbook use

Common

uncommon

 

Instructional Resources

k

Textbook

Readings — collections of articles also
occasional videos

 

Methods of assessment

objective tests, mostly multiple-choice

written work before the internship,
written work along with teaching
performance during the internship.

 

Teacher-Student “By far, the commonest words used to personal; “Excellent,” was a term used

I‘elationships describe encounters with S.M.E. faculty by half the participants in the national
are ‘unapproachable,’ ‘cold,’ sample to describe the faculty-student
unavailable,’ ‘aloof.’ indifferent,’ and relationship in the Salish study.
‘intimidating.”’ (Seymour & Hewitt, p.

k 141)

 

Program components
Valued by new teachers

Research or research like experiences —
In the original Salish study, two new
teachers graduated from Midwestern U
reported such experiences; one as a
volunteer, the other at a different
institution. In most cases, these
experiences were outside the formal

The full-year internship: the sequence
of courses in Teacher Education
related to their subject matter. In all
cases, these experiences were part of
the formal program.

 

 

r(Elation to professional
work

\

... ‘ program

Classroom culture’s

 

. _.. .. Partial Summary
Undergraduate science courses do not
generally reflect the work of scientists.
Unfortunately, they may reflect the
work of science teachers.

 

Undergraduate teacher education
courses reflect what teachers should do
(in the opinion of teacher education
faculty) in their own classrooms.

 

 

\_

(Adapted from Duggan-Haas, 1998)

24

 

‘ \
"a 3 Mn ..

v...‘4 .- n ,.
o- \

n

e r1 \
<"' V‘mafi. ..,

L, . -
, 3 " .—
.g.‘ ."'f.‘-v-r- .
' t -.~...\.‘““.

~

»

'r— ,... .
'1'.‘ ..t\\ In ' 1“! u
. " -' war. .

"‘ .w-
"‘N-u~_.\_

‘1 -
Q-
_' r .4 ‘0 .
' I

‘ \ . ’3‘ h... .‘

.~ ...su;,j'\r\ \
‘C- t

V < .
\l~‘\'.-o.‘
. erg .
"Hhui or.“

‘ .

J» . ‘
‘3‘. :‘ " .0_ _
“who."

it. :3:

 

 

 

a.“ 'n e
etultcu I.“
\u n
2:“
’s. ‘
‘~~..rv 4: -
hf“ id."
1: ..
s ‘e. .,
h. a .
M J\
“we ’ L
“\J
\
I
'l
.‘u

 

 

Table 1.1 shows a comparison of science classroom culture and teacher education
culture that was created primarily from Salish data. Seymour & Hewitt support Salish’s
conclusions about the science classroom culture. Table 1.1 is derived from new teacher
responses to questions on the New Teacher Interview. Teachers were asked a series of
nine questions about their college science courses and then asked a series of nine
questions parallel in structure regarding their teacher education courses.

On at least some level, both cultures “work.” While it is true that more S.M.E.
majors change their major than in other fields (a little more than 50%), we do not have a
Shortage of mathematicians, engineers or scientists, regardless of what some report in the
popular press. In fact, there is a surplus of the most qualified members of these
professions (Shamos, 1995, Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Likewise, there is no real
Shortage of teachers (Shamos, 1995). However, as Linda Darling-Hammond notes, too
nlany -- about half -- of middle school and high school science and mathematics teachers
do not have degrees in the subjects they teach (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Of course,
there have been volumes upon volumes written portraying the dire state of schools and
teacher education in modern day America (see, for example, National Commission on
Excellence in Education (1983), Lanier & Little (1986) or Hirsch (1996)). There have
been some well thought out critical responses to these pieces (see, for example, Berliner

& Biddle (1995) and Labaree (1996)).

On Science
The problems that Seymour and Hewitt describe and on which I concur are not
Seen as problems by all who teach science at the college level. The consequences of

fiXing these “problems” are difficult to predict. This analysis will lead to some informed

25

. ..,..n.. 15“
‘.\-

a. ...h , .4 no use ‘

.; -j.. ’4‘; \O
-__-,L.‘ ‘.._.s n . ~
. l

. -.. O<~ .cno ,
"l‘ V j
..L a I.’.,-- u

b

w ;. ‘ '°\\ "'3 a'
.......u. \u\\. u.

u' a. 4,. ‘.)"

a_"-- - -. I r

. . ’ ",. _ .1 -
"-fl. duo .‘l\.5~.\
.

: "9-1 .
' .I F'- .
on -‘
-i\.“. _ ‘ ~
5
~~ . ' I.
- ‘ *w u
u t’ n
. Ea '1 '
”its...
u

Ir‘. . -.
u... .\‘ I"
as." W

l
Ah*“\“ ‘
‘; a.
s s " -
-..‘f L. '
‘ a

. 'n ,. " .

‘l:|"...5 \' .

 

.
.I\
N. ‘fit‘ .
Cw 7‘ .
‘.\ \‘ e
v \MH"",'
n,.\
\¢
.
. .,
‘~-., g. _
“\‘PPn “
.‘ _ .
‘c- T'
"
~<
\h'n

jg w 3.
.: 4 .
‘ ..i‘i~1" .-
.‘ .
: ‘lc'c \‘I
\\
,;.
\ ..I‘l.
.‘ ;
. a”. “.9'.‘ .
:1. q

speculation in this regard, however. When viewed from a perspective that is built upon
some knowledge of pedagogy, it is very difficult to classify the current state of affairs as
the way it ought to be. Several studies of tertiary science instruction have found fault.
Smaller class sizes, and higher faculty~student interaction (monitoring, advising,
counseling, involvement in faculty research) are methods that have shown to improve
teaching and increase retention rates of students in science. These studies include the
Office of Technological Assessment reports of 1988 and 1989 and Porter, 1990 (in
Seymour & Hewitt, pp. 6 - 7, 1997).
The most common problems stated by S.M.E students in Seymour & Hewitt were:
0 lack or loss of interest in the disciplines which comprise S.M.E.
majors, which ranked first (43.2%) among the reasons for switching,
and was mentioned as a concern by 59.6% of all switchers and by
35.5% of non-switchers
0 a non-S.M.E. major is seen as offering a better education, or more
interest, which ranked second (40.4%) among reasons for switching
was mentioned as a concern by 58.5% of all switchers, and by 31.6%
of non-switchers
0 poor teaching by S.M.E. faculty which ranked third (36.1%) among
the reasons for switching, was mentioned as a concern by 90.2% of all
switchers, and by 73.7% of non-switchers
(Seymour & Hewitt, p. 145)

As reflected above, problems that motivated switching were generally also
recognized by students who did not switch majors. Seymour & Hewitt refer to this as the
“problem iceberg.” The problem is shown in students leaving S.M.E majors, but it lurks
untler the surface for those who remain. Notice the near unanimous concern about poor
tf-‘vaching among the switchers and non-switchers alike. It seems likely that these are not

Separate problems, but rather tightly intertwined. Poor teaching is perhaps a cause of

both the lack of interest identified as the most common cause and clearly related to the

26

 

 

Aus‘
.

C". vi

'I ...4.
\ .03.
""\--\.

 

‘qj . .
1 Q
“S ‘ ”\ v .Iy.
‘8‘”; ‘
.r j
”I
I Q
~ .
’fi \ 1 “.91 ’9‘
m. j. lug?" ..
.
‘A .
‘3' ~

“Nth;

:1 ~,
...4 DUI.“ one \j

a. ‘

 

njv.
\ ‘2’.
"44‘" .
., \[T‘v- '1';
—.‘¥1“u I.‘ .
‘ I

 

second most common cause - better education available in non-S.M.E. majors. These

problems of pedagogy are an integral part of “weeding out” students.

THE CONTRA STS:
(D “Weeding out” vs. Nurturing all the flowers, weeds or not:

“They do the usual speech: ‘Look to the right of you; look to the left of
you. Forty percent of you won’t be here next year.’ I think that’s the
standard speech at every university.” (Male Black engineering non-

switcher)
(Seymour & Hewitt, p. 123)

As we go about cultivating future science teachers, we begin by planting them
amidst students with a wide variety of career goals. In their introductory science classes,
t1ley sit among others who wish to become doctors, engineers, scientists and more.
Indeed, many who become teachers begin college with other career aspirations.”
Immediately, the science department or college structure begins to “weed out” large
Illlmbers of these scientifically inclined undergraduates.

The phrase “weed out” is common place in the vernacular of college and
University S.M.E. students throughout the US. It is, however, a poorly chosen term for
the process it describes. Weeding is selective. Weeds are removed from gardens because
they do not hold the same promise for production as the plants that were intentionally
Planted. In Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Seymour
and Hewitt conclude that weeding out reduces numbers in the S.M.E garden, but it does

50 indiscriminately. The students who change majors, the “switchers,” from S.M.E. are

\
12
Again, I began college in an engineering program, for example.

27

g

 

g 1172.17.71"
M.

l. ‘ u- . '3‘
.‘o: l "f‘ H .. i
O.-. I U
5 ‘J
._\.'—.;55
T.» 'f 7' F

 

\ ~- a
- t
." . --‘x‘. s -
"_|o« Haw-"fa ‘0 "‘
‘u;I4~..u\el -.| nun:
"‘-.' L“ R u 0
A A '
sou-"-1... nke .us
1‘ ' ‘
v ‘ “ ‘ in 0' .
-« \x .. unfikt‘“
p»..‘,‘ '
b. ' T ...IW “
_ t u ”at . \
..
. I
‘.~.‘. 5.

«iii ,'

 

just as likely to be qualified and successful in their coursework as those who stay in
S.M.E. The quote at the beginning of this section is reflective of stories told on many
campuses. It matches well with what I was told in my first undergraduate physics
lecture. It does not encourage students in S.M.E; it uniformly and indiscriminately
discourages.

This traditional opening line of the first science lecture has multiple explanations.
It communicates the common belief that few individuals are, “born scientists.” It
contributes to the reduction in student numbers in the courses and programs which, on
most campuses, could not be supported from freshman year through graduation if there
Was no attrition or minimal attrition. The speech reflects that the purpose of the course is
not education, but rather selection (Seymour & Hewitt, p. 394). It begins the hazing
Portion of the indoctrination into the culture of science. It is, in effect, the signal that
Pledging the fraternity of science has begun. In some ways, this hazing is crueler than
fraternity hazing in that it not only demoralizes; it also denies mutual support.

For those who survive the hazing portion of the indoctrination, life gets better. In
upper level courses, group work is often encouraged. The luckiest (or most ambitious) of
Students work on research projects with faculty. Those who complete research are far
less likely to be switchers. And they are far more likely to like and respect science
faculty (Duggan—Haas, 1997; Seymour & Hewitt 1997, p. 147). Hazing is discussed
fllrther in sections ® and C3).

In contrast, students in teacher education are nurtured, at least until they student
teach. While many people believe there are natural born teachers, if teacher educators

b'e-lieve this it is not overt in their teaching. As a general rule, instructors in teacher

28

'l 4"... ....A.

 

.. .. .. “n: ...‘_,,
'll.

- _ :
sun—..s ..o\..
‘

‘7‘?" .‘v‘ .3‘ '>_.
rown—3 . ...‘s‘. ...x

“‘4‘; 3".) :. .“h'
Xufis .“ in... ‘ ‘
- l

N— rna
‘ i

0
'v'.«\.‘\. 5

i" ’3'!

‘ “r ~ 4' .
I: 9“ 'P
.. ... h... m,“-

‘
, ‘\ \u . . "
.tA .t...‘;” I,
24;.‘: ‘~_ g) ‘ '-
\ .. \_,1€j¥\.l .‘
.‘j. _
uni: - " n 1 .p ‘ 'h

I
. 1-. .ih..u-..,‘ j”
«-

 

 

 

,- ,
‘i-1 3:“ i?.‘ 0‘ a
‘ ' H ’ 9 .\
u
v" .
>;A\O_ .
1 .. ,
s.\\t.xj.. ,j‘ ”,1
7“ ..t
. “\fih‘m \ .-’,JV‘ 5’.
| .\‘ k
e

13:,“ 0L
his in.“ \(‘Cu it
. ‘ H\
1‘. ‘
-\\‘~:":\ in 93".
c L \\;‘|;\.e .l
\

ii‘ I I
3 ‘1 ‘ ,
“ U at .
5.
p.
‘ T:- ..
.:- 1:“ ,1.” i
n ..‘IL A.‘
‘

 

 

education encourage, not discourage. Weeding out may occur (and perhaps should occur
more) but it is not indiscriminate. People are not encouraged on the first day of course
work to change their majors! Interview responses in the Salish Project indicated that
students believed their professors in Teacher Education were approachable and those in
science were unapproachable. (Again, see Table 1.1.) Students were also encouraged to
form support networks with their fellow students by working together on much of what
they do in class and, to a lesser degree, out of class.

This situation may be reversed in the world of work. New teachers generally
have the same responsibilities on the first day of school as veteran teachers, with little
support in handling those responsibilities. If the new graduate instead goes to work in
industry, they are typically further trained and responsibilities are developed over time.

Selection is not a primary purpose of the coursework in Teacher Education.
Coursework is intended to instruct, to educate, to prepare students for the world of work.
Teacher education is vocational, unlike much of science and mathematics education.l3

Poor teaching in science is rewarded on multiple levels. This is not to say,
hOwever, that science instructors intentionally (or universally) teach poorly. But it
diminishes incentive to teach well. If a professor teaches poorly, fewer students will
Come to his or her course and more will drop the course, reducing the paperwork load. In
the longer term, the loss of numbers in the program matches the structure of the program.

T1’lis alignment is the result of program evolution. If students did not drop out in large
nul'nbers, resources for upper level courses and labs would be overwhelmed. Poor
teaching is also considerably easier than good teaching. Through student interviews,

.\Â¥
3
I have intentionally omitted engineering here, as engineering students are more likely to be involved in
Ocational training including actual work in industry as part of their bachelor’s degree program.

 

29

-o _-..\ at 1' I. 3‘ "
l
‘,,\ .. eh .
IO"- “'9'. r S ‘0 v-
- um n. L . I .

I». ' . se»p.f“l\e'-j-.

-4... J... .5. .

-~..L_ .
’\
l ‘l* Ole.‘
, j o _
" "',\.x- .I‘
""A-Iu..
'-

~u
I "‘ 9a..

o‘.1‘) .
*us-

 

 

ltd“.
“' fa V. i
. "‘“L ;I‘\ 3.,
x N n
\s
L‘
\iwm I
“‘--~~L.\"

 

Seymour and Hewitt found that some science professors, on at least four of the seven
campuses involved in their study, taught by reading directly from the text book as their
primary method of instruction! (P. 154). This means that preparation for teaching is
virtually non-existent for these professors.

The harsh nature of curved grades also contributes to weeding out. It is not
unusual for a 50% exam score to be a C or even a B after grades are curved. Receiving a
50% grade can be a severe ego shock to students who were often among the best in their
high school class”. The above raises several important questions. Is boring, uninspired
teaching rewarded? Are poor assessments of understanding rewarded in ways not tied to
their explicit purposes? Is the lack of teacher-student interaction rewarded by students
dropping from science programs?

Seymour & Hewitt were unable to identify good indicators of what made one
Student more likely to switch out of S.M.E than another student. Switchers were about as
likely to have good grades or poor grades as non-switchers were. Switchers were more
likely to be critical of their science teaching and less likely to have developed ways of
COping with the stresses of their science coursework. One method of coping more
C0mmon among non-switchers is collaborative group work in the form of study groups.

The above implies that the students who switched were just as capable of “doing
Science” as those who stayed. It also implies that switchers are more concerned about
quality teaching. Putting two and two together indicates that the process of weeding out
discourages some of the best potential science teacher candidates from becoming teachers

as an S.M.E. degree is generally required to teach science.

\

l‘ a a ’ a
j It is important to note that while curved grades were widely reported In Seymour and Hewm 5 study, it
‘d not appear to be common practice at Midwestern University.

30

fi..¢naefi~. ‘_' 1 Can-
I

9 l. ..-

 

4. '
_ . ‘I In'.) ‘* ",l
....—... ...5 s¥v
»
- j...“ .'_, . ,j, ..
.
5....-. .us.‘ .8\' § ~

 

—- ~\-...'. .-
.
‘ b. . ‘ ‘
o W“ -. vb
cl \ a 'v -
. I '
5.... .‘sody ~_ ‘ ”jt \ ‘
\ ~uo‘ “
§‘l _‘ A I 7 . a '
. -...- .. A-.. ;
r."~“‘_‘:¢' '
" ' ””1" l’.‘ .“7oa i ‘
..I m..\‘ .. .\
-..“
.

 

en.
".-..
.\I"¢. .. .I
e.‘ .~\ MR) k
‘A A
k \t (“a
\
"a
\d:\ .—4

I‘( i.
i «l
e,_ 5*
Vs..:\ .. ._
u \i yo
‘TO
-».K'
o y“
.‘j _ r
«1;. I": ‘
\a‘l 7
. m .u '8
Q
“
”CC”;
N,‘ ‘9
“kilo “.L-
i441 LI
. “~41
V.
i“, is...
\‘. "W—‘l

C2) Meritocracy vs. Democracy:

Though the weeding out process appears to be indiscriminate based on ability,
this is not widely recognized within the college science classroom culture. An uncritical
look at weeding out would lead to the conclusion that only the strong survive. It may be
true that some of the strong survive, but some of the strong leave too. A more critical
analysis might lead one to conclude that the brightest recognized a poor learning
environment and intelligently sought a better education elsewhere. The culture of science
is meritocratic in belief, but it is not so clear that it is meritocratic in practice.

Again, the process of weeding out is a hazing process. It forges a bond between
those who survive it and it is their entree into the culture. Weeding out serves to
indoctrinate students into the culture of college science. It is far less clear that it helps to
educate these same students about science. Hazing does not make one smarter or even
more knowledgeable. Hazing induces a feeling of superiority. Ask any frat man which
fraternity is the best on campus or any serviceman which branch of the armed forces is
the best and you are most likely to hear that the organization to which he belongs is the
best. Is the primary purpose of the weed out courses to educate science students or to
select those who should continue? Both the means and ends in this process are suspect.

Students, switchers and non-switchers alike, complain of not understanding the
material taught in the introductory courses. This material should be fundamental to
understanding what happens in upper level courses. The true, deep understandings of the
fundamental aspects of a science seem unlikely to be learned in the introductory courses.

But surviving the weed out courses allows one to feel superior in intellect.

31

...., ‘0 .. . 3...,
.L-‘l 6'1} b'si.<... ”,7 ....
‘ ‘ ' ~-v-- o .
I‘ 7) "' \. .j I I
a. ..u . . ,, ‘ - u.

5
i“"” "7 '4' -"\ u r\.~. a
“gust ~‘-‘-.l_. ~55:

...‘u..~y. ..j .. .

LU - "fit." ‘"‘O\'\.-\.n. \“ .
”'D - -~

.;".' A... '
i~\.\.‘. 10 “0711,“
‘ as.

F n

P #5,... I
u\ 5“.“rc (‘9 Y}
‘. ‘C.

V

‘Q ' .
“'s: :l. .‘f ‘ n.
s j. I
' \kl“:.:‘c ,‘.
:- ix,
‘ .
". n.
"ML?" .. I;
.fii §~| i Afl»\ ‘
‘H“ 4' I O
C‘- u;{ "
..l’ ‘
Vi-i';€ ‘L a
t .M' “£41 ' .
5. i
9"
”F, ;.
\fln‘.» ‘3? .1
I Inc pen—j."
-\.
a
3
»I.§\ Lil“. m
:‘Halos. \\ L
i
3H.
‘.,.~‘~'

 

A. ..
a“: i!,'
-.Aq; Eh‘d\ ‘L .
dh‘
‘F'A\
...qu
‘\;: . r"‘|
‘T‘Jilgfi '
D X‘Ifhn
‘1
V‘ ‘
015171
.‘g Sha‘K‘
‘ T
3".“ . c
s.. ...f

 

Weeding out is counter to much of what is taught in teacher education classes
today. It is commonplace in teacher education to speak of educating all children. In fact,
it is the foremost goal of The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). If
teacher educators weed out many students, they not only fail to model this core belief, but
act in direct opposition to it. I have said that weeding out in science courses tends to be
indiscriminate. This appears true based on ability, but it is not true based on gender or
skin color. White males dominate the culture of college science classrooms. Weeding
out disproportionately effects men of color and all women (Seymour & Hewitt, p. 132).
Conversely, teaching has long been the professional work most open to men of color and
especially to women.

The culture of the college science classroom is an elitist, market model while the
culture of the college teacher education classroom is an egalitarian, democratic model.
Teacher’s colleges are the people’s colleges. They are accessible to a large portion of the
populace, and what is accessible is much more than entry into the programs. Successful
completion of the programs is genuinely attainable. The same could hardly be said of
science programs. While entry into S.M.E programs is achievable, exit from it with a
degree only comes in a minority of cases.

The discrepant goals of college science and teacher education are discussed in
more depth in Chapter 6. This discussion uses Labaree’s framework of conflicting
educational goals (Labaree, 1997) to explain one aspect of the dysfunctional relationship
between college science and teacher education.

Giving sharper, perhaps more legitimate, definition to the meritocracy of science

are those individuals who seemed to intuitively grasp abstractions which other students

32

I i ‘ 3 i" .
.-~- 4; 'v-‘r A, w.
‘1: ..‘~\..t u . 5

i=3“: T726 :‘tn'xc'.

I ..“ '
..-or‘o. .H‘ \
IL...s.n\. .. -, _j_
.-
" ’3 "

_- r-. h
~§ agn ‘. h-l‘ \ '-
s

j“. YJ; 0‘ ‘

_~..,j
-.~.A ., 5““ .\ \

"a; ’a ‘ .‘. ‘
..-_-.,.5§. g.‘ 31 ..~‘
.
i“ v-o ,‘ -
e _' ' _\. j."
i ‘ ~ i“‘ t.-
iv- 0'5": '1‘ 'j
;.l\ ...4. 5‘
”h; i
a '30
‘ "av ‘.
‘ “~. J L".
N.‘s.. ’4
W 7' 5 d 'fi- ‘
‘ ‘L‘el.\\ ‘I'
4.

; ..j
~;~-':o ;“

-"-. .,
..‘4.' 'y
es, . Ed 1
._.$ '1 _
\h“ ‘1J :TZQLri .‘.
k -.
:s‘I‘TN

u
-. ,- u. .
4“ fi a

II ' 1"
“‘Hthr

‘ . “l,
“‘Ag‘gvj- 4|
7‘“: \J..\q!
§
‘-
,."'..-j. “A
‘1: ,5. '1.

.
. '8. “.
FM
T~-
‘ . \
~.t \ _.
k:
‘e.
i--
a“ QKj-l
‘ ‘a‘ “_ ~
\‘\ 9‘0-
o t“. .‘_

could not seem to “get it” no matter how much effort was put forth. These individuals
were described on all seven of the campuses in Seymour & Hewitt’s study, but they did
not come close to dominating the non-switchers in numbers. They did serve to frustrate
their fellow students by making the meritocratic nature of science painfully obvious,
however. The existence of these curve-wrecking individuals goes counter to the
democratic norms of education instilled in most students before arriving at college.
Failure in grade school is seen not as a result of lack of ability but rather a lack of effort.
This belief is carried on into college (Seymour & Hewitt, pp. 101 - 102). And it is
reinforced in colleges of education. After all, all children can learn (at least this is a
dominant belief in those colleges of education)!

In the marketplace, grades in the two cultures have very different meanings. In
the market driven, competitive world of science, grades matter. Grades are a commodity
that buy admission to grad school (Labaree, 1997). Good grades may be awarded with
future scholarships (this is true in teacher education, too but to a much lesser degree). In
teacher education, on the other hand, it is common for students to be told that grades do
not matter. And it’s true, at least to some degree. The more valuable commodity in the
education marketplace is the letter of recommendation. Without good letters of
recommendation from collaborating teachers and field instructors, starting teachers are at
tremendous disadvantage in their job searches, even if their grades are outstanding. This
means that there is currency - meritocracy - in teacher education but it is somewhat less
blatant.

The valued letters follow the trend of teacher education where assessment is

generally far more qualitative throughout the program when compared to the science

33

. ~ .- i

O. ’ '-
-r~o.- 1r. ~A k;.§\4 ‘
0' ~

‘- v. ...j ‘-‘ C ‘y-r

C.-. uJ.‘ UKC‘ 3"‘L ‘7 I
l

s

u” o", ‘ m ‘ .I"
55...“; by}? B“:"
_ .

. .
N; :31 , "F ‘V‘ 3 ‘ '
. k-..» . . sax lib :-

-o-. .. I

, j he .‘3 ~ ' i

*5.» l‘ \ ‘ "ii i...
.utb if h. l‘ 0‘5

.. I ..
- .0. 7 .
‘\ .I h...

.1.
b«..s\ucl \I‘A“ in n

5%,; v- 1" n

4 . flan-I; *

._...-- h. p -. ‘ I
t~..I-.I\ \\ ...lsl‘\ '

H
‘j€"\"‘ ‘?
‘ \l‘. . .v..
l..
K

\IL“’:

 

“. .._
- H;
‘ «x~-sf‘.

e are 1:17.29:

x.

>—'.
:I P
"‘ I,

‘7‘” ~
‘tf "v- 3 I

.1.\, [$0 \.
Matte, 6ja
3r ' i i

3.315
s\u‘\ C\\~
la-

“50,-.

s.\.

\cd :\\ ('5'
S€‘\T".')r ' i
..In.‘Jr& }1,

?\ .‘ a
K 3;. 2‘4.)

v

at...
x~ '7‘ e
“k W I} .
nil "‘ ‘
mafi ‘
‘i‘.
I‘jj‘ _.
‘ ad‘s \ «b
' \ a¢\i"‘- ‘
ll:

:1.) 4H) 'i

‘ LClr'flh.
. "“"‘ ‘I‘I
1‘1“? ‘
“I ‘ ire

LEE r315, .j
. .1K\_
“Khuw

“£311 .
~i3ut n 1

Q~{:»N

program. In the heated competition of science coursework conversely, the curve is king.
(Again, this does not appear to be the case at Midwestern.) The curve must be beaten to
stay in the game. Beating the curve may mean breaking 55% on an examination (and the
examination is likely to be objective and probably multiple choice). It means being
driven to do better than your classmates. Adjusting to percentage scores in the range
associated with curved exams is often difficult for students to do. The need to do better
than average is also often a difficult adjustment. The idea that collaboration is cheating is
also a difficult shift in mindset from high school where cooperative learning is becoming
more and more commonplace.

The competitive nature of science classes is illuminated well and some potential
consequences are hinted at in the following quote from a male Hispanic engineering
switcher:

“The first two years here, all you think about is hoping you do better than

everybody else -- actually, you hope that everybody else fails... It’s bad. It

breeds competitiveness and singles out certain kinds of people to succeed,

as opposed to other more gentle types of people -- people people.

(Seymour & Hewitt, p. 120)

Again, we see that the requirements of science programs that derive from the competitive
culture may be chasing away some of the best science teacher candidates. The
characteristics of assessment in science -- that it is individualistic and highly competitive
-- are starkly different from assessment in teacher education. In teacher education, group
projects are common. Assessed activities are generally term papers and written projects.
Rarely are they objective tests (Salish, 1997). Collaborative group work is not only

encouraged, but it is often an integral part of in-class work and not unusual for homework

assignments. Curving grades is non-existent or virtually non-existent.

34

Tr: ::::::r .35 ;

   

I-.., 3‘ W. one 5"...’" *-

u~-. ‘~_ L. \~s.\~ -su

..
in, 1*. -. r”\"-'
0N~‘b- in; 5'- ..u. . u

5 .

.0
.-.fi.‘ 9.
I _~ .D' (;.t‘ .'.V.I {a
- >~s~u.~..
. \ . s 4

s
\

 

“iv-~o o . “ '
' aadhé‘ n a
"r We *“AJS‘ l_ , _ «7';

|
P r l
or "A, s..- ‘E ..h 1
U fi-‘ ‘ “\L.‘ I

\h‘

3‘ .
.'*¢I o |
"“~.. i " i”"1.V
an“. tsfikeng-.’§ :\ \i
s

:‘Vj‘aln. .

. ‘.
‘\._~\ 93 ~Q~ '
.. .l\ ssdx H's: :7
a. —
\.I. m

- \ 1 'h .‘

s h‘tl.\' §
V

V. \I"
U ..‘h lynx, . F
“‘ I'm"‘
‘5‘ v
-.l‘. “C -I_
\a ‘ ..
‘ 5 xx “0 (\“1
:i V;‘-.. ‘
1'7” ilk H
n ‘1‘ “-‘r3\\
1.
. "9-.
“33:3 . 4 L,
...j '
shuttle“: ”j,
3 .
n
\‘-
V d

(it rem“. '
\.\ea 21
.\ " .
.9-
‘x. t‘vq -
{$3511
I a“ '
\Cldr it
ls _’l
{1}"- . ‘4
.5 In N

The culture of college science classrooms encourages the solitary endeavor and
you must be strong, perhaps even manly, to carry out the endeavor. Science is seen as
hard and only those with great ability, with merit, can be successful. Teacher education
courses, on the other hand, are rarely seen as difficult (at least by those outside the
culture). The collaborative work going on within them reflects a belief that “we’re all in
this together.” George Bernard Shaw’s oft repeated words, “He who can, does. He who
cannot, teaches” (Andrews, 1993), reflect the perception of teaching held by many.
Anyone can teach. Teaching is commonplace. Science is prestigious. Even within
education, teaching is often degraded, and degraded for not being scientific enough. See
the scientistic teacher bashing of Lanier and Little, for example (1986).

Not surprisingly, teaching as a career choice is frowned upon within the culture of
science. Many of the non-switchers in Seymour & Hewitt’s study who planned to teach
kept it from their science professors because of widely held beliefs that professors
defined such ambition as deviant from the culture and that science professors withdraw
from students who openly express an interest in teaching (p. 200). Disapproval comes
not only from professors, but also from peers and parents. Detractors note that teaching
requires additional preparation to make less money and have less prestige.

Students of color were the only S.M.E seniors who reported encouragement from
science faculty or professional advisors to teach (p. 201). The most cynical part of me
sees this as subtle racism -- preserving the white male domain of real science by shooing
those perceived as “undesirables” into the lesser field of teaching. More optimistically, I
am hopeful that it is the result of a recognized need for more positive minority role

models in contact with children.

35

- a‘a. .~ 0 ,.
ff- x.‘.‘....3 C.-'.C\~0.'S.

v.71. Sebfl 6.11.1

.3;--3. . 1
-$«.,\ .‘.'“v i
» .1.§Ci'lh€\
g': <_‘.

‘ ‘9. .. h
.u‘ku\4.;\_ &.\I

.,.. “yr-Ln often b

n:

.3." .q 'l
‘-».- ' ,u.
t ‘14 ..zf

C14\\r(x)r

 

 

Twenty percent of the 335 students in Seymour & Hewitt’s sample considered
teaching as a career. Eight percent were actively pursuing teaching credential or planned
to do so. The stamina of this eight-percent is impressive in the face of the opposition of
their science professors. Of course, they have been made stronger by surviving the
hazing process. How many more would be pursuing teaching careers if it were not for
the opposition of these professors?

Some of the twenty percent may eventually find their way into classrooms as
teachers and others may develop an interest in teaching after working in industry. If they
enter teaching through the back door, through alternative certification programs, they
may embrace the teaching model for science that they know best, their college science
coursework. Salish data indicates that when alternative programs offer support to
teachers only after they are placed in the field as employed teachers, the teachers tend to
teach didactically. Seymour & Hewitt indicate that teachers in alternative programs
without support often have severe problems with classroom management and often do not
last long in the classroom.

The future workplaces of S.M.E. majors, for both teachers and non-teachers alike,
stands in interesting contrast to the cultures of their college classrooms. Scientists,
mathematicians and engineers, when they reach the world of work, are likely to move
from the competitive, solitary work of their undergraduate experience to working on
design or research teams. They are now placed in situations where they are rewarded for
collaborating when they were punished for doing so as undergraduates. The teams they
form, of course, may be highly competitive with other teams, but in order to be

successful, they need to collaborate well together within each team. And teachers?

36

     
  

a ‘9 ,.
9" " I
\;K.I.a".u 5‘. H“
~ U

.c-uq... -——‘~

. 9' .. a
-...... g 3‘, 3c \t it _

0..., O l~. .v .I
.n..~.—..'. nib 0-5.¢-~oé
, . .

--. '33. 'a :ti 'A “r '

1“; JP ‘-'~_).3v-v- ~ '-
L..-.s. '

-
bu...a.‘.\. ..._ s...
- ~

«

“(Ti ' “man-m J

..
,-
m...‘§‘...--‘.ua ‘55,.
‘
.,,
I
i., .
4“ A.‘.,’.' ~. ‘7« 0
‘ ‘\H§~A\n \u..v
.“ I \
x_ W" v» ‘
~.. d-_‘_-_ ~ n “ . r-r '
a
. ‘ oH-.u1 ...~
\

.‘-l~"" 0. .
“AM“; if“ fi'
.- . ’
‘

;‘\C\\f

I.-.

3. ‘
k‘~"I'.}|':"L L F ‘-
‘ .'“““‘.\-
».; Haw, ' .
3‘ ul .1 ,1 o
‘Vuu
("m
"' .. ;. .
‘ul ’ ~ -.
s\_lr~"), P‘xo .'
a ‘ . \
a 1..

0“
\._‘ t
"u?“ .119» ,
._‘_\ L1 \. ,‘
\ugo
\
'.---
as
\(Av
-~\
.601} “L1“_
.. -
.- \d
C‘s-I“
. .g ‘ ‘ .
"~“ 586
“we: v-..
n|\
\.
. a,»
3".;\ - 1
~. ..3 0..
L-Tc'.
“q
x
’5',
0'""~a
..-\,1{ C’r- ,
‘
Ni :kn .‘-
Q.
Hui-‘2 _
. a“: “I "I.
‘ ~13, -_
‘ .wx.
\_ l‘.‘
vi"
W ,
. - 1:5 h
‘5. ..
~ e
X“ ‘

Teachers go from collaborating with their classmates to the solitary life of a teacher,
functioning as the sole adult, the sole professional, behind the door of their classroom.
Hopefully, they facilitate the collaboration of their own students, but it is fairly unlikely
that they work with other adults in teams the way their counterparts in the “real world” of
science, engineering and mathematics. Some middle school teachers, fortunately, do
work in meaningful teams. Unfortunately, some work in teams that are teams in name
only.

As teacher candidates begin the transition from student to teacher in earnest, they
too go through a hazing process — student teaching. This common, nearly universal
indoctrination process has been the initiation into the teaching field for over one hundred
years, since normal schools offered teaching experience in the affiliated practice schools.
And for over a hundred years, critics have been puzzling and grousing about the slow rate
of change in K-12 education. Here’s a news flash: student teaching is a major obstacle to
systemic school reform.

The selection process for mentor teachers is incredibly variable. In some districts,
administrators decide what teachers can have a student teacher. Sometimes this is done
with an eye on who can best aid in the preparation of a new teacher; sometimes with an
eye to what teacher needs help in the classroom. Even in good teacher education
programs, the bureaucracy of schools can foil the best intentions of program designers.
Of course, it can be argued that teachers can learn a lot about teaching well in virtually
any kind of classroom — in troubled classrooms, they simply learn what not to do. This
may be true, but it is also fundamentally flawed pedagogically. If the learning cycle is

the way in which people learn, then future teachers deserve good models of quality

37

. \‘ '

V ‘M'. "

'.. ..' \ a .. _ out.

IL. I.- ‘ .U~" ‘ '
v

{.7
(I)
{A
-n
w
l
(U
(D

F, ..._ or; -'.'. ,'
.~«.. LO'\ .0 ‘\~~‘
a

. v '
.._.'- -; . n. Y «H ., .
\....e\ 5“ ~ ‘4‘ \\ ‘ ‘W‘

¢-*cw-

. .

, , '. q .
fi 1 - t " '

o-§.....‘.. 5h... u§\\c

~-.:'::~ .0 ‘0??? :7
-‘: . 61;: [crime ;'
A'f.\13c“e."..’“"”2\ '.

5 3:32-33 is a " is:
530:0 he ixr‘m.’
3:311:31, mam: l

‘I‘ kl“ ~
kkk \e\ d
u']'
“‘53 4‘10 ,.
2 d‘re \ ' i‘ 3.;
H;
3‘2" “1.1 ‘
Il,\? v
H be —
0 Ram;
“Weller
r. 0fC..I(),
Tile ,1
H Ldre \
of .
2:9 . C

teaching. Wideen, Mayer-Smith and Moon in their meta-analysis of learning to teach
research found that generally the student teaching experience fails to yield the desired

outcomes (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998).

(B) Male vs. Female:

From the preceding contrasts, it is not hard to see that the culture of the college
science can be described as a male culture while the culture of the teacher education
classroom can be described as female. It is not terribly shocking, either. It is not unusual
for students to complete a science or engineering degree program without having contact
with a single female professor in their program. Teacher education was among the
earliest departments to have female faculty and science (other than biology) is among the
last. Science is a fraternity with hazing -- the weeding out process -- that at first glance
appears to be discriminatory based on ability to do science. S.M.E. majors are more likely
to change their major than majors in other fields, but women and people of color who are
S.M.E. majors are even more likely to change their major than are white males.

Like in the broader culture of science, one viewpoint is recognized as being the
correct one in the culture of the college science classroom (Harding, 1991). The
objective tests are perhaps the most powerful indicator of this. In teaching, however,
multiple perspectives are acceptable, even desirable. Nurturing, mutual support and
collaboration are valued, not individualism and competition. The profession of teaching
was the first to be feminized -- over a hundred years ago. It is also the first profession to
include people of color on a large scale. Teaching is inclusive while science is exclusive.

The culture of college science is often hostile to the culture of teacher education

while the culture of teacher education is often envious of the culture of science. This

38

‘u" "Y ..'J . ¢\'
M. usa‘ L,...\
slur—s c: o— . ")UQ
._ .-m’ -\ .‘ :5 it:
a;-;"'n ’3‘ '-
.Azs..-‘ 5|; "n" '
1.
c. A g a '

as“ and Ambiguity

ll

71-“ .
”\r‘ FICA :fldk n

".fi'f “1""! '9'
'~ \\H\8\ 'L‘. \ ,
' HH- V:

“mi 4.55”.)
. mud]: "‘Kd“

'\.

$39!: '
n; \u 0‘ 81' H

'D
“‘k.
.3.
“the? 4.,
I Uuk l"
8.11 '

t“ .
r v
. l...

TIM 13L
. '3“ “it Tcdt

‘.
II

"fills
«mam C‘hjtl‘"? ..
’ “billes 1“

-"-;“'IA
Jeni-:8 P; 'LC
4 “I if . .
we.

{-3 xii-.4
t with. Idb \L;§'l\
«i

:2.
u r ‘3;
Rd“?

dry» '
\dllgn 110 ’

 

34411293., ,
‘ “\Elllfiq .

" dIC ]

K

‘hCSJ.

k1,.

 

 

hostility is shown by the active dissuasion by science faculty of their students away from
teaching, as Seymour and Hewitt describe. The envy is evident in writing like that of
Lanier and Little (1986). Science teaching has been seen as a craft, not a science. This
contributes to its “female” quality. Efforts to make it more scientific, especially at the
elementary level have been met with great opposition.

This section is the shortest of the three in this chapter because it synthesizes what
precedes it. To repeat the above within this context is unnecessary. The rift between the
cultures is deep, wide, and independent of the taxonomy used for classification for all

intents and purposes.

Risk and Ambiguity

When new teachers were asked in the Salish New Teacher Interview to describe
course objectives those in Teacher Education were described and classified using an
entirely different vocabulary from the objectives described for science courses. While
there were six overarching categories of responses about objectives in science, there were
16 in Teacher Education (see Table 2). This is not a result of using a finer toothed comb
to sift through the Teacher Education objectives. The responses in regards to Teacher
Education objectives were far more diverse. When new teachers were asked about the
objectives of their science classes, the majority included factual knowledge and almost
half included lab skills. Other objectives were not stated at nearly these percentages. For
Teacher Education, no response code received as much as 25%. The objectives in
teacher education are less defined to the new teachers. I interviewed ten of these

individuals for the Salish project and seven more for the dissertation study and they often

39

I . I. .
‘ _ . . s ‘ '
n-I ‘.' c l"‘ 4‘ A ...~
O... .‘ ‘ '.
s 0-. \h '1 .‘ t‘ .
‘J‘ -' .‘ "‘ ‘ L .
A,“ I. .

a... «T, ,..
.-.a.._~x. -\r J‘.IL\nS ‘11

Litre jug: :‘ gnu] Icl

.V.~ -OJ; 0-» I
t‘ ' " fl .
wr\ ~§B B“! rVrk'h‘ IL‘r ‘:

.

--~ \LfIiCC. For t

Ly? »--'.-4 ,
\ .A-\.uue dztltuds 1

 

were at a loss as to stating objectives for teacher education, but they had no real problem
identifying objectives for their science courses. This difference again speaks to the
existence of two cultures. In science courses, the objectives are clearly recognizable. In
teacher education the objectives are muddled by their numbers. It is impossible to focus
on a dozen (or dozens of) targets simultaneously.

Table 1.2 is based on responses in the New Teacher Interview to the following
questions, “How would you describe your typical science course?” and, “How would you
describe your typical teacher education course?” For both questions, interviewers were
expected to probe for “types of objective, e.g., certain knowledge, specific skills, attitudes
towards science.” For the question relating to teacher education courses, the probe was
also to include attitude toward teaching secondary school students (Salish, 1997b). The
sample consists of 70 new teachers from eight universities (one site lost its tapes and
transcripts).

Some of the goals of teacher education courses described by the new teachers
could be categorized as factual content knowledge (e.g., human development or
psychology of teaching and learning) or skills (e.g., classroom management), however,
there is more interdependency among the goals stated in teacher education. Many of the
goals identified for teacher education can be described as developing certain attitudes
(e.g., those addressing teaching as a profession). This was not the case for science
classes. new teachers tended to identify more than one goal for both sets of courses.

The learning goals of science courses are both clear and rigorous. In teacher
education, the goals appear to be neither clear nor rigorous. While it seems clear that

rigor is a virtue, it is less clear that clarity of objectives is a virtue. The new teachers who

40

v - t
' u“"r0

. "W7 '3 \

n.-,b>.—u .buuu gu~.;.
.

. : .
- . .... n. . ‘ o
., - ‘ . ”t

,» v.3. nu. min .~.a..

| -

V.-.

i mgu..,\n.. ‘5
o

r v

.auh "'. a 9 IF 1
. \ n _ Q

~-.....¢.d &.u unu-
-

”mg 3.1 :\ F ” H

.
titty...‘

‘
I.
"“'~

1* ~.-
~"..." .u-\, .-
l .‘I-u.x.\,,g'\ H
1.
\‘ ‘.'.~ L‘ -
‘“"‘ L .4 o
‘ o. '
‘ t-llu.,|1“

X33“: .' .
..u .sJk 12"\ “'0“
‘ ' 5 a s.

1‘: .-‘.~
4 n

agnc {nno .

.._ I"

'1

-
§ "K-
s

u .
N.‘

 

"
T‘ujO'JrVIL .Lb.
“‘l x .
s a kw \_

.s _
V‘ i“‘
'» J.“
\."‘| "y.
"r1027.
M
5

nl\ L'L’mp

 

 

could not readily identify the objectives of their teacher education courses did not seem
proud of this ambiguity in their preparation. However, Walter Doyle (1986) makes a
persuasive argument that workable solutions in the professional workplace are rarely
unambiguous and that it is problematic that professional preparation (i.e. college
coursework) is unambiguous. Doyle argues that rigorous courses tend to focus on
memorization and not understanding - they are high risk with low ambiguity, while less
challenging courses often focus on opinion rather than understanding. Neither portion of
the program, science nor teacher education, seems to be likely to bring about
understanding, but for quite different reasons. Science courses seem to fit Doyle’s model
of courses that are unambiguous and challenging, while teacher education courses are
more likely to be ambiguous and easy.

These different approaches might seem to be complementary - one section of the
science teachers’ preparation is challenging and unambiguous and the other is ambiguous
and unchallenging. This mixture does not, however, make for professional preparation
that appropriately balances risk and ambiguity. That balance needs to occur within each
class, not among several of them.

Through these differences in risk and ambiguity, these two portions of teacher
education programs certify unprepared individuals. The science portion of the program is
recognized as selective based upon ability, but Seymour and Hewitt demonstrate that may
not be so. The education portion has long been recognized as being too inclusive and

non-discriminatory based on ability.

41

 

 

Goals for science courses

 

 

 

 

Goals for Teacher Education

Courses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Content Knowledge 1. Teacher as researcher
factual 77— 2. Teacher as reflective
congenital l9 practitioner 3
application 22 3. Teaching as a profession 19
other 7 by sharing teaching experience 7
2- Skills by discussing content relevant
laboratory 49 to teaching 29
algorithm & formula use 0 professional organizations 0
problem solving '7— professional issues 3
other 4 other 0
3- Nature Of Science 1 4. Human development I
4- Science, Technology & 3 5. Psychology of teaching and
80d“! learning 7
5- Interest/prepare students 6. Testing, measurement,
for “PPer courses evaluation and assessment 6
for graduate SChOOI O 7. Philosophy of teaching
other '3 develop research-based l4
6. Enjoyment of science ‘2 rationale
7. Other 16 understand various models of 10
6 teaching 13
constructivist philosophy 7
other
8. Management of learning
environments
where secondary students are 26
active learners
classroom management and 21
discipline issues 3
other 23
9. Instructional design 3
10. Nature of science 4
11. Instructional technology
12. Managing instructional 19
resources 1
13. STS
14. Social foundations of 1
education
15. Development of writing skills 0
16. Process skills of science
17. Other 30

Table 1.2. Goals of Courses Identified by New Teachers. Totals are well in access of

 

 

 

100% as most new teachers identified more than one goal, particularly in teacher education courses.

 

42

 

soociusion

' vcn " "
TF£~1.\..HI\ ..' II-
t

. F

. I
. h 1 ‘ '11: - \‘L
:v-sge'u .5 u. u d .u.

. .. ._

‘ J 3" ,3 0 c
..-x--...~.-.. ..t\ s
~.-\ v ~'- n-' H...) 'R o.
.... .. .L ._..\

. ‘ ‘ ' ‘

u- ; J- x'.‘ " v'..‘
-...‘...s..s»\\t ...5 u.-

--
3.‘-~. J... _ '

!' . I.
~~'-....'..\ hunk-at. d.
§

 

‘ I
“3'5 9 f x _.
5\.s..\\ _£u-”\
3‘ 4
O
rs...._.~‘_ nie‘ ‘ ,l [‘1‘
‘ l
.. . "4L1... ‘
~- .. an“ i.

“1

-\

~31. L,_ .
NNX‘\“ l“ “""\

- ,_ \\11‘1‘ ‘

2*

-.....:estudcr.1\.

T“ 0..
;'\ , Q
“‘ Lu "‘ t5 p.
H l
1‘ “r 1;,
"“
fl.‘ \lfiu‘-
' 'a O , I
I\A4s\ ted\ as,
a
t,_
q _
‘ ”in.
~n..tts.§ firing}? ‘ ‘
k \+NL¢

h
v...A.-~
.‘lv Hes Of thi
“all j; :1...
j .
A... \ '
.‘ix .

Conclusion

The distinction between the culture of college science and the culture of teacher
education is not a false dichotomy. The differences are very real and have very real
consequences. These cultures are not simply different from one another, but also in
opposition to one another. They are cultures at odds. The exact nature of the
consequences of the dichotomy in which science teacher candidates are prepared for
teaching is difficult to measure, but not difficult to deduce.

Science teacher candidates are integral players in both cultures, yet teacher
education does little to address the dichotomy. Students move between these cultures in
conflict with little help from teacher education and often with active opposition from
science faculty. Failure to address the difference almost certainly allows promising
science teacher candidates to seek and find other careers and shapes the teaching of
candidates who complete the credentialing process in ways counter to what is best for
their future students.

This chapter raises more questions than it answers. It describes the dichotomy
that is science teacher preparation, but it does not address what that dichotomy means for
the teachers prepared. What difference does the difference make? How can we and

should we bridge the cultural divide?

Consequences of the rift between the two cultures:

What if things are left as they are? What are the consequences of the existence of

two classroom cultures in which our science teacher candidates develop into licensed

43

.'.--‘ u- . ~\
*2 ‘4‘ :4“. ' \
“A a.) T33 V"\\'\
i

 

'.: " "afi * \"" .‘
A...\.s.xc. B.Lt..'§.
~

  
 

"i'_" "l on Q 9“.
|
-.~.- . \( ts—l\ x .‘5‘\

‘1 y‘a' ' . ..
..,\_|‘\ O 7' ‘:';T'

) uL‘ (Adolk \‘ .‘t~

-- ‘3“ DC- 075;? "1

‘~"-‘-\‘:. ~ .
...us ~ xs at. gixk k ‘
' \

-..

_._', o ‘

“~-.. , 'b

‘H u. ‘ c 4
-l I x

teachers? The process of weeding out may discourage some of the best potential science
teacher candidates from becoming teachers as an S.M.E. degree is generally required to
teach science. Boring, uninspired teaching with poor assessments and no student-teacher
interaction may be rewarded in the culture of the college science classroom! Weeding
out serves to indoctrinate students into the culture of college science. It is far less clear
that it helps to educate these same students about science. Those who survive the weed
out process too often have poor pedagogical models for teaching science. Those who are
interested in good teaching are more likely to leave the science degree programs than
those who are not critical of teaching. This is likely to leave teacher candidates who are

disinterested in the aspects of good teaching.

n-~ r‘. IY‘“YT "
2-") ‘qu‘UL 5K

'fi .. ' i
" ‘7 ’- 7‘
is: .al‘k \..u,

‘0 cc. ' ‘
”'1 0‘. ”3 "
.-. 5.. .. ..L ‘. .
. _ ‘
'8a. ‘ .._
..
'74—‘r‘ .Ii'a ‘ ~
:»&s.i\k-.| ‘\ I
w

.v'

\- ..-fl

. ' e o
:36 qggx‘; f

-~
..1.\\a\h..m ‘
an-’ L
"_ A- ‘_
\--§- A} Fifi C 0' ' ‘
‘ 4-‘k'a
’\
N -'

‘.'.
'\: \'-‘--: «y
' \g .
Kgl 1 ..
\\r ‘1...
‘L‘
w»

-- 3 re} .9 v“,
“‘41 ~64
“W In;
’.;r‘~~-
K: F- _
5‘ —.‘ ‘
A“a,"-\A
Cl-
ildgger l
‘ C
51‘ _-

Chapter 2

HOW COLLEGE SCIENCE AND TEACHER EDUCATION WERE IN VESTIGATED

The first chapter established the problem for why the classroom climates and
cultures in college science and teacher education courses are worth investigating. In this
chapter, I lay the groundwork for how the investigation took place. Chapter 2 describes
what specifically is investigated, when it was investigated, who were subjects in the study

and how the questions raised in Chapter 1 were addressed.

Why Biology Teacher Candidates ?

Internal variation within each culture is assuredly great and painting any complex
system as a sharp dichotomy is obviously a simplification and the education of science
teacher is no different. However, this simplification is useful. To minimize, though
certainly not eliminate, problems of over simplification, one science discipline, biology,
received closer attention than other disciplines in this study. Biology is the most
common major of future science teachers both at Midwestern University and around the
country. Thus, investigating the experiences of biology teachers’ preparation promises a
story relatable to the experiences of more science teachers than investigating any other
science discipline.

Chapter 1 opens possibilities for collecting a wide range of data types and
sources. New data collection was designed strategically to be both manageable and still

useful for investigating the problem. While Salish does indicate striking similarities in

45

 

.2 .>--0 “TX“ \‘.V ."- :
A.“

an.--
5

,- .I-r-“(I‘y {1 Ha
‘ ‘2 .uo-I'5“ ‘ .

.w-VD-nn =’
’ a

l\'\\
...flss.i- L ~
»

“"‘F'tf' I» g‘o‘
;.—.. as” n..\ “as“

\-‘.‘.A“"'\,3v‘.v~ 4
‘ *5 “‘0“. K‘s-v.“

‘ .
9 a u
, P -

Ik‘t Inn-H -Aaa.\ “4‘ U“ r

 

 

 

 

teaching across biology, chemistry and physics, data collection in science classes in this
study was limited to two biology classes -- an introductory course for majors and an
upper division course also for majors.

Limiting observations to biology courses is intended to avoid over-generalizations
(and to make the data set manageable). The situation, both for biology majors and for
science teacher candidates at Midwestern University are unique. The sample of classes is
small and this was done at a single institution. Connections are made to existing research
to illustrate how this research fits into existing bodies of knowledge.

Biology was selected for several reasons:

1. The largest portion of secondary science teacher candidates both at
Midwestern University and around the country are biology majors, so
these classes have the most relevance to the most teachers, teacher
educators and teacher candidates.

2. My science background is perhaps weakest in biology”, which allows
me to assume a role closer to that of student than in any of the other
science disciplines. This has the additional potential benefit of better

preparing me to work with biology teacher candidates.

 

'5 I completed a field botany course as part of my masters’ degree program, but other than that I have had
no biology coursework since my sophomore year of high school in 1978-79. 1 have had no formal
coursework dealing with evolution, genetics or human physiology in a very long time. Obviously, this
could also be viewed as a weakness, especially since I am unable to draw a parallel for observing in
education classrooms. One could argue that I come with a lot of experience as an observer in classrooms
and only one of them was a high school biology classroom and this places me in a context similar to a
college freshman biology major, but this is too much of a leap! I have learned a fair amount of biology in
less formal ways. None the less, my limited biology experience better allows me to make the familiar
strange.

46

an- ."
(alum .

o

“,‘zr
scdk..~‘ \. \j.

t\‘.‘*4 J
'n. “M..
k

Tami” hr each

5‘s» 4‘ ‘
.fv. .i l Alon

(0qu

x13. . .
tuner duh“?-

(if.

.‘ifit‘lw‘ ‘
' “A 10! 4“ CH

 

 

3. Earth science/geology does not seem to fit the sharp dichotomy shown
by chemistry, physics and biology (See Table 1.1). Courses in Earth
science, according to Salish data and my own anecdotal experience,
are more likely to attend to “real world” applications and involve
students in engaging fieldwork as undergraduates. Therefore, this
discipline does not fit the first two frameworks applied in this
dissertation.

4. Chemistry and physics programs each produce a small percentage of
teachers, so analysis here would be both more difficult and relevant to

a significantly smaller number of future teachers.

What Classes?

After reviewing course requirements for teacher certification in biology
(see Appendix A), and discussing courses with faculty involved in science teacher
preparation, two science courses and two teacher education courses were selected for
observation. For each pairing of courses, one was a lower division course and one was an
upper division course. In both science and teacher education, the upper division course
had the lower division course as prerequisite. Enrollment information and official course

descriptions for all courses are shown in Figure 2.1.

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department Course # Max. Course Course Description
# enrol Size Name
led .

Biological B81 11 391 550 Cells and Cell structure and function;

Sciences Molecules macromolecular synthesis; energy
metabolism; molecular aspects of
development; principles of genetics.

Biochemistry BCH401* 181 285 Basic Bio- Structure and function of major

chemistry biomolecules, metabolism, and
regulation. Examples emphasize the
mammalian organism.

Teacher TE250 32 32 Human Comparative study of schools and

Education Diversity, other social institutions. Social

Power and construction and maintenance of
Opportu- diversity and inequality. Political,
nity in social and economic consequences for
Social individuals and groups.
Institu-
tions
Teacher TE401 34 & 351’ Teaching Examining teaching as enabling
Education 18 Subject- diverse learners to inquire into and
Matter to construct subject-specific meanings.
Diverse Adapting subject matter to learner
Learners diversity. Exploring multiple ways

diverse Ieamers make sense of the
curriculum.

 

times.

 

Table 2.1. Information regarding target courses for observation taken from

Midwestern University’s on-line course catalog.
* BCH401 lectures are videotaped and VHS videotapes are made available in the main library’s
audiovisual library. The lectures are also broadcast on Midwestern University Cable TV at scheduled

TThis number is deceiving. Due to unexpectedly high student enrollment, a second and a third section

of the secondary science 401 were added. There were three sections each with a maximum size of 35

students, with an actual enrollment in each subsection of just under 20. These three sections met
together on occasion, in some ways making an effective class size of 60. There were three instructors.

These classes were chosen because nearly every future biology teacher completes

all four of them, and I was looking for ways to cut across the program in both time

(sophomore vs. senior) and space (science vs. teacher education).'6 More than 20 of the

 

'6 Biochemistry is within a set of three courses (BCH 401, Basic Biochemistry; ZOL 350 Histolog)’; and
ZOL 482 Cytochemistry) of which future biology teachers must take two. The majority took Biochemistry.
Among the 32 (7) Biological Science seniors in TB 401, at least 14 had already completed Basic

Biochemistry. Two had either taken Biochemistry I & II (BCH 461 & 462) by the time they were in TE
401 or were taking it concurrently. Biochemistry I & II are for majors in either Biochemistry or Human
Biology. One senior took BCH 401 concurrently, and at least 3 took the course in the spring following TE
40]. A few more had taken a biochemistry class at another institution before coming to Midwestern

University.

48

 

 

 

 

>093

.-~—.5

 

 

_-
1.»...

"'D ‘ v

-

. - °-.

..,,‘:\

~ ‘ ‘bs

, .

..,

F ‘-. . u
we \ ‘3'
,__‘

d ‘\..
'0
r .L-u .
W... t.
f“~..“
.-. .'
"-. \ ’-
‘k,‘\

 

 

$5.
“\ 9 V
..j q
-.
-_' ‘l
r“. .
~‘M‘
‘C‘ ’1:-
h p --
‘ s
2‘ ‘
. .>
O ‘0'

 

“.
\ .
“., .3“ ‘
m: *3-
A‘.\
In
.3
“\1
. t".—
‘\.‘-‘r.
"K;.|;"
{.2
\
.‘\
2‘ \-
‘1‘,i"" .‘
‘\I .3. ‘
.- 1
A
.
1!.
XI - h.
\ 3.
‘< '\v~
L‘I his
Z‘~.

32(?) future biology teachers had taken a biochemistry class and most had taken or would
take BCH401. All who were at Midwestern University throughout their program had
taken B81 1 1, which includes six of the seven who were interviewed. All of these seniors

had taken both TE250 and TE401.

What Is the Nature of the Data?

There are three separate but related data sets referred to in this dissertation. The
genesis of this research was the Salish I Research Project, and data from that project is
the first used in the analysis. While the Salish database includes a wealth of individuals’
perceptions about various aspects of teacher education programs, of each of the two
cultures, this data set had a significant hole — there were no direct observations in college
classrooms. So, for the second data set, I collected new data in college classrooms and
interviewed students who were in those classrooms with me in part to see how their
answers in 1999 compared to answers a few years prior (in 1995 and 1996) when there
were no classroom observations. The initial interviews done with students in 1999
followed the Salish protocol (See Appendix B). A group interview was completed near
the end of the spring semester that grew out of my observations and follow up questions
from the first set of interviews.

The third data set comes from a project that has facilitated communication and
collaboration among scientists, mathematicians and math and science educators. I served
as a graduate assistant for this organization since its inception in 1997 through the
summer of 1999. While all of the work of this group informs my dissertation work,

certain aspects are more directly related and interesting than others are. An important

49

 

-‘r 0 ‘PH

 

.vp
*rl'l‘hi‘l-
w.
’ ’3‘ x"
.53.]; av...
..
_“_’, J. .u
~n h’»....
-'.. V- -p
.5“ § "
‘ t
‘9-
. '\‘ '
.. In- ~..
.._,
1 -‘J't.
"0,. ..
~u.
‘.- I
— \- 9
‘_‘\
' b
\n-
.. .., 5“ --
"t; 4. u
\ ,
‘ vi.
’ .
g \
.
r
‘ ~
~-.’ .‘
\ e~
‘\~.“ My
~.
n ‘ h
..
. , .
._ 1
- t ,‘ ,
‘¢¢~ ...4.

 

‘N
§ - '.
v,-l|‘ ‘4
u.‘,
d.
“'3- “AI
' H.“ '5 '
..4 L
.4
I“ h -.
* re
N”s\i
' s
{x
I. -

‘\ ‘ '
"\‘\ '—

 

‘|.V.-
‘.'.:-.",, ‘
r’n4‘
‘-il
1. t
\ ..
.ll W
a,“ [‘2‘
M:
1..
\~‘~.
‘» \m
-

facet of this loosely coupled organization is the brown bag lunch group that preceded the
more formal structure of the administratively supported organization. The brown bag
lunches (BBLs) continue and I have been an active participant in these meetings.
However, it could be misleading to think of my role as that of participant observer in the
ethnographic sense. The inclusion of this group in my study was not part of the original
proposal and I never took extensive field notes while sitting in these meetings. I did
however take more generic notes and these notes were distributed electronically as the
minutes of the BBLs. A few of the meetings were also tape recorded. Some of the
goings on in the BBLs are described in Chapter 6.

Notably missing from the dissertation study are substantial interviews with the
instructors for the courses observed and analyzed. The purpose of this study is to
investigate the curriculum experienced by the future teachers in the study. In 1974,
Goodlad described five curriculum stages; ideal, formal, perceived, operational and
experienced. His study showed that what instructors believed they were teaching, the
perceived curriculum, often differed substantially from what the students experienced
(Goodlad, 1974). This conclusion was also confirmed by Salish — what teachers said
they did in their classes was not a good predictor of what they actually displayed in
videotapes of their teaching (unless they actually said they taught didactically). Most
teachers in the study described their teaching in ways Salish researchers labeled as
conceptual or constructivist, but their actual practice tended to be didactic (Salish, 1997).
In short, teachers tend to pedagogically exaggerate what they do in their classrooms. For

the purposes of this dissertation, it was far more important to observe and document how

50

 

..u x - '
l O.
...ua..‘.. db.-

’2
a. ...5

I--‘..\

a..-
3.‘ on g ‘
. . .
‘v. "
"‘-
. “ an. N

 

 

 

instructors actually taught than to accept without question their self-reports about their

teaching.'7

Salish Data

In the New Teacher Preservice Program Interviews in the Salish I Research
Project, program graduates were asked two series of parallel questions about their science
and education classes. In the interview, new teachers were asked to describe typical
classes of each type and to describe what parts of each sector of the program were most
important in their development as teachers. Again, the interview protocol is included as
Appendix B. These interviews, done as part of the Salish I Project in 1995 and 1996, are
the starting point of my dissertation. They, like the newly completed interviews, were
analyzed using HyperRESEARCH Software as described in the final report of the Salish
I Study'8 (Salish, 1997). The responses to that interview for the Salish Project are

summarized in Table 1.1.

 

'7 Without interview data, I do not have, nor do I claim to have, evidence that these faculty teach in ways
inconsistent with their beliefs. Again, what they do is what matters to their students. What they think they
do is not central to the purposes of this dissertation.

'8 The software used for the dissertation was HyperRESEARCH 2.0. This was a later version than that
used in Salish and offered substantial advantage. Transcriptions were initially done by an undergraduate
and I found that he took short cuts - cutting out my voice where he recognized the question. This made for
confusing reading, especially where follow up questions were asked. The new version of HR allows direct
coding from audio. After converting the tapes to digital format using Felt Tip Software’s Sound Studio
(Kwok, 1999), I was able to code directly from the audio. Transcription was not completely bypassed. I
completed the original transcriber’s work when dealing with sections of the interview that I thought might
be included in the dissertation. Direct coding, when technological problems are absent is both quicker and
allows the coder to bring up the spoken word of the participants in an instant. While things like emphasis
and pauses can be indicated in a transcript, something is clearly lost when the voices of participants are
transcribed into the printed word. Naturally, things are gained as well (this is why some text was
transcribed). This also has important implications for using STAM, as the same can be done with video.

51

. -.. ‘
. p ‘ ’p—
"~ .. -u— .

5

n“

..‘

q.
.7“.

 

1998 and 1999 Observations and Interviews

Additionally, data more specific to my study was collected. This includes
interviewing seven seniors using Salish’s New Teacher Preservice Program Interview
Protocol. These interviews were completed in February and March of their senior year.
A subset (three) of this group was involved in a group discussion in April (attempts were

made to gather all seven, but those attempts failed).

Classroom Visits:

Over the summer, I contacted each faculty member for the four classes and
secured their permission to observe. These conversations were, in three of the four
classes, the closest I came to a formal interview with the faculty involved. I have known
Karen Jones since 1994, and we worked together in various ways, so contact with her
was far more frequent. I was also more obviously involved in her class than in the other
three for a variety of reasons. Most important of those reasons was that TE401 was
where I made contact with the students and enrollment in this class was criteria for
selecting students to interview. Also important is that I was far more conspicuously
involved in the education classes than in the science classes. The education classes
involved more conspicuous engagement for everyone in the room — I perhaps would have
been even more conspicuous if I had sat on the sidelines and taken notes as I did to blend
in to the science classes.

All classes were visited in at least three of their first five sessions, with the intent

of gaining understanding about how classroom climate is established and the nature of

52

‘ ‘
or ""‘- '
I "V“ Mania-5

fl‘ “.\-OI

 

.. ..t x '9‘ "‘ '

d 1 .

MIN...” ‘0 “’ ‘
,

. I
Let.\.-\\ "u

.' I
;N\i"‘ " ‘J " .
my.‘v .Auuuis u: .\
an I 'I W

a -
'5“ 9 i.’ ‘ ‘u
”Nu-nu. .\. m. I

”In.

- \4 ’1'" , ‘,.I ‘ .
A...I.,-3.‘,“.\\ i\;

up
u-Ik‘ '

II V
,1 a
“Hll‘i\\‘
-

.._
. Q.»
“~-5.u_ “54 L‘.’”'

i
o\\4u

at. g.

. ,. .3) -
\‘“‘..\ 0 r.
‘I " b\\\i.'\

Kermit: l

t: .
\,\‘

."v... '
\ a“ ‘9'.“ ‘
~.. 1 .' I
a an, ‘XLKlYe 01‘
A l
'2-
’1‘
\.J\b-‘ . . \' 3 9|
In ‘Mdk
K) A
; at:

.‘\,l\
a. 1,; .‘_ '
~ til-1'
'4
.N
"1.?” .
kAI‘l'l ’1‘
4““,- I
t, .
. ‘ ’n
"x' v .
N .> '
. Ehlti“ .
-u‘.
i".

 

the classroom climate.l9 Observations also took place around the times of major
assessments. Again, BS1 11 is a prerequisite for BCH401, so students would take these
sequentially (though not consecutively), not concurrently.

Each class was visited for roughly eight hours of instruction. The science classes
were 50 minutes in length, with B81 11 meeting three times a week plus lab (which was
not required for all students) and BCH401 meeting four times a week (as noted above).
TE250 met twice weekly for an hour and a half and TE401 met twice a week for an hour
and fifty minutes, plus four hours in middle or high school classrooms for field work.
Content Area Literacy (CAL) was part of the TE401 course that was taught by other
instructors (described below). CAL met one late afternoon per week for the first half of
the semester. I visited the CAL section twice making my total observations in TE401
somewhat more than the average for the other classes. As a consequence of different
scheduling structures, science courses were visited more frequently but for shorter
duration.

It would perhaps be misleading to label my research as participant-observation.
When I was in class, I did act in ways similar to that of students enrolled in the classes,
but it was not practical for me to meet the expectations of these students on a day to day
basis. The courses represent either 16 or 17 semester credit hours (depending on whether
or not I enrolled in the lab for BS111). Dr. McNair told students in the first week of class
that they should anticipate spending 15 to 20 hours a week outside of class time if they

wish to be successful in Basic Biochemistry. I was a participant-observer in the class, but

 

'9 It was not possible to attend every class session in the first week as BS 11 1 and BCH 401 were both 8:00
am. classes, with BS 111 on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and BCH 401 on Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday and Friday.

53

 

 

<.l." ‘I

l ‘\
l‘.tl‘li&b h

I. ..
Ali—cu I

 

.‘.\\_ 9‘ \o,

n...

 

.
k.
.: .,
“‘ 1; L: .i
~ “\
‘~,

 

”a. '1‘,

 

‘a

 

 

.s.;‘_ .
. a".
‘4‘ .1
\H '-
\“
.7
.
.‘_
l‘,
fir.
.

I did not act as a student.

I hold no illusions that I would have come to know the material quicker than the
average student in the class would have. In fact, it is quite likely that I would have
struggled more as I had not taken most of the prerequisite courses and those that I had
taken were taken in the early 19805. In both the Biosci class and Biochemistry, the
professors stressed the importance of memorization — something that has never been a
strong suit of mine. I am also less able to engage in prescribed learning styles, i.e.,
memorization, than I once was. The reading and other associated work with the other
courses was not insignificant, either.

The unique situation of BCH401 observations deserves more than a footnote.
This class allows students to “attend” the class in a variety of ways. Students may go to
the large lecture hall listed on their schedules and watch the professor projected on a
large screen in the front of the auditorium. The projection is a live broadcast from the
university’s communication arts building a half-mile away. Students may also sit in the
studio during the broadcast and see the professor live in front of them. Students can
choose to watch live broadcasts on one of the university’s cable channels. The class is
rebroadcast at 4:00 pm. This service is available on campus, and in the towns and cities
in the immediate area. Videotapes are also available in the library’s media room20 after
7:00 pm. I “attended” BCH401 class in all the possible ways.

The structure of TE401 is also unique - the course enrollment was approximately
twice the anticipated enrollment. Initially, two instructors (both faculty) were assigned to

co-teach the course. The large size led to the hiring of a GA and the division of the

 

2" Audio tapes of BS 111 are also available here.

54

..‘m M'J '

. 5 ,1 :.l
vL'u. ud‘ \“ \\.‘

‘ L.
V ...‘v 7‘1 '
“LL" *l“ ‘“.tn\
.-

. t T

.. . F

a..’: "‘9‘ c

vent"... H“ “
s

~ ...p- ...l ‘0-
’u - "
a. .......‘b.u\v On ‘
.

A.“<,.‘ .
, I'- n3
‘5», ‘\O\ ‘\ “. ‘
I- n I ‘
' \ ...‘n‘ .'
41 1““
~‘,
F V
s ‘ '7'
‘5u§\.\, Tl \
l‘.
‘
-_ "_‘
.fi 4,, -'~.
. ‘4»\¢. “

Jig.— ta

0,.‘
'-
s
‘j-
r_ Mg, ‘
\..\w.:‘.‘a'1‘
5‘ ‘ I
1 ‘H ”A A
l
‘e
«(.1 a .l
.as5 ‘ “\ 1
H-L..
\t\.. I
h‘
N”: l
L‘

'..‘.| .
_ “:k
3‘!" .I
\‘L \, “hi
..LIL,lP"!\ k
I A“; t
5
’5.
a '19;
84,1) l‘rw‘
, ”Li.“ i
‘3’»;
“34‘ . 91-4

course into subsections. One of the two faculty member’s teaching time was bought out
by grant work, which led to the hiring of a retired teacher to cover this piece of his
teaching load. The subsections of TE401 typically met as independent but coordinated
sections. This means that the instructors planned together and gave the same
assignments. On occasions, the three subsections would meet together. This means that
on most days, the class size was around 20, but there were times that the class size was
60. My observations were all in the same subsection, Karen Jones’s, though I visited all
three sections in pursuit of study participants.

As noted above, there was also a separate Content Area Literacy portion of the
TE401 class. This met once a week for half the semester, at 4:30 on either Wednesday or
Thursday afternoon. There were two sections on each day, each taught by graduate
assistants. I attended two of these sessions, one near the beginning of the semester and
the other was the final class at mid-semester. Students in agriscience education joined
the science students.

In visiting each class, I took extensive field notes, tape recorded each class and
participated in ways similar to that of the students. This participation meant that in
science classes, I sat quietly and took lots of notes. In teacher education classes, there
were always times that my voice was heard (like most or all of the students in the
classes), either in small groups, or in whole class discussions or both.

In science classes, I tended to sit toward the back of the room, subconsciously, I
think, slipping back into my undergraduate ways and trying to some degree to blend into
the anonymous crowd. In teacher education classes, anonymity was not possible. I was

introduced in the first session of each of these two classes, and, as I noted above, the

55

 

-- .,
.25.

4‘ l‘
. ~ V“ .
,|_

.u U‘ un...t\
e

l
., l..-
pl

.3 “ ‘I\ .n
‘mub... IL ‘4 i: “'

q' I." .73
‘1‘

“a; on n\

33.; ~-‘ ;‘1;1 ‘7'- 4
-.Ii~u‘§\5¥\a hA-v

.§,.7 -'. 'noJ'g
.... sun. .s. t
b I
“ “""- t- -0. vi- .
4 u ‘ ) ..
A... ...11 Is. A.»
A

.
«a . '

3“ ‘ .13 up '7--
n,“ ‘\ .

" \4 Hi ..i.
1‘ A P, Q , ,_
u‘ \\ 4‘“- .l‘v: ‘1“3'

5
)cni‘t‘fl \K’
"Iw‘ I
..._§' ‘1 ~ 'I
.d\bg All A:

classroom dynamic encouraged my active, visible participation in each class. Every
student was also introduced on the first day of each of the education classes.

Syllabi, texts, coursepacks and any materials distributed during an observation
were collected and reviewed. Significant portions of each syllabus are included in the
following chapter that describes the classes. Also included in that chapter are brief
descriptions of the texts, coursepacks and other materials used in each class. The genres
of texts used in the education classes were markedly different from those used in science

classes and are compared in what follows.

Interviews and Group Discussion:

Seniors were contacted through my visits to their TE401 class. Initially, Karen
introduced me and I said a few words about what classes observing, without going into
detail of why I was doing the study. A month into the semester, I went to each of the
three subsections and asked students who had taken or were taking biochemistry to
indicate on a sheet passed around what course was taken; when the course was taken; and
who the instructor was. It was clear that I had a large enough group of students who had
taken or were taking the course at Midwestern University, that transfer students were not
necessary for my study.

After collecting this information and sorting through it, I found that there were
seven students who had taken BCH401 with the instructor teaching the section I was
currently observing. I approached each of the seven students and they all agreed to be
interviewed and to take part in a group discussion about their science and teacher

education courses the following semester. Not all actually participated in the group

56

l ‘
n‘t'~-,¢.'_}1 in 'F.\ v
,-.ss.,-.\v in u1\ .

. -

s. 7'" .n .
his ~- "” 7
~ U
0,”; in... “F ‘Q vo-
..... .... ..Il
'vc'! '7
.f .‘~‘$'\‘ "
“to“i‘ u u

V
-L
5

l
. . Vb ' '

I ' l 1'
.u ”ant “- \

W; ”$.09 " "“
u-A \»\A 5.5- '5‘] ‘1 “ |

c....

v
. .11"
&:u....' 11“ 'T “‘F"
. .uiu..L\-"'
s

fi‘ux . . o A \ '9
r O. t: H ”a r 3
'~>I \.,\|..‘|1 u “1"“

x.

\w;“' II
> _ .0 ‘7 . ' .
\u-ht.»K."" 1": inc

the Seniors:

.‘u “‘ '
-. ~-j 3““
‘ X“ “a
T?-
“Sewn
. xi 3i\
4..

discussion, though all were interviewed. Three of the seniors, Brad, Bill and Joseph,
participated in the group discussion.

The group discussion began with each senior drawing a concept map or other
representation of the relationship between their teacher education and science courses and
then there was a general discussion around that notion. I did have some specific
questions that arose from the earlier interviews and from my observations in the four
classes, but the conversation was generally free-flowing and addressed many issues
directly and tangentially related to my research questions. At times, Joseph led the
conversation more than I did. The student-drawn representations are reproduced

schematically in the Chapter 4.

The Seniors:

All seven of the future biology teachers who were interviewed had taken TE250
and BS1 1 1. They were all in the same cohort in their teacher education classes and all
took TE401 in the fall before the interviews. All of them had also taken BCH401 with
the same instructor, James McNair, though not all at the same time. Only one had taken
the course concurrently with TE401. See Chapter 4 for further information on the

seniors.

Conventions used in class and interview excerpts

I found the style used in Deb Trumbull’s The New Science Teacher as useful
conventions for including participant voices. When including what was said either in

class or in interviews:

57

. I

F.‘ “9‘ tr

“Alum. t...
.

4‘." "F l‘

MAUI :..- U
remit
It "~97. "
"181:" .

...4 "VJ".
«mun»...
- .

\ .

‘P‘P\)\,' "

‘ibflvt;‘ A“ I
' I

' I

u -¢n ‘
3r ,
' I '

\IILI. ”I.

1". vu‘ '1 05...

t t ”A

. '9’:q\é , I"
- ---\.I\\ .i, ,.

 

 

t

11"}‘Ln' N“
“3 5 ...t. .

l ‘ .
,I\ho)\’ Ipi
“"\ \\' .Itu

'\ ‘ I
it?“ " ”'0 r
h“ \ ‘~|\ a

‘
“is
‘J\\

.
I R‘
. .3 "
Mm?“ ~15 1 l

3 g ‘,
\"\}I ‘1‘." h I

.i ..I

-4.
“1‘ ."'L. g
u U- “u‘ u
.

 

iu'
a, .
l"-,
"u
‘ I
~ .. 11 ,.
0"
Q!-
g“. ’2" t, 1
3‘“ 5‘ .1 '.
l'
\ l
9.4_
“ii?"
V‘- (PI h’ .

lug":

“I modify their spoken language to remove repetition, such as fragments
that begin a thought that is expressed more fully in the next sentence. I
remove qualifiers when they are used habitually... terms such as “kind of”
or “sort of.” I also remove and catch phrases... such as “you know” or
“it’s like.” Indicating larger chunks of omitted material required
judgment, since the standard conventions were designed to indicate
changes in printed texts. As anyone who has transcribed speech knows,
we often do not talk in sentences, so as the transcriber I imposed sentences
to make the transcripts readable. I use three ellipses in the middle of a
sentence to indicate omitted phrases. I use four ellipses to show that I
have omitted a larger blocks of transcript, at least one full sentence. I used
dashes to indicate the [speaker’s] pauses for thinking. When I add words
to make the meaning more clear, I put the words in brackets.”

(Trumbull, 1999) p. xix

These changes are minor and always indicated as described (with dashes, brackets or
ellipses). I am not a good enough writer to write in as many different voices as are

portrayed in this dissertation. Table 2.2 shows a brief example of verbatim transcript

alongside the text I included in Chapter 4 using the practices described above.

 

 

Verbatim Interview Transcript: Text in Table 4.1:

Bill: It’s pretty much non-interactive Bill: “It’s pretty much non—interactive
lecture. Like lecture like the instructor lecture. ...The instructor stands up in front
stands up in front of the class and imparts of the class and imparts the information to
the information to the class. the class.”

 

 

Table 2.2 Transcript excerpts showing conventions used when quoting individuals

 

Like in Trumbull’s work, I include long passages in the participants’ own words,
both from what was said in classrooms and from what was said in their interviews. This
is intended to lend credence to my interpretations of what they said and to allow the
reader to make their own interpretation. It is also essential for rich descriptions of the

classroom setting that follow in the next chapter.

58

 

 

v . .

4. "v3 ‘ n
“ x;
”a...“ \.\.,g

u

|
at: up ,0“. _'..'_
“-“st. ,‘.

T L

. a" .. ‘ I
«e \ ‘

a”

 

.“~
.. , .3
:. ‘Ji‘ \.
'\-. a ‘
."\\-\ ”‘1" ':
”'\\‘.I
L‘- '
,_ .

a”
s

EiQ“
.‘ _

«,3‘.‘ .',< ’

‘1‘. n ‘

I

“-I j‘hv‘.“

- ‘a’u‘

. . .

 

.
"“31“,
‘o__" 3‘,
3 .. .
K. , ,.
k (
h‘l.‘?‘ ..
‘\V H
5. lg

 

 

Chapter 3

A VIEW INTO SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION

This chapter focuses on the first of my research questions, “What are the natures
of college science and teacher education classroom cultures?” That question is addressed
through reporting my observations in the four science and teacher education classes I
visited. A chapter that reports senior students’ descriptions of and responses to these
classes follows this chapter.

Future biology teachers are Biological Science majorsz'. Other undergraduate
majors in biology here choose a sub-discipline like Biochemistry, Human Biology or
Zoology. These other more specialized biological science majors target those who wish
to pursue medical school or other advanced degrees. The requirements are listed in the
appendix.

I begin by describing two science classes, one taken typically by sophomore
science majors (B81 11, Cells and Molecules), the second (BCH401, Basic Biochemistry)
taken by upper division students in a variety of biological science majors. The first
course is not a formal prerequisite for the second, but BS 1 11 is required for Biological
Science majors and they would take the lower level course earlier in their college career.
All biology teacher candidates take Cells and Molecules”. Basic Biochemistry is taken
by a sizable majority of biology teacher candidates. The description of two teacher

education courses follows, beginning again with a course typically taken by sophomores

 

2‘ Some are dual majors. Among the seniors in the study sample, two have a second major in zoology.
22 This does not include transfer students or those within the DaVinci School (described in the following
footnote).

59

 

 

'I
'1': . W-

l .
.Lo. ..1 aunt-u

 

a... ,
1‘3. (99.: A
was. at ..\.\

4

I-td .r ..’-3' .J

 

l

"‘59 ~~t ‘5‘.

 

‘v. K
‘\ , \ .\n
>l.‘.‘ “ 545‘
5
I ,
“ ‘\{

\x. t \ ‘A-v 1
' ‘9‘“.

33".

““i .\ ' 'h

a
l\ “k
\-0 ‘ n.
cl " ‘4
I‘M m. {gr
uh

 

 

.
‘\
‘ s
‘- uh.
6.”. 4..
“\

 

 

(TE250, Human Diversity: Power and Opportunity in Social Institutions) and the second
taken by seniors (TE401, Teaching Subject Matter to Diverse Learners). The first class is
one of the prerequisites for the second.

The reader will see that these descriptions map onto the cultures described in the
first chapter reasonably well, but that the reality is not such a sharp dichotomy. This
chapter offers detailed descriptions of four classes that were chosen to be somewhat
representative of future biology teachers’ experiences in college classrooms. Notably
missing is a small upper division science course. The reason that such a course is not
included is that these future teachers did not typically take such courses. Only two of the
seven seniors interviewed reported having taken a college science course smaller than
sixty students. Even for those who had taken these small courses, they were the
exception rather than the rule.

The descriptions of the two science classes are fairly similar to each other and
quite different than the descriptions of the education classes. One might note that the
education class descriptions are longer and conclude that I give an unbalanced
representation. I argue that the natures of the classes require descriptions that are both
quantitatively and qualitatively different. The science classes were uniform from day to
day and throughout each class period. In both science classes, the professors lectured
everyday excluding exam days and students were passive. Questioning or any other
student actions besides note taking were rare. This allowed shorter descriptions of the
science classes. The education classes required more description because the reality was
more diverse -- student voices were central and the activity varied throughout the class

period and semester.

60

_' ,c. ..
thus-4'5- Lhasa“

I l l
,‘r' ‘I- h

.
a fix
, . I
..s....«.t. \n' was .

...Jilftl.

I\'r 9"):

.
~“U~..\h
.s

.., . . a
5 a" L‘i Li;
'M- nun Us...

I- “'0... -‘
tF-‘I. .145: T‘ \P" | K

- .1.
“Wk.”

tl.‘.\\€\ ‘L'

I“ ‘ \

V...“ . 26" H
u§ u.‘ Iu\..:;

‘a‘.

fl

I
L, I.,
‘:-‘I ‘ . .
1: n ..
‘ \C .
: ~-
.
.
393' !

‘wk.
\.£' (4,.“ :-
\dlih‘
‘, .
'..--.. j
a; 3 .7 ,
“s .‘n .
5 " KI“,
‘Ce-ifi‘

 

These descriptions map on well to the three conceptual models employed in this
dissertation. As the reader moves through the chapter, s/he should be attentive to the
three models: 0) Two Cultures; ® The Dysfunctional Marriage of College Science and
Teacher Education; and CD The Ecosystem of Science Teacher Preparation. Particular
attention should be paid to the contrast of uniformity in science with diversity in
education.

I struggled with how to structure this chapter to make it most accessible to the
readers. I had difficulty in determining how to address issues of space and time. I opted
to sort first by space then by time. That is, science classes are described first then teacher
education classes are described. Students begin their science coursework prior to their
teacher education coursework, and finish their science requirements prior to their student
teaching internship. In science and in teacher education, the sophomore level class is
described first followed by the upper division course. I considered beginning with
descriptions of sophomore year classes followed by descriptions of courses taken
primarily by seniors.

I believe the structure I chose allows for readability of the chapter, but the reader
should keep in mind that the structure of the chapter is quite different from the structure
of the teacher candidates’ experiences. The reader must be attentive to the fact that
teacher candidates moved between science and teacher education classes on a daily basis
starting in either their sophomore or junior year. A typical first semester senior biology

teac her candidate’s schedule is below in Figure 3.1.

61

 

Time Monda Tuesda Wednesda Thursda Frida
8:OOa.m. ' ,1 g .

   

9:00 am.

10:00 am.

 

11:00 am.
CEM383® CEM383®

   

 

Noon PChem ” " H ” A 1‘ P. Chem _ ‘ PeiChem

 

1:00 pm.

 

zoms 201.445”

 

2:00 pm. Evolution ‘ Evolution

 

 

 

 

3:00 pm.

 

 

 

 

4:00 pm.

 

 

5:00 pm.

 

 

 

6:00 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1 A typical senior biology teacher candidate’s schedule.

G’CEM383: Introduction to Physical Chemistry I. This 3 credit hour chemistry course
had a 200 student lecture section on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. This student
had recitation on Monday afternoons.

“701.445: Evolution. This 3 credit hour zoology department course had a 140 student
lecture section on Mondays and Wednesdays. This student had recitation on Friday.
O'NSC401: Science Laboratories for Secondary Schools. This College of Natural
Science course is required for Biological Science majors (a.k.a. biology teacher
candidates). It is described briefly at the end this chapter.

*CAL: Content Area Literacy. This subsection of TE401 meets for only half the
semester.

 

The typical schedule is derived from schedules of biological science seniors in

TE401 in the previous year. Of the 16 students surveyed, 15 took NSC401: Science

62

 

'.;.',.o ”(W ' if}
L)... J" ‘ .

h :r 'n c c. u
“Mil” '4 “NU :

"-"l.. n. ~ If
3.1-IT. Duh" U

a
g"“" ‘

.\‘ .I §\’h‘v\{)‘- ‘” "

. v t .“v
~vu......\ ’mINU‘ \l

‘ '03:.‘5Arn

"r’
“Lite .-.s...5t a
b

“-‘ , ~ - )

. r
“'1‘th blh\ \ I
_ . to

.
Q‘s..\~o “. h ‘z
*. ‘ '.
7‘ L‘h‘x“ HIM

“2‘.
v... , I
“Audi d\ .

 

Laboratories for Secondary Schools, concurrently with TE401, ten took 201.445 :
Evolution, and eight took CEM383: Introduction to Physical Chemistry I. Only one took
BCH401: Basic Biochemistry concurrently with TE401”. Seven of the seniors took this
set of courses, with one of those seven also taking a mathematics class. Recitation
sections varied, so this only matches the exact schedule of two students. This pair
worked together in the same K-12 classroom for TE401 practicum.

For all four classes described, considerable time is spent describing the first
classes at the beginning of the semester. In reviewing the notes and tapes of these
opening classes at the end of the term, I found that the first sessions of each class set the
tone for the term. This was not quite as evident in BCH401, in part because I missed the
first class (as I could not be in two places at once) and in part because information about
the first class indicated that it did not set the tone for the course in the same way as the
other class’s first days did. Consequently a slightly later (and quite interesting) class is
described in more detail. In the other classes, less time is spent on description beyond
that first day as the culture for each class was well established early on. To
foreshadow the tones set in each classroom setting, science classes could quickly be
described as teacher-centered, with students spending each fifty minute class period

writing pages of notes and teacher education classes could be described as student

 

23 Had I discovered this information prior to beginning my study, the design likely would have been
altered. While this is true — I would have done observations in NSC401 as well - it is not a significant
problem for many reasons. The existence of the four credit NSC401 and a four course. 17 credit hour
subject specific sequence in teaching methods make Midwestern University extraordinarily unusual.
Information about this course is included in the study, but not observational data. While it is also true that
the typical student did not take BCH401 in the fall of their senior year. the typical student did take the
course in another semester.

63

-4‘ IL‘ 0-- Q".
‘3“).CM '& ‘udu \k—lu5 -

)I'Ju \: ““? 4'\\-v
\...s.l\\ h|vI-- u» D

Science Classes

R l
"‘hAn

A
. A. Hflfl
:" "'d vd‘ DIVE v:
'

a

’"l n" .‘t: i.
Credits: T.»
Pft‘l‘l‘qmsiu
Not open [0
DNriplion:

o "
Rafi r53:-

9,141.- ...
"to.sl.t In. Urnlus.‘

 

“film U m e
Numb“ em
1‘5 mwtii
ntion; E
[““thm

~

' ~e
1"” Pit:

" “ “Flt
Au": \\ \‘Ol

"-. "
|~. ‘
q
+1..“l 5““
‘u‘ ,2'.
"run .

 

 

centered with students writing no notes. The reality is richer in both cases than that

sentence long description implies, which is why the chapter and dissertation were written.

Science Classes:

Biological Sciences 111: Cells and Molecules

Catalog Information:
Credits: Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3
Prerequisite: CEM 141 or CEM 151 (General Chemistry).
Not open to students with credit in: DVS 14524
Description: Cell structure and function; macromolecular synthesis; energy
metabolism; molecular aspects of development; principles of genetics.

Schedule Infomzation:

Maximum enrollment: 550

Number enrolled: 391

Class meeting times: 8:00 am. — 8:50 am, Monday, Wednesday, Friday

Location: B 108 Gilmour Hall

Instructors: Jon Peters (for the first half of the semester)

Phil Opanashuk (for the second half of the semester)

The Instructors:

Jon Peters appeared young for someone with a Ph.D. that was awarded in 1970.
He is white with dark hair and he is neither thin nor heavy. He often wears plaid, short

sleeved button down shirts. Prior to our meeting about my observations in his class, we

had been in meetings together but had never talked more than to perhaps exchange a few

 

2“ DVS is the abbreviation for the DaVinci School — an integrated science program within the College of
Natural Science. In this school within a school, students are in smaller classes and there is some thematic
instruction. DaVinci describes itself as. “an undergraduate residential program for students pursuing broad,
science-based fields of study. “ Students in the program initially are housed in the same residence hall,

“.. .where the School's classrooms, laboratories, and offices (both faculty and administrative) are located.
Because of its residential nature, DaVinci offers the intimate setting and the individual attention of a small
college along with the resources and opportunities of a major research university.” One senior interviewed.
Darcy, was a student in the DaVinci School.

are He new

\|{

.‘...',. .. ,. ..
“5...: *ds..‘ Li .1

" u
‘1 "1‘.fl \* 59

. .. ’
I.Jihu..bt this.

Id)“, ‘4 I. ,
«Wham. ,R

l l
:l' "W ‘OV'

.'”3v9
H—H§_ ‘_. H“ ‘

3 "i "l \" ., ‘1
k..,i| I t. \\
' \\ u¥~i

0

I“ it; .v I. ‘
...p. ‘uu..'3\ R

‘
1’ ' 1.3m

De ill! 1"
a...

: «3E .31 if.
[‘54 1
\N~.u$e\:‘1‘c~\ I

‘u'fiu' I a ..
31 \ii
i” .
\ I -.
“H in: [._lI:.,1_'\

‘.
.‘Aé‘ '
V'hi‘i‘x'
‘ 1.4 ’ a w
‘ dkkf
N
“fist
‘k. f.\
. r h
d r‘r,
' I
14‘»! 1,
‘5 ‘1‘
‘1‘ 3V.
.~~
a. -

words. He does care about the success of his students and told me in our first meeting
that he wants to improve his teaching, but that he has no interest in, “that touchy-feely
education stuff.” In that same initial conversation, we spoke of the difference between
knowing and understanding. He argued for the need to know before the need to
understand. It became clear to me that we did not see eye-to-eye and I dropped the
matter for diplomatic reasons. I got the feeling that the less I said the better for my
ability to successfully meet the needs of my study. Jon’s background is in microbiology
and he studies RNA, a key piece of the content in BS 1 1 1.

In the second half of the semester Phil Opanashuk teaches the course. The
majority of my observations were under the instruction of Dr. Peters, and, for the sake of

brevity my description will focus on Peters.

The room:

The room was a large auditorium, with 22 rows of seats. See Figure 3.2. A
photograph of the room is included in Chapter 7 as Figure 7.4b. The online course
schedule states that the room has a capacity of 622. The color scheme of the room
matched the school colors -- blue plastic seats with wood-grain Formica fold out tablet
arms, and off-white Formica flooring in the aisles, with blue accents. In the front of the
room were two overhead projectors pointed toward the huge screen that dominated the
front wall -- approximately 28 feet long. Tables at the front, center and back allowed
wheelchair access. A green chalkboard on wheels was off to one side. In short, this
room was a typical large lecture hall, with recent renovations that made it sterile rather

than dingy.

65

an 5,.
. .. .

h... t... .. .‘
.

._,‘_ _'\

an“; ‘

“v~ l

n..".
....-_,, ,9

 

 

It was a room that could have contained the footprint of my modest graduate
student home a few timesover. The living space in that two-bedroom home was just
over 800 square feet. The square footage of this room was approximately five times that
large, but here the furniture could not be rearranged. The ceiling of the room was not

quite as high as the roof of that one and a half story Cape Cod home.

 

 

 

Media

booth / \ / \

_/\/\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 rows of 15 seats

 

    

Tables bolted
to floor

    
 

 

chalkboard

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ ‘\ /’
Overhead

28' wide projectors
screen

 

I.
\

 

//
Table

Figure 3.2. B108 Gilmour Hall:
Classroom for B81 1 l. The drawing is not to scale. A photograph is included in Figure
7.4 in Chapter 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The room is a fine example of what environmental educator David Orr refers to

as, “architecture as crystallized pedagogy” (Orr, 1999). The chairs were bolted to the

66

 

 

V
O

. ,
9-y " ‘3' _"
_.‘,.. Tuc ..K - ‘ h‘
b
;‘.y.t»v ~ ~,' '7‘,.
..‘nlvk. x1 * W"

\
.‘f';\ ‘ .‘\

~_h.—.a.b.. 5A....
u

'\'...-_-'H p . .
“A MESA t‘i l.’

r“.~- "
. \l l
55...";

.~ 4".1'

.
slut _

~‘.
2! l, -
“-nb.‘ ‘ “"‘IO‘.
16‘ h~\_\“\.‘
I? .
LIN-1‘
‘ Mm.

-\\- a 131m

*‘fihm‘a .7 . .
-..L‘ I“ \f‘nv
0 01“

D’H\£.
.IBLI‘Ofl || id?!
. t \l
r"
M
{Lg-.1”?

.1 of the c

On that fit
this the 8:00 a:
amen: flier it
'65} \i‘idé“

an
3“ v "v
Km“ 10 LR.

floor. The floor gradually sloped to the front so that the professor stood in an area about
four feet below the doors at the back of the room. The room is designed for and

encourages, almost mandates, lecture.

The first week of BS] 1 1 . ..

The bustle of the beginning of the school year on a large college campus is an
exciting time. The sidewalks and bikeways are full of students trekking off to class. In
the first week of the semester, as I made my way among the four classes I was to visit
occasionally through the semester, I witnessed two minor bike accidents and several
more near accidents. The crowds on the sidewalks would greatly diminish over the next
few weeks.

As a thirty-five-year—old, I was stepping into my first large lecture hall science
class since finishing my master’s degree ten years before. In that program, I had only one
class in a lecture hall. That was a geology course that I was taking to attain permanent
teacher certification in Earth science. My explicit purpose in attending this day’s
introductory undergraduate biology course was quite different. I was there to learn about
the nature of the class, and the academic culture that the class represents.

On that first day, the huge room looked nearly full when I arrived ten minutes
before the 8:00 am. start of class. On my way into the classroom, I was handed a
recruitment flier for a note-taking service. I took one and headed into the auditorium.
Many students continued to enter after I found myself a seat three quarters of the way to

the back and to the left. While there were students seated in every row throughout the

67

 

l
l

‘1'- "" J ' n
“-44hfilll‘lu St.

. I.
. ...,~ w... 4 ; ‘
:JhoI-h‘n .luo u‘ ‘\

" ’1‘. '. ‘ )p.
. . |
"Mu \suuel...
.
"gigs. ‘ '
.
.4... a.) ‘1...
.. . .. ,

J‘s-u‘c“ \f ‘F'IU

.‘.

's .l ”a“
“Ania; V):
.
‘J‘n ‘ .
‘ J\.‘.1 a
W" x, I .4
‘ I Rb. M ‘5
"on
\ ~ ~,.
~ \ 3'", i
abut 4“! “db
..-.
4..
0
\1 "§
- l
"\\ \kul
~ '

‘i'ia'itm

' 4‘; {Ill-ire

Vary" .
s... ‘4‘kw .1";\

'.,'
n"
a. .1655 lild'
t.

auditorium, a closer glance showed available seats for well over a hundred more — the
auditorium does seat over 600.

Looking around the room, I was reminded that there is no such thing as a typical
college student. While most around me were clearly in their late teens and early twenties,
there was a smattering of “kids-my-age” in the room. Of that vast majority who were of
the traditional college student age, most, but by no means all were white and looked, in
one way or another, American. Some, mostly men, had the appearance of a hangover
that I often sported as an undergrad -- unshaven, apparently unshowered and distinctly
bleary-eyed, a few even wearing sunglasses in the class. Of the approximately 400
students around me though, the obviously hung—over numbered perhaps a dozen, perhaps
20.

Most students looked clean and fresh (at the beginning of class), many in T—shirts,
many a bit more dressy. Most students wore shorts. Baseball caps were common, many
worn backwards. I did notice a couple of pierced noses and one woman with magenta
hair. These individuals were noticeable because they were different from the crowd in
the room - again, there did not seem to be a “typical” student. In spite of being planted
in uniform rows, the class was hardly a monoculture.

The gender split was about equal. Perhaps one in ten was Black, again with a
near equal gender split. Three or four men reminded me of Asian and Pacific Islanders I
have known. They were men of color wearing white, button—down shirts.

The syllabus had been available before I arrived and all copies were gone. The
professor announced that the TA was to arrive shortly with more copies. If the TA failed

to arrive, the syllabi would be available, and he gave the location where they could be

68

,z . 0. ...J,
5’. .nb‘
“-ka “pt I ‘

, . V
1';Of_;‘1 I \
.‘iuAui-u

mu“

0
n

c I:
-—«.

\ .

it ; IN

. V
5""- “? h a J.
Mun-.L‘ .bu‘..

U

.
..r o. .
\‘."' 0"”...-
..‘h‘"{ ‘-.

.
s-x..,,
.

‘2; ' .,, ‘
.‘.J‘ :3). ~

~ I..\
.

 

 

picked up. Or they could be picked up in class Wednesday. As he began to write on the
overhead, I squinted and put on my newly prescribed glasses that I came to need for
sitting in the back of classrooms to observe student teaching interns. Attention focused
on Dr. Peters.

At a few minutes after 8:00 a.m., the TA arrived. Dr. Peters introduced her and a
throng of students made their way to the front of the room to pick up copies. I joined the
stream, forgetting that I had picked one up from the professor in our meeting the previous
week about my observations. The process of a few hundred students picking up their
syllabi takes a few minutes. I had met the TA through work on a project to improve
instruction in a non-majors’ biology class. In the flurry of activity, she does not
acknowledge that she recognizes me.

Dr. Peters introduced himself, saying that he was in microbiology. He did
introduce himself as Dr. Peters, using his formal title. This contrasts with the informality
used by instructors in Teacher Education classes. He noted that his office number and
office hours are in the syllabus and that he would be a little late for office hours that day,
as he would likely be in this classroom for a little while after class.

Dr. Peters asked if there were any freshmen in the class. About a dozen hands
went up and he followed up by asking, “Why are you taking this course?” Chemistry is a
prerequisite, so they were told they did not belong. Most of the freshmen were seated
closer to the front than I, so I could not see any response and there was no verbal
response. These students remained throughout the class. Reading the words he spoke

may make them sound harsher than they were. While asking such a question does not

69

 

. \ . .
\i-‘u - ,lnla-p V

‘.‘...L. “me Artur.

‘ h

. - -v r
1', t\.i
. ~*“’

I... \- H
[j \\'\1 Us"

\‘F

M ...4 .. :
.‘.,».LI\3\OV ““ '
. .

. .
1

23:]: .. it

It. -'
5

1" >|‘”‘J ’.
l".~..i\ IO: DA, {up

1..-. 1.. 9. '
. ~’ \ - "'I ‘ '
U-rxu .c..ui\\~ bk-

 

‘Q;,) A “I
“I“: first?

Sons
I ~\IA\
5

y

0‘ '3' t .
u'...,.‘lif;‘ Si '~"
. - .i.

[hmc‘ {'0‘}
mph»
on 31} C:
be: \t'}
lecture. T
“its on :1
{time if

fir)

Dr. Pct

Us

4'.

{.1th t
’ ill.“ ' l
3‘ nil; htb \(L

...t: 1'4:er rezui

-. . .
z
«.11,

met lhc a

‘i-lil5:.'_"\i‘:i .
““P M c;

There were

1

r

'13.,
«int? '

‘c fill hC'Ul' [Q :

well qilhilfink,

2v-

 

sound welcoming to students freshly arrived on campus; it was not condescending or
sarcastic.

“If you have questions that you don’t want to ask me because I look like I’m an
ogre, and you don’t want to talk to me, you can send me an e-mail and I’ll try to get back
to you... I will get back to you within 24 hours.” He noted that the same info is
available for Dr. Opanashuk and the teaching assistant. He described some of her
responsibilities, which included taping class and getting several copies to the library’s
media center.

Some general logistical information was shared — e-mail would be used
extensively. Some tips for success were also shared.

“Most important... is that you do come to lecture. I know you’ve

been preached to before. I don’t like to preach... A live lecture is much

different than if you’re listening to the lecture on tape; buying notes from

those people that sell them outback, which you’ve already gotten little

pamphlets about... I don’t condone that at all. I think it’s an infringement

on my rights, however, I have no legal way that I can stop the course from

being scribed. I do think by being here you get a lot more out of the

lecture. The way I emphasize things, the way I point to things, the things I

write on the overhead are all part of the learning experience. So I do

believe if you come to lecture you get a lot more out of it.”

Dr. Peters went on to say again that he doesn’t like notes being sold and that the
department has studied association of attendance and grades. Students who come to
lecture fairly regularly get a half grade higher. He had mentioned this association when
he and I met the week before. I wondered when he had first mentioned it if the
relationship was causal. My wonder resurfaced as he repeated the data.

There were to be weekly review sessions on Thursday afternoons, typically

lasting an hour to an hour and a half. Students were encouraged to come to these sessions

and ask questions and to ask questions in class as well.

70

This was sent:
:T ”T :“e:\\ and" All
{52:343. JOE i N .1~
;_.:\‘.:.t.\ or m .m as .
s :45 :rtLIueP II ding T
H“ T'KUUU"CQ'
T:.T\:t ii" am .
~_ ult “goof“ 1;:

“‘9' ., .
“Its. .1216 pthni‘ic

:71’rfijfilabus. "STR -.

 

 

 

 

nufin‘fiodl 0“:
gifts? in a:[h\)]. .3!) It
Dr' PEER Cum

...TN
15195

Lu
dnd mar“ 0;“ ‘

 

This was something that I would see repeatedly in this class and in BCH401 in the
coming weeks and months. “No question is a dumb question... If you don’t understand
something, don’t be afraid to ask a question. I will never make fun of anyone for asking
questions or in anyway embarrass you.” Here he was speaking primarily of review
sessions, though he, Dr. McNair (the biochemistry professor) and Dr. Opanashuk would
all make frequent and largely unanswered pleas for questions during class time.

He mentioned the difficulty of scheduling review sessions and noted that the
Thursday afternoon time, while it did conflict with some labs and dinnertime was about
the best time possible. All of the logistical information was included in the syllabus. Part
of the syllabus, “STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS IN 881 11,” is included in Appendix D.

Throughout the class thus far (the first fifteen minutes) students had continued to
wander in, although the rate had dropped off.

Dr. Peters continued his monologue, moving on to issues that tie into the current
reforms (and many old reforms) in science education.

“The information in BioSci 111 is the foundation for many

advanced level classes. I know that many of you are premed and pre-vet

students, and pre-graduate school students. A lot of you are going to need

this material... In fact, whether you are going to be a professional student

later on, or whether you are going to be out working in the work force, the

material we give you in this class is important for you to become an

informed citizen... There will be many things... that you’ll have to vote

on, and you should be able to vote, not based on opinion, but based on

some scientific fact and some knowledge.”

He returned to the importance of review sessions and quickly moved on to a few
words about the lab, which was not required for all students. The lab was required for

Biological Science majors (a.k.a. future biology teachers) but it was not required for all

majors that required 881 1 1. A few students also took the class to meet the university’s

71

q -, 1" s a Hu-
.3::.'.: xlt’fltt rte...
. . . .'... ,.
;3€l.1.’ib-l.'ltl..-...;
\
'3'. .39" awe-a». '
‘h TS“ JC'.L..u.'..L

v-Y\;vfi‘ r I y“ . 0’
-14.) 3.9.x. \ .at 0'. .

,- E. m. ‘
urn..x. \I-Loll\ “I“.JI‘H

He commcd ’.

 

 

q"; ~r '

unlit. szw M
c......4.:0n about ih‘A

:5: {fie .

lurl.‘ khdthiCI

Peters prim;

M6371} reaxons C U"

i‘r; ,I

.41»
‘WLJ

students are \t

n

u. -
51")" .‘
a~\.‘uj1

." awarded 4.
H6 said it the“

amt .
:.} i it) hcaYV 74

:53le n
- It‘d USEl‘Ul \z
T

Ext
5 de‘mbed

“I = .

3:331,
1 ‘\‘Un:\?“
E “ Lille

general science requirement. Dr. Peters then covered basic logistical information related
to exams — including that half of the class would take them in another room that had not
yet been determined. He also noted that example exams were included in the syllabus,
one of his and one of Dr. Opanashuk’s. There were plenty of old exams to look at out in
the world. If students chose to look at these, they should be sure to look at a variety of
exams. Students should be aware that the two instructors would give different kinds of
exams. Exams would be machine graded, he noted.

He continued to talk about logistical issues. Grades were final and there was no
extra credit. Likewise, there were no makeup exams and he covered more explicit
information about this from the syllabus. He spent a few minutes on this topic, driving
home the importance of the point. This section of the syllabus is included in the next
section of this chapter, in Figure 3.4a.

Peters pointed out that the grading scale was listed. The class was not curved for
several reasons. Curves encourage competition, which encourages cheating. He noted
that all students are starting with a 4.025, and if everyone deserved it, everyone would be
cheerfully awarded 4.03.

He said a few words about the textbook (Campbell, 1996) and described it
(jokingly) as heavy, and an “excellent, excellent textbook.” He noted that it has a nice
glossary and useful study questions, many of which were easier than exam questions.
The text is described briefly below.

“I have no further instruction on basic course information. Are there any

questions?” He waited through approximately two seconds of silence and moved on.

72

iii. lsill all w. j.
er. 23:52 to be lectur.
my» home rm 6

o-

.. ...:‘~ some. Ht .:

 

 

1'4
v

4 : \I- up: . '
.31.} u] 341:“ Bx)“ "
m Alilh‘rilil‘i he F
raw—t4 M v'. l- -~
....,. u it rim uC\'.".'.

H l
Meg's. a \'u

“:5 . I ‘
:43. b) n

l‘ Mi) 27.;

 

 

“Ok. I will tell you, you should all read Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the textbook. They are
not going to be lectured on at all.” These chapters addressed chemical concepts and those
concepts should have been a familiar to students from General Chemistry, a prerequisite
to this course. He again said that he doesn’t want to preach and told students to read the
list of Do’s and Don’ts in the syllabus (included as Figure 3.4c in the syllabus section
below). Although he had just said he was finished describing course information, he
returned to this description.

He began a story and paused for the tape to be flipped by the TA. The story was
prefaced by his saying, “One of the criticisms you’ll hear is that I go too fast,” and that it
related to a friend of his daughter’s who had taken the class. The tape was flipped and
the story was abandoned.

He went on to say not only to come to class, but also to pay attention, to not sleep
and to not read the paper. I noted that, a few rows over, a male student was sleeping.
Sleeping students were something that I would see on each of my visits to this class”. He
did say that if you were going to come to class and not pay attention to do whatever you
do quietly. This described exactly what appeared to be going on around me. Most
students appeared to be paying attention. Notebooks were virtually all open, notes were
being jotted in them occasionally, and most eyes were focused on Dr. Peters at the front
of the room. Later in the class period and throughout the semester, students wrote notes

at a much faster pace, when testable material was the topic of lecture. Those who were

 

2’ At Midwestern University, grades are on a four-point scale. Letter or percentage grades are rarely
referred to. A 4.0 is an A, a 3.0 is a B, a 2.0 is a C, a 1.0 is a D and 0.0 is an F. Final course grades are
always divisible by 0.5, unless the course is pass/fail.

2" Sleeping students are not unique to science classes. While I never saw students sleeping in the education
classes I observed for this study. I have seen them asleep in the classes I taught!

73

1.: ['21le 'i‘ ”.1:\ “L

i
I

‘0: corn: or \prau ._

.-
Pctcrs cor. "

 

|I

"nu. “t .
..triiilt‘UiS 0i act .

tidal hywu'f

1;...5’3.‘ Til“
\.‘_ ‘4 _ .4
....u.‘u ‘34“. Jh‘d‘! If

. it lifilt’ on 1?“. ~

 

h {-l‘. »
T13? 101.0“ 1,"

IDC\‘ \J“:FI

3P:

t’. \ mkrnM‘ l“ |.‘
“”‘ro‘ t\?l’e\\cd‘

"-:.-4
‘:\.“Q N H ‘
quid (11:31.

:f'vififi-
"‘WJVI . ‘ .
i“ lrdnfltikyr
‘

Slit)!
Z: R?“
\u\& \fiuChc"
‘

usT}
“thb‘xh
{he mdnu :‘

doing other things were doing so inconspicuously. The sleeping student I observed was
not snoring or sprawled out, just sleeping quietly with his head on his shoulder.

Peters continued to offer advice on how to be successful in the class, “You can’t
cram 11 hours of lecture into a few hours studying and expect to do well on the exam.”
He suggested an hour of study a day and added that for each hour in class, students
should spend about three hours out of class in related studying. He spent a considerable
amount of time on this. This point was also stressed in biochemistry, though the number
of hours suggested there was higher.

The following quotation immediately followed the above segment on spending
enough time studying. The first two paragraphs are a verbatim, uninterrupted section of
Dr. Peter’s monologue. I have included it as an extended piece of text as I find the
concepts expressed quite interesting and I find the lack of transition between what I
regard as quite different ideas also to be interesting. Not only are the central ideas and
the abrupt transition between them interesting, but so is the allusion to the management
school. He also foreshadows the argument I make in Chapter 7: to understand the whole
of science teacher education, you must understand the pieces, including science classes.

“This is not a weed-out course. I mean, this is a big course,

everybody thinks is a weed-out so we can flunk you out; so you can go to

the management school or whatever. That is not at all the intention of this

class. It’s never been designed that way. It’s never been thought of that

way. I don’t even like to think of it that way, but it does come up.

It is important material that you should know and I absolutely love

the material I am going to tell you about. Cells to me, the individual cell,

is the most exciting thing to learn in biology. It’s fun to learn about

human physiology, how the heart works, how the muscles work, how the

brain works and all that, but if you don’t understand how one cell works,

by itself, all the intricate things that it does, you don’t really appreciate the

whole picture.”

“. . .I hope I can give you that same kind of enthusiasm and
curiosity. I hope that at the end of this course, you know some facts that

74

heir >0” 1“ ’fl'
iii}? “0‘" 4
molecule :nzz'
'lli.‘ l Oil's

. .- I‘ ,
:nfljmdsl“n s

H. V O ‘ lg!"
.n..1;u~‘“' '
h

A I T

Sill. iii
abiui cw 41'

i-. ‘Il \ ‘r V "‘

h‘lu‘sk'L‘1“'\
. s
' I

.1 ' '

Perl \ pd\\.‘
(feign' or 9 Ti ‘
'Itbrukht l Adi 5‘ i

,...'. a . ‘
..mr s paNUfl 1.

 

...., ) '
..Lx‘. ll he 22'» lo '
‘ t

"1‘. Y.

’ -'

“.1“?
l

was)“ \ it“ x

a

.i‘T“‘ '1
anal} mitter'

Dr. Pe

Zen he).
Na" w ' '
ww JutblOildllV Z

...ithumsln'. .\l\' it

.: as: at the tenth

help you in future courses, but I hope that also you’re asking questions.

Why? How does a cell do this? Why does a cell do that? How does this

molecule interact with another? Have curiosity. Ask the question,

‘Why?’ Often we don’t know the answers, but at least we’re gathering

information to make strides forward. This is really an exciting time to be

taking a course like this, because of all the really exciting things that are

happening in the sciences. [inaudible]

So, this is not a weed-out course. It’s meant to get you enthused

about cells and, eventually this will lead you into how things work, how

living organisms, work.”

Peter’s passion for the material and his statement of that juxtaposed with the
statement that B81 11 was not a weed-out course seized my attention. Does the
professor’s passion for the content taught decide whether or not a course is a weed-out
course? Who gets to make the decision as to whether a course is a weed-out course? If
the professor’s views differ from the students’ perceptions, do the professor’s views
particularly matter?

Dr. Peters next encouraged students to form study groups. This is a topic that was
visited occasionally and strongly encouraged by both Dr. Peters and Dr. McNair in
biochemistry. My interviews with seniors indicate that this advice was not well-heeded
by most of the teacher candidates in my study. The advice is sound — he recommends
groups of, “three or four or five,” and to get together once a week and go over the
information in the lectures, to ask each other questions, and he noted, . .an easy way to
learn something is if you actually have to teach it to somebody else.” He was in the midst
of the only episode I saw in his class that would fit into a teacher education class. He
went on to say, “Ask each other questions. If the person who gave the answer can’t

explain, then they don’t understand it either. (Pause) Working together to master the

material is fine, and I really encourage you to do that.”

75

   
 

Sou. more
t: it cents of it c .
13:12. no i‘ld'} is '
2;} {1:3th Cm .
ll: tints thx
:25: 40$! at :t

)7"
{uh ‘

:.~ cps: norm tit.

 

|
Tilt mic: n1;

"‘A‘i ivw 1 n s F
.‘ I . . .
~\'\B “VITA; “l" .311
Â¥
(Jul .' M, r.
“wig“. axiulk‘ du'k.

.
. 7' fjl’
' h

‘ ‘ .
:“ dude Tali“ \‘i

For the it 211.:

Helen wrote In
smarts. On this
ill‘wl 'h ‘

- \HU \ 6 peak:
‘1‘.”ni ~ "
wants. The at:

an: em nt of

"So
fundamen ;
Printiple m
Kills. can;
I at we're g
6mm
simplest um
quNtOn is ‘

leHllQ
Â¥

In the time t.

a: :1"-
.n students amt

Now, more than halfway through class he moved on from logistical information
to the science of the class. His mode of delivery changed — the overhead came more
directly into play as he said, “Ok, so what is the reason you take this class? Why do we
really think you should know this material? First of all, cells are the fundamental unit of
life.” He wrote this on the overhead and students stirred. They too, began to write,
almost 400 of them, simultaneously. The sleeping student wakened and began to jot in
his open notebook.

The reader might pause here and imagine or recall what this looked like - students
moved from being inactive to active simultaneously (though not terribly active). They
changed postures and started doing something besides watching and listening. Some
might argue many of them stopped listening and started writing.

For the remaining 10 minutes or so of class, it began to approach a typical class.
Dr. Peters wrote text on the overhead and the students apparently copied it into their
notebooks. On this day though, most of the words were recognizable to non-scientists
who read the paper everyday, and he made more references to the news and “real world
examples.” The amount of text on this first day was also far less than in a typical ten-
minute segment of classes to follow. As he wrote, he spoke:

“S0, cells are the fundamental unit of life and molecules, are the
fundamental structural component, which make up cells. And the

principle molecules that you are going to learn about, proteins, nucleic

acids, carbohydrates and lipids. These are the four fundamental molecules

that we’re going to study and try to understand how in the correct spatial

arrangement, and properly regulated, these molecules, make up a cell, the

simplest unit of life, the simplest unit of reproduction. (Pause). The

question is ‘why?’ Why do you have to learn this material?”

In the time that he has said this, he has also written most of it on the overhead,

and the students around me have dutifully written it down as well. He did not write out

76

  
   
  

Limbs \dltl. in r:

r ‘3 . - km“!
33: Di tum, iii? 1...

5‘
x

I. n I a \. I '1‘ a "
LLt‘A All \dp't'daJL x.
b O

CARE
LIPID

in {he l‘d‘si \Q‘.

REC 1

And, fmallx

3x1

3‘3 The lu

it): first class in B

all that he said. In re-listening to the audiotape, I noted that his voice pattern changed
when he wrote. As he wrote, he spoke the words slower and more deliberately. By the
end of class, the huge projection screen covering much of the front wall had the following

largely in capitalized block print:

 

molecules structural component
PROTEINS

NUCLEIC ACIDS
CARBOHYDRATES

LIPIDS

In the last several minutes of class, he added:
RECOMBINANT DNA TECHNOLOGY
And, finally:

3 x 109 base pairs in our DNA

 

 

Figure 3.3 The text written by Dr. Peters on the overhead projector near the end of
the first class in BSlll.

 

He talks again more generally about goals — students should become self-
leamers, and then talks extensively about some of the advances in biology and
biotechnology.

Dr. Peters talked about bio-insecticides, FLAVR-SAVR tomatoes, bacteria used
to clean toxic spills, bacteria that can act as a plant anti-freeze to reduce frost damage to
crops, noted that, “Dolly [the sheep] is the big thing,” and went into some depth about
cloning, mentioning a moratorium on human cloning. He talked about the human
genome project and wrote the note about base pairs of DNA on the overhead. In
describing these advances, he occasionally used illustrative analogies like, if all the base

pairs in the human genome were represented by text, it would take over a thousand books

77

 

 

 

' I
W‘ 'h,\
t‘t ..ls

.t >15

J
v-th‘

a "y
* “SUI.“

nil . ,

l

3'»... , z .
i, v
5...“... .J\\u
t

. l
arr—w

. .v
unbudhg. \ .

'V‘: l(‘ . "|
--~\.2.T,\ ti o.

u...

Jib,“ “f".I

"9m ‘.
.

(it"‘n
--...,
I.
l
-. A’“V .
m; “a,
P.-
9.1)“:
my
D
Tm
“(N- ‘
L‘filtl,
llu
“If;
., Hf.
C‘b‘lu
I.
15"».
"‘ g'x ~...
. u Lk‘r‘!
a; 1
“A. \:}4 I,
“ st
i; I p
.“- Ti],
“‘H‘[ ,1
H
3!. .
I. "ql
suit.) ‘4‘
C m

the size of the [1300 page] class text to list them all. He continued his descriptive list
with issues including tissue growth and organ transplant technology, life on Mars, the
possibility that there is a gene for violent behavior, and a few comments on moral and
ethical questions that arise as a result of the new technologies. One example of moral
and ethical considerations is genetic testing for insurance companies. He raises these
questions without answering them. Making clear, for at least the third time, that science
does not provide all the answers for the questions it raises. Peters also noted that what is
happening in biotechnology today was science fiction until fairly recently.

Most of the examples were more than casually mentioned. A few minutes after a
passing comment on how cows are now bigger and producing more milk, he said the
following about Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH):

“Should we eat ice cream that comes from cows that were given

growth hormone? A lot of people would say no. Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream

says we will not use milk from cows that are given growth hormone.

They’ve made some sort of a stance that that’s not good. Well, is it

harmful? Is it not harmful? How do you know? Well, you don’t know

until you have some of the relevant information to try to understand some

of these things.

A question that all of you will face as young adults is, well, what
about AIDS?”
He then continued on to say about as much about AIDS as he said about BGH, and as he
had said about many of the other examples above. After talking about AIDS, he again
said that this class provides the foundation for understanding these issues. The clock was
winding down now, 8:49 a.m. by my watch, 8:47 by the clock on the wall and he said,
“So, all of these things that are so wonderful to think about, the
recombinant DNA technology advances, also bring with them ethical and
moral questions we do have to eventually address. OK, so one last thing
before we leave — and I will say, I will ask you please not to do exactly

what you are doing now. At a few minutes before the end of the hour,
books start slamming. I can see the clock I still have a few minutes left,

78

,

I.‘ y. '.* .L

.. ‘ fl ‘ I

Km... “A. u]
‘

2"“..6‘ ‘1‘ IL
"Mt-‘7‘ V

in (A.
”’31"ka
7"- ‘ {,3 ‘w‘
T“‘ “ \ \u
s
T r
H; 51?")
.~U~

please wait - If you have questions about biology, please write these
down; bring them Wednesday or Friday and I’ll try and answer them as
they relate over the semester.”
At 8:49 a.m., students were on their way. The room cleared quickly of its nearly
400 occupants. A few lingered to touch base with Dr. Peters and the TA. Each
had a single file line as students waited to talk to them. By 8:53 am, the room
was nearly empty. Those who remained included Dr. Peters, the TA, the students
talking with them, and me. There were also a few students who apparently

remained in this classroom for their 9:00 a.m. class. Two of these students were

reading the campus newspaper. I left.

The BS 1 1 1 syllabus

The syllabus itself was four pages long, with a little more than two pages of
general information, (some excerpts are in Figure 3.4a, below) and a little more than one
page for the lecture schedule (included below as Figure 3.4b). Also included in the
syllabus packet was a list of DOs and DON’Ts (Figure 3.4c). The syllabus packet also
included sample exams from the previous year; one from each instructor’s portion of the
course.

The syllabus itself began with contact information and office locations for the two
instructors and for the lecture TA. A paragraph-long course description was also
included (see Figure 3.4a). This description expanded on the description available from
the course catalog. Class times, exam dates and the location within the library for

listening to audiotapes of the class were all included on the front page.

79

 

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSE: BS] 1 1 will cover sub-cellular and cellular biological processes.
Topics include the structure, function and synthesis of macromolecules. The cellular generation and use of
energy will be examined. In the second half of the course the elements of the replication, transmission and
expression of genetic information in the cell’s life cycle will be covered. Examples of these processes will
be taken from organisms ranging from viruses, bacteria, plants and animals. Theories and experimental
methods used to understand cells and molecules will be presented.

EXAMS AND GRADING
Wm

Exams in Biological Science courses vary by instructor. Therefore, previous exams may not be reliable
guides for study. One Sample exam from Drs. Peters and Opanashuk are included in this syllabus.27 The
course objectives provide the best indication of test content. Exams will be objective and machine-
gradable.

NO questions will be answered during exams. If you feel a question is ambiguous, a blank page will be
provided after the exam to explain your concern with a question. This explanation should be turned in to
the instructor or lecture TA at the end of the exam, with your name and student number clearly indicated.
The reason for this policy is to avoid heterogeneous answers to question that might result given the large
number of proctors that will be involved.

GRADING SCALE: Final course grade will be assigned according to the total points received (out of 500
possible) as shown on the following scale:

 

 

% of Total Possible Points Grade for Course
83 - 100 4.0
77 - 82 3.5
71 - 76 3.0
65 —70 2.5
59 — 64 2.0
53 — 58 1.5
47 - 52 1.0
0 - 46 0.0

 

You must present a 121mm to hand in your completed exam. Proctors will check you out of the exam,
and note your attendance on a check-off sheet.

E-MAIL: We will use an e-mail mailing list to announce various items to the entire 381 11 class. You can
also use the response option of the e-mail system to ask each of us questions relating to lecture material.
We will respond either individually or to the entire class.

READINGS AND LECTURES: While the lectures will be related to the readings, they will not be exactly
the same. The differences will be both of emphasis and content. Exams will be derived both from the
readings and from the lecture itself.

 

 

figure 3.4a: Excerpts from the 881]] Cells and Molecules Syllabus.

 

 

 

’7 The types in this sentence are reproduced from the syllabus. There is one sample exam from each
instructor.

80

 

Ill

 

r

 

s .-.

t“.
a

\

3‘:

At the bottom of the front page, in underlined boldfaced capitalized print, the
Syllabus read. “”W This
was under the heading of EXAMS AND GRADING, but the underlining made the
subtext more pronounced than the heading. This section continued onto the second page
where more specifics about the exams were described.

The syllabus explained that there would be no make up examinations, though
students in special circumstances (e.g., illness) may be eligible for a waiver. Students
were required to notify the department prior to missing the exam in order to have a
possibility of a waiver. No waivers were possible for the final exam, however if a student
had either another exam scheduled at the same time or two others on the same calendar
day, they may have been eligible to take the exam at an alternate time. “The rule DOES
NOT APPLY if you have three exams scheduled in a 24-hour period (e. g., one exam on
Monday night and two exams on Tuesday)”

The syllabus responded to the special problems of the very large class that it
covered. While some of the rules relating to exams may seem dogmatic or didactic, they
are pragmatic. James Scott uses scientific forestry as a parable for understanding state
efforts to improve the human condition. The managed forest is a “geometric, uniform
forest intended to facilitate management and extraction.” (Scott, 1998 (p. 18)) The
more uniform and geometric a forest is, the more it can be managed and the larger it can
be. The same is true of university classes. Uniformity also allows for the transmission of
the maximum amount of content. The lecture schedule (Figure 3.4b) along with the 20
chapters of the textbook that accompany those lectures indicate the expectation of the

“covering” of a great deal of content.

81

-H

it»
‘5

«7‘

ii

 

 

 

UN—

\OOOQONMA

O
l

flfl

l2
l3
14
15
16
I7
[8
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3 l
32

33
34

35
36
37
38
39
40

8/31
9/02
9/04
9/07
9/09
9/11
9/14
9/16
9/18
9/21
9/23
9/25
9/28
9/30
10/2
10/5
10/7
10/9
10/12
10/14
10/16
10/19
10/21
10/23
10/26
10/28
10/30
11/02
11/04
11/06
11/09
11/11
11/13
“/16
11/18
11/20
11/23
11/25
11/27
11/30
12/02
12/04
12107
12/09
12/11
12./l8

mmmm

ansavages:aszaszazzaszaszwszaszazzaszazzaszmsz

LECTUE [sic] SCHEDULE

Course mechanics/overview
Protein structure
Carbohydrate/lipid/nucleic acid structure
Labor Day

Cell Structure

Cytoplasmic Organelles
Nuclear structure
Membranes

Transport

Energy: enzymes

Energy: catalysis
Glycolysis I

EXAM l (lectures 1-10)
Glycolysis II

Glycolysis III
Photosynthesis I
Photosynthesis II
Photosynthesis III

Cell cycle/Chromosome structure
Mitosis

Meiosis

DNA replication

DNA replication

Mendelian Genetics I
EXAM 11 (lectures 11-21)
Mendelian Genetics II
Mendelian Genetics 111
Human Genetics I
Mutations I

Mutation 11

Genetic Code
Transcription/translation I
Transcription/translation 11
Gene Function I

Gene Function 11

EXAM III (lectures 22-32)
Gene Structure

Gene regulation I
Thanksgiving Holiday
Gene regulation II

Gene regulation III
Recombinant DNA I
Recombinant DNA II
Human Genetics 11
Development/Review
FINAL EXAM 7:45 - 9:45
(100 points lectures 33-40; 75 points on lectures 1-32)

Review 213/4
5
5

\OGO‘OOOOQQQ

\OO

[0
10
10
ll
11
12
15
IS
13

l3/l4
l3/14
l4
l4
l4
l4/15
l6
16
16/17
16/17

18
l7/18

17/18
l7/18
l9
l9
19
43

 

 

iigure 3.4b: Lecture schedule from BSlll syllabus

82

 

 

TL'Q ['1 '
its. .ys.

we" v Tl‘

1 fi‘
,IV..\..~-n-\ u L

"'_"'3h 1“ a}...
..~,...\ ,
.

-55 ..
u

 

T36 \Z'I;

"in; .L‘, ‘ u .
..
w...“ \'. ."\
.

Oi)..-'l
*av‘.‘

.. ‘AAU “it

. .
‘fl' .‘
.gub,‘ :1 " .n‘ .1

, ."MAX\L

Rd‘hfi ’70!- ‘
o ‘ I‘

The lecture schedule also indicated that the professors changed the order of
presentation (ever so slightly) from the order in the text, and in several points, treated two
chapters together. In the first lecture, Dr. Peters spoke of some big ideas related to cell
biology, but the introductory chapter of the text, which goes into these ideas in more
detail, was not assigned reading.

The sheet “STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS IN BSlll” (Figure 3.4c) included
with the syllabus also stressed the “BIG PICTURE,” and referred to the students’ need to
understand the material for their role as citizens, regardless of their majors. These
emphases are clearly in line with science education reform documents (AAAS, 1989,
1993; NRC, 1996; NSF, 1996). However, while understanding the “big picture” would
likely enhance chances of success on assessments, this understanding does not seem to be
necessary for success. Most exam questions were fact based and could be mastered
through memorization of discrete information. See the section on assessment.
Furthermore, explicit mention of connections within the content of the course and
between course content and the world outside of the classroom largely disappeared after
the first day of the class. This is not to say that content relevant to the students’
experience was not presented; only that the professor ceased in pointing out that
relevance.

The 48% attendance figure is repeated in the 1999 syllabus, but the 5.5 hours of
studying is not. The ‘5.5 hours’ in the 1999 version of strategies for success is replaced
simply with ‘hours’. Class appeared more full than 48% on my visits, but I regrettably

never made my own count.

83

 

STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS IN 88111

The course content of B51 11 may be totally new, vaguely familiar of a more in-depth analysis of similar
material from your secondary education. Regardless, there are several strategies that we feel you can
employ to master and retain the material, relieve stress and, actually benefit you and your education
objectives (these hints may work for other course). The following DOs and DON’Ts are intended as
helpful hints — clearly not all are helpful to all students.

DOs
DO attend ALL lectures.
DO take notes on lecture material (obviously these areas will be emphasized on exams).
DO read ALL assigned reading material — either before or after the lecture(s) has been given.
DO take notes from assigned reading - either add to lecture notes or use to clarify lecture notes.
DO review lecture notes/assigned reading frequently - a general rule of thumb is that 1 hour of lecture
requires 3 hours of outside review, preparation.
a. Remember, at our discretion, we may give unannounced quizzes which will count in
determination of you final grade.
6. DO attend weekly review sessions — come prepared to ask questions, especially on areas that are
confusing, complex, or you just don’t understand.
7. DO form study groups
a. Find 3—5 friends or classmates in 881 11 and meet weekly to review/discuss material.
b. Ask each other questions - the BEST way to learn any material is if you have to TEACH the
material. If you can’t answer a question clearly, then you DON’T know the material.
8. DO listen to lecture tapes in the Audio Library for lectures that are unclear, confusing or complex —
this is especially important if you miss a lecture.
9. DO meet with the Ombudsperson to clarify material.
10. DO meet with your lab TA to clarify material.
1 1. DO review your answers (both correct and incorrect) for ALL exams.
a. This is extremely important — by determining the type(s) of question you answer incorrectly, you
can modify your study habits to overcome deficiencies (examples: if you miss many FACT
questions you need to spend more time on strategies to remember FACTS).

12. DO integrate material from various lectures to develop your understanding and appreciation of the BIG
PICTURE.

9:599)?”

DON ’Ts
1. DON’T miss lectures (and DON’T sleep, read the Midwestern NEWS or talk in lectures - last year
class attendance averaged only 48% of the students).
DON’T get behind (a large amount of material is covered in the semester).
DON’T memorize answers to old exams — we do change the questions/answers.
4. DON’T memorize lectures independent of each other (DO try to determine how one lecture/concept
integrates with other lecture/concepts).
a. The old axiom (5 minutes of concentrated worry = 1 hour of study) is NOT true - nothing
substitutes for studying - last year’s students reported studying only 5.5 hours per week.
5. DON’T cheat - either on exams or for the lab (copying someone else’s report is plagiarism and will be
punished).
6. DON’T blame us, the instructors, for giving you a poor or unacceptable grade — you EARN the grade!

9°29

BS] 11 is not a weed-out course for Natural Science majors. We want you to become fascinated with
biology in general and how cells work in particular. We are still learning and continually amazed at the
strategies cells use to LIVE and we want you to share our amazement and capture our enthusiasm. Most
importantly, we believe that the material presented in ES] 11 is vital to your future, regardless of career
choice. To be an informed consumer, voter, citizen in modern society, you must understand basic biology.
BS 1 11 is part of that basic biology.

 

 

Figure 3.4c: Strategies for success in 88111 from the 8811] Syllabus.
All emphasis in the original.

 

84

 

if ii is
“flab; £05.13

-r '1')" . TL.
"“"0 "l .A.

,
A
D322?- »
“w" 5:13
Q§\\~I;ue
“"lt.\
Fer?
t
‘b
4 a
‘4 \“d‘“\ l
{h ,
l‘i' ""w.
elk "‘4er \
a?"

It was stated both in the syllabus and in the opening lecture that BS] 11 was not a
weed-out course. Students indicated otherwise in their interviews. (See the next
chapter.) This raises the question of who decides what courses are weed-out courses? In
my first college level science course, I was told to look at the two people to the left and to
look at the two people to the right. Of those five, we were told, only one would graduate
with a degree in science. The professors in my observations at Midwestern University
did not make such statements. Students did not mention seeing this in their classes
(unlike students in Seymour and Hewitt’s study of college science (Seymour & Hewitt,
1997)). Does that mean these were not weed-out courses?

The remainder of the syllabus handout consists of prior exams - one each from
Peters and Opanashuk. Exams are discussed in the section of this chapter on
assessments.

For the fall 1999 offering of the course, the syllabus was almost entirely identical.
The exams included were updated to the previous year, a few typos were corrected and
the lecture schedule was changed very slightly. The first 16 lectures all had the same
titles. “Cell signaling “ was added as lecture 17; mitosis and meiosis were combined
from two lectures to one; recombinant DNA was collapsed from two lectures to one and;
development was expanded from one lecture to two.

The same instructors taught the course in both the fall of 1998 and the fall of
1999. This was true for the introductory courses in both biology and teacher education,
but not true for either of the senior level courses. Dr. McN air had taught the
biochemistry course for a number of years. The TE401 course is part of a two—year

course sequence taught by the same faculty so the faculty teaching the course rotates

85

(:0: mk- i.

‘h

..;i
””385 l h...

every year, allowing professors to work with a group of students over a two-year period.
The reason I mention how the following year differed (or did not differ) from the year of

my observations is that evolution of the system will be discussed in Chapter 7.

The BS 1 I 1 Text

Campbell, Neil A. (1996) Biology 4‘h Edition, Benjamin/Cummings Publishers, Menlo
Park, CA.

The text is a massive tome of fifty chapters and almost 1300 pages. However, the
course is not intended to address the entire text. The syllabus identifies the 19 chapters
addressed in lecture — chapters 2 through 19 (pages 25 - 395) plus chapter 43 (pages 963
— 992). In other words, the course covers roughly a third of the text.

The text is broken into eight units: The Chemistry of Life; The Cell; the Gene;
Mechanisms of Evolution; The Evolutionary History of Biological Diversity; Plants:
Form and Function; Animals: Form and Function; and Ecology. This structure, the
book’s size and the overwhelming amount of vocabulary make it fairly traditional though
it does have some interesting features. The first three units were the focus of the course.
The book has rich color diagrams and photographs. Each of the units begins with a two
to three page interview of a prominent scientist in the field. Interviews (all done by the

author) include E.O. Wilson, David Satcher, John Maynard Smith and Margaret Davis.

A typical day in BS 1 I 1
While BS111 was both bigger and in a different science discipline28 than any

Courses I had taken as an undergraduate physics major or any I had taken as a master’s

 

 

23 This is not quite true. I did take one biology course in my master’s program — a field botany course. My
adVisor (a biologist) said that I had to take it as my certification would include both Earth and general

86

Iii-11.5fm E.

'J "‘9'; "'5',
vi hu‘o. b u\\.\

. l v
i"" "a 'h
““x ““1“. ul’.‘

9 u

V'““V_)

”“~‘A~\kq
~ 5

.333 I! ,, 't“

M") “K‘ulh

“W,” ‘ ,
.w~MtUfl:hC

N” . I
“"f‘ 4: '8 :;\_‘l

*1: TD: 2:1

:t-t. ,
" :19

“ “xii CI]
‘5

£3; ..

"like in.) .
t 4n“ it
.m. I ‘ ll:
'I'k" -.

Ti ktl'

candidate in Earth science education, it was still remarkably similar to many of those
classes. The class was huge — almost 400 students in a single session. It was very
teacher-centered and content-intensive. The professor talked and provided information
via the overhead projector for the entire fifty-minute class.

The typical class followed the pattern established in the last several minutes of the
first class, though the vocabulary was typically far more technical. I usually filled about
four pages of notebook paper with tightly written notes that resembled too closely the
notes I would have taken if I were a student. I wrote down virtually everything that was
written on the overhead. My notes differed from class notes in that they also included
times at which things were said and plentiful side notes. These side notes include things
like, “The guy sitting ahead of me and to the left is sleeping comfortably,” and, “Says
you don’t have to memorize — I’m just showing you so you can see the units.” He often
did not include units in problems throughout the course — I always added them as a result
of my physics teacher background.

Most students wrote nearly constantly, presumably recording primarily what was
projected on the screen in the front of the classroom. On several occasions students
began writing in unison when the professor began notes on test material after describing
review sessions or other non-testable material. Several times on different days I was
Surprised to hear simultaneous page turning as students took notes, even forty minutes
into the class. In the first class, students did not ask questions though the professor did
explicitly encourage the asking of questions. In later classes, occasional questions did

emerge. The majority were clarifications, i.e., “What is that word?” or, “Can you move

 

 

SCiffnce and I hadn’t taken a biology course since 10‘“ grade. Field botany is significantly different from the
tYPICal courses by undergraduate biology majors here due to its applied field focus and small size.

87

trial on‘

i.
.. W .
‘ " £5.9‘e

s
‘e bunt.

0....

7 1:21: to

v .
5‘9"“:- ‘34 n

W». o. “'95“.
r

is. f't u

r“. 9
3w,
“’3' r1...
¥\§j‘ “LA‘.
5“,.“ \a \‘4
I °-- ! .
T: 75,) t.
.- ... “IL 8.
~ I
TI“; \" ‘3'
a...» L“'-‘\.

C mi.

(75..., ..

 

that back on the screen?” in reference to something written on the overhead. On rare
occasions, definitions were requested, for example, “What is catabolism?”

Occasionally, Dr. Peters would ask questions of the class, i.e. “Looking at Figure
6.7 in the text, is the reaction, endergonic or exergonic?” Several students meekly
responded, “endergonic.” I never heard Peters ask questions that had an answer of more
than two words. These questions were asked less frequently than once per class.

Several times early in the term, students were encouraged to join study groups and
Peters facilitated the forming of groups through his secretary. Students were instructed to
email or call and let her know if interested. On September 18, a little more than a week
before the first test, she had emails from about 40 students and Peters recommended that
more students contact her.

College students tended to do the kinds of things that college students
occasionally do: sleeping in class, roller-blading into class twenty minutes late, or reading
the newspaper during class (none of this was common, but it all did happen).

Another way in which typical classes differed from the first class was in the use
of prepared transparencies. In the first class everything projected on the screen was
hand-written by Dr. Peters during the class. In later classes, transparencies of colored
diagrams were used regularly. The most common source for these diagrams was the
course text, though other sources were used as well. Peters also drew simple diagrams on
the overhead during class regularly.

The most important difference between the first class and the typical class was the

disappearance of connections to biology in the popular press and explicit connections to

88

'5 .. '~ ..
~.::..:r\,5 a4“

.
m“ I" "7"!

"NM-ill Kaa.‘
.

":v~...,\. ‘
2‘"*As\gm

the students’ lives outside of BS1 1 1. Peters made several interesting connections in that
first day. He only rarely made them after that.

Dr. Peters did make the occasional joke or tell a funny story. On the second day
of class when he introduced the Central Dogma (stated succinctly on the test as: “DNA
-> RNA -* protein”) he said that he had once asked on a test to explain the Central
Dogma in three words and someone wrote, “Don’t eat coyote.” Whether either of these
is what could reasonably labeled as an explanation is another matter.

While I typically found the presentation of material less than engaging, I
appreciated aspects of the lectures. On September 18, Peters asked an intriguing question
(intriguing to me, at least): “Why are all cells about the same size? That is, why are they
all small?” He answered the question himself. They are small, at least in part because
this allows diffusion to occur more quickly. On September 21 he made an interesting
statement in talking about osmosis. First, he asked, “The movement of water across a
membrane is called what?” “Osmosis,” was mumbled back by a smattering of students.
Then Peters said, “We don’t really know how osmosis works. I often give the impression
that there’s nothing left to discover. Not true.”

Attendance dropped as the semester progressed. According to the Fall 1999
syllabus, attendance averaged only 48%. This is the same statistic as in the 1998
syllabus, but the average number of hours studying was changed. On my visits, the room
always appeared to have more than half the class there, though I did not count. Perhaps
the preaching that he so detested was effective. The room never appeared to have less
than half the number of students who were there on the first day, although late the

semester it approached this. There was a noticeable drop in attendance after the first test.

89

lite-:7

..
’0' '. ‘V’Ii

'fi .
Lpt
a 0n "r "i
.. l" l
ui-‘uubul 0. \.
«. Ibt‘ « ‘.

.-‘ “ Y“ .
.4-..\ \t..\‘.\\

'3" ...4.
lands .1“

rtl

.. ., Ar*~_ '
“49W. ”in .

l ..,_
itjf‘tjnk n: H
On it

PY'J“ ‘
l l ,l
\i,'\ G‘LITAUL

‘2‘“ u :1 ‘ I
"9. “k |l .J T
. “Wu

‘
F‘x.
1"}; 3 -
.‘u j)
.
1'.
r‘
o‘

I never observed groups of students lingering to talk with each other, however
small groups of students would sometimes linger after class talking with either the
instructor or the TA. Occasionally the chalkboard at the front of the room would be used
in these conversations. The after class conversations were always brief, at least in part
because another class started in the room at 9:00 a.m. The huge room emptied far
quicker than the smaller rooms used for the education classes. Only on exam days did

students talk in the hall after class in substantial numbers.

Assessment in BS 1 I I

On testing days, the class was split with last names beginning with A-Q in the
C108 Gilmour Hall, and the rest heading to a lecture room down the hall. Students
silently filed in and at a few minutes after 8:00, Dr. Peters gave directions and tests were
distributed. Scantron answer sheets were distributed at the door as students entered.
Testing began by 8:05 a.m. and the first students were finished and out the door by 8:27
a.m., shortly after the last late arrival. IDs were checked exams were turned in.

Exams were multiple choice and true false. Some sample items are shown in
Figure 3.5. In this class, all students who earned 4.0 as final grades had completed
identical examinations in nearly identical ways — that is, they answered most questions (at
least 83% of them) with the one correct answer from the set of possible answers given.

The questions, while all objective, did vary somewhat both in structure and in
kinds of objectives targeted. Some required straight memorization, as is the case with
FATP, the Central Dogma and the set of questions on diffusion and transport. Others

required calculation. Perhaps most importantly of the 51 exam questions on the first

90

 

 

11.Which of the following statements about rATP is CORRECT?
1.ATP serves as the main energy shuttle inside cells
2.ATP drives some endergonic reactions by a phosphorylated intermediate
3.The regeneration of ATP from ADP and phosphate is an endergonic reaction
4.Hydrolysis of ATP releases the phosphate group
5.All of the above are correct (*)

12.The "central dogma" is which of the following?
l.protein -’ RNA -> DNA
2.DNA -' protein -> RNA
3.RNA -' DNA -> protein
4.DNA -> RNA -> protein (*)
5.protein -’ DNA -' RNA

26.The G for an enzyme catalyzed reaction is -20kcal/ mol. If the amount of reactant is
doubled, the G is:

l.-10kcal/mol

2.-20kcal/mol (*)

3.-40kcal/mol

4.+20kcal/mol

For questions 27—30, select the BEST answer from the following:
l.Simple diffusion
2.Facilitated diffusion
3.Active transport
4.All of the above
5.None of the above

27. Rate is directly proportional to concentration difference (1)
28. Movement against a concentration gradient (3)
29. Movement across a biological membrane (4)
30. Osmosis (1)
EXTRA CREDIT

51.You isolate a new chemical that inhibits DNA replication in isolated mitochondria but
does NOT inhibit DNA replication in isolated nuclei. However, when the chemical is
added to intact human liver cells, it does NOT inhibit mitochondrial DNA replication.
Which reasons below is/are likely to account for this observation?

1.Human liver cells do not contain mitochondria

2.The chemical can not be transported into intact liver cells

3.The mitochondria DNA mutates to nuclear DNA

4.Lysosomes degrade the chemical before it can enter the mitochondria

5.2 and 4 are both possible explanations (*)

 

Figure 3.5 Sample items from Exam #1 in BSlll.
Correct answers are indicated with either a (*) or the number of the correct answer.

 

 

91

51:37.. 03.) l

.
P33" .’,'a
s.\.‘ \a“

. ~
,. 'u.‘y .v' .

4 me- ..l‘.

...- .‘. m,

I
“4 u: ‘~;
.

t, I .
Q...

W"flfir~_(
' m t

CI :1
t./ t

“1:.

ME" it, n ‘
5..
s

exam, only the extra credit question even approached the real-world connections that
Peters stressed in the first lesson, and it does so less directly than the examples mentioned
in that first lecture. The extra credit question did seem to require higher level thinking

than the regular exam questions.

Summary Comments:

381 11 was an intensive, facts-based and lecture-based course. There are
glimpses of connections to applications and occasionally there is attention to the notion
that science is an evolving body of knowledge and that things remain to be discovered.
Students were treated as passive receivers of knowledge within the classroom, but they
were also encouraged to be more actively engaged in their own learning outside of class,
most obviously by being encouraged to form study groups. They were also verbally
encouraged to ask questions during class, but aspects of the class structure prevented
students from asking questions in spite of the professors’ pleas. Part of that structure was
the class’s mammoth size. Another important part was an absence of wait time for
questions to be asked or answered.

Peters’ own data showed that most students did not come to class regularly and
that they did not prepare for class in ways that he believed were adequate. He verbally
encouraged his students to be more than passive learners, but he provided no in class
opportunities to do so and knew that the average student was not studying out of class at
the level he desired. This seems like a sure-fire method to maintain the disappointing

status quo.

92

The class was occasionally punctuated by humor. Dr. Peters came across as a
nice man who wanted his students to learn about the cell, a passion of his. His stated
desire for students to work in study groups where they taught each other indicated that he
had some repressed appreciation of what he referred to as “touchy-feely education” stuff.
It is not in anyway radically different from the college science classes described
elsewhere (Salish, 1997; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990). There are some minor
differences however. Peters stated emphatically that his class was not a weed-out class
(although at least some of his students disagreed). It was a far better class than some
described by Seymour and Hewitt (and I experienced as an undergrad) classes where
students were told to look to the right and left and be aware that only one would survive
as science majors. Peters’ grades were not curved to eliminate or diminish negative
aspects of competition.

Students were treated uniformly the same. The work of students with the best
grades would be nearly identical. The same is true of students with poor grades, although

perhaps not to the same extent. The typical student was anonymous.

Biochemistry 401: Basic Biochemistry

Catalog Information:
Credits: Total Credits: 4 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 4
Prerequisite: CEM 252 or CEM 352 (Organic Chemistry II)29
Restrictions: Not open to students in the Biochemistry or in the
Biochemistry/Biotechnology major.
Not open to students with credit in: BCH 200 or BCH 46130

 

2” Prerequisites for the prerequisite include only chemistry and mathematics classes, though virtually all
biology teacher candidates would have completed B81 10 and 381 l l.

30 BCH200 was Introduction to Biochemistry and BCH461 was Biochemistry I. These were courses
required for biochemistry majors.

93

Description: Structure and function of major biomolecules, metabolism, and
regulation. Examples emphasize the mammalian organism.

Schedule Information:
Maximum enrollment: 285

Number enrolled: 181
Class meeting times: 8:00 a.m. — 8:50 a.m., Monday, Tuesday. Thursday, and

Friday.

Location: C103 Kreher Hall"

Instructor: James McNair
The Instructor:

James McNair was seventy something and came across as slightly eccentric. He
was thin, rode his bicycle to class and wore a visor during class to shade out the bright
studio lights. One leg of his pants was often in a bicycle clip throughout class. He
smiled and made the occasional joke. He was a biochemist who researches biochemistry
of the eye — perhaps explaining the visor.

In our first meeting, he spoke of his history, coming back to school after
completing service in World War II. He warned me of the dangers of alcohol and other
intoxicants and said how he had wasted some of his earlier days. I wondered if
something in my appearance or demeanor acted as a catalyst for the advice and concluded
that he offered this kind of advice often and without anything to provoke it.

He also shared his frustration with teaching classes of this size. He believed that
the way he taught the same course in the summer to a class of approximately 20 was far

superior. The summer course was part of a program for minority students. In the

summer, exams were all essays. During the year, exams would be all true and false. And

 

3' This was the location listed in the course schedule. Class was actually held in an Instructional TV
classroom and broadcast to the room listed on the schedule. The [TV room accommodated about 90
students and was typically half full. The listed classroom had fewer than 10 students present during my
two observations there.

94

 

. rat“
(”Sh“);
m . .
.L ~ ‘ T
.r...«‘"“’

r
H‘.p ‘In‘k
“{ Ilbll‘ A

A ‘ ‘
tJ.F W “h

. ...'~ ‘ “

;r~~’4t:~

H... “
.

‘
.M' 3‘
...‘y‘d‘

. ~_r-,-‘
Lt uln-‘V “L

.t.
..avit’h’tl’l
\. v I
TTT‘VIM ‘
1N kin-I'm C’C‘

ran: his ll

Elm-“5‘ ‘
"m‘ulb Cdlr
I?” r'

«H tilli'. ‘

tn Tne tan

the setting made it so that many students would only be seen in person at the exams, as

the majority watched on campus cable, in the library or not at all.

The rooms for BCH401

As noted in Chapter 2, there are a variety of ways to “go to class” in BCH401.

On the first day, class met in the large auditorium in the wing of one of the 605 era dorm
complexes. The auditorium (C102 Kreher Hall) easily held the nearly 200 students who
arrived. This classroom is also where tests were taken. This classroom would be the
only classroom many students would see live — while most students did not come to class
as they watched it on cable or on tape, every student should have come to class for the
seven midterm exams and the final exam. The room is described in some detail below
and diagrammed in Figure 3.5a.

On that first day of class, students were notified that class would be held in one of
the instructional television (ITV) classrooms in the communication arts building. That
classroom was also an auditorium, but a considerably smaller and newer one. It could
accommodate approximately 90 students. Class would be both taped and broadcast live
from this IT‘V classroom. It would be broadcast to the large auditorium listed in students’
schedules (C102 Kreher), on campus cable and on one of the university television
stations carried by local cable companies in the cities and towns surrounding the

university. Not only would it be broadcast live, but it would also be rebroadcast at 4:00

pm. The tapes would also be available in the main library’s media room by 7:00 pm.

95

 

QJ' TT'J
an» ”5

"K-ih.

ave-g7. j.
u

t
I. :.

-_‘ ...t’ .:_‘

5.
._ J's .
l \\‘ 4

‘s.

\‘Lth‘wlf

.q".

rt;

\Tu'ba
swfi v1.1.
1. ' I
ll l

r-

I.
l

A.

‘53?

9k
“'1‘ P5 .
0' ( .
1)]:th ‘1»)

l

9' ,
:4.
dzri

‘L‘Clibdii

C103 Kreher Hall

The room was a large auditorium, similar to B 108 Gilmour Hall where BS 1 11
met. The room was a regular octagon, with walls cutting off the front and back comers —
it appears to be a regular octagon from outside the building (it is a separate wing), but a
decagon from the inside. See Figure 3.5. From the inside, the octagon has been modified
by the addition of a screen cutting across the front corner and a projection room cutting
across the back comer. The room is approximately 60 feet across, from flat wall to flat
wall. The side sections run right to the wall, unlike in the BS1 11 classroom. Like B 108
Gilmour, this classroom was considerably larger than the home I lived in during my
observations. It was still somewhat smaller than the other lecture hall, however.

Like in Gilmour Hall, the floor gradually sloped to the front so that the professor
stood in an area about four feet below the doors at the back of the room. The color
scheme of the room was unique. Most of the walls were concrete block painted off-
white. The front three sides are paneled in rich wood you see here and there on
university campuses that include forestry programs. The seats were upholstered in navy
blue, with a few either reupholstered or brought in from a different auditorium. Those
that were not navy were lavender.

In the front of the room were two overhead projectors pointed toward the large
screen that dominated the front wall -- approximately 20 feet long. The room does not
have the same obvious handicap access as the B81 11 room, one of the indications that
this room had not been recently renovated. There is a large 19603 era framed photo of
the football stadium on the wall above seats on the south side. Two university banners

hang at the end of the south paneled section and one on the end of the north paneled

96

£413.!“ 01 "uu
. 3 ‘
MI .131. 1'0] 1:

- . .0

”fa-'7; ‘i‘ir‘

"I‘A.L“tl\ r
v

 

section of wall. There was a bulletin board at the back of the room that hawked notes for
sale and provided information about upcoming meetings, primarily of Christian student

organizations. Other details are shown in Figure 3.5.

 

 

 

Coat rack

 

 

Projection
room

/S ‘ Bulletin
Trash board
can

 

 

 

 

table

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j 13rows l —— 12rowsof23seats ——

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___.._ podium
L__

~1960$ L Overhead "——
era -—-- Multi- V projector
Photo of QK media
football console
stadium -

University -_ _ _ speaker

banners ‘

screen

 

 

 

Figure 3.5 C108 Kreher Hall:

Scheduled classroom for BCH401. This is where class met the first day and took exams.
The class was also broadcast live to this classroom on the projection screen. Few
students came to watch the broadcast that was also available on campus cable. The
drawing is not to scale.

 

In other words, this is a large university lecture hall that has likely not seen

renovation or remodeling (other than replacing broken chairs with those from other

97

 

~, rm (v-
4\\ tl
I.’ A.'- .11

.
.“ MI '
' \

M v- ~.ia\ \.

h -n~

‘—s.—...

..H “-
J: ti'"? 1-
'--t.l.‘

classrooms) since its construction some thirty years ago. It is not a pleasant room, nor is

it distinctly unpleasant. It does, however, have a sort of dingy feeling.

108 Communication Arts (ITV Studio Classroom)

The room was a small auditorium with nicer appointments than the other two
auditoriums. It was obviously newer than C108 Kreher and there was more invested in
the room, not only in terms of the audiovisual and broadcast equipment, but also in the
wood paneling and more comfortably upholstered seating. Like in the other auditoriums,
the floor was sloped (but more steeply) and all the seats pointed to the lecturer and the
large screen for the projector that dominated the front wall. Television monitors were
high along the sides of the room. McNair used an opaque projector rather than a standard
overhead projector for transparencies. This was easier to read on television monitors
(and on the cable broadcast of the class) than overhead projectors. Again, this classroom

was clearly designed for, and almost mandated, lecture (Orr, 1999).

The first week of BCH401 . ..
Since this class was held at the same time Mondays and Fridays as BS1 1 l, I was
not able to attend first sessions for both classes. The first class was not broadcast. I

attended the second and third (Tuesday and Thursday) classes in the first week for

BCH401 .

98

 

«
'l ..

 

Lecturer: James McNair, Assistant: Wong, Yanping
STUDENT SURVEY

Your name and student number:

 

Your class: (Sophomore, junior, senior, grad student, Life-long education, auditor or
whatever:)

 

Your intended or past degrees:

 

Your career goals:

 

 

What grade do you expect to earn from this course?

 

Besides the grade, what do you expect to get out of this course?

 

 

Figure 3.6: BCH401 Student Survey.

This form was completed in the first week of BCH401. It was included as part of the
course-pack; placed after the syllabus and general course information and before the
readings and course notes.

 

In the first session, a course overview was given. The students were also asked to
complete a form that is reproduced in Figure 3.6. This form was included in the course
pack and was described thusly: “ TLJDENT SURVEY; Please fill out the student survey
on the next page and give it to the course assistant. It provides the instructor with
important information on your background and motivation.” This immediately indicates
an important difference between Peters and McNair. McNair sought out information

from his students on something besides knowledge of course material.

99

 

 

 

T"!

'.‘ r')
m.u~hs\

D .

v. m ‘ .‘.
‘ .
.‘..... we:
I
~I‘.‘fl‘n‘

- .14 '

=....... a "1'
...-. - . a...“

.,, ‘
.3" .
...._,,\ \

L it \fit‘
it TIL“ til.

I. ‘1 .
F: ' fax “
-hk.u_ IL P}

The first class also included the reading of an article from the journal Science
about a recombinant antigen that shows promise for the production of oral immunizations
from potato plants (Haq, Mason, Clements, & Arntzen, 1995). Again, an immediate
important difference between Peters and McNair: Peters briefly described several
important scientific breakthroughs related to the field and their applications. McNair had
students spend time focused on a single one of these breakthroughs. This occurred again
in the second class. This difference may be due in part to the nature of the content taught
and the text used. However both texts made clear attempts to convey the ecological and
health relevance of the content.

The second class session was the first I observed. It was also the first in the ITV
classroom. When I walked in five minutes before 8:00 a.m., Chet Atkins’s finger style
guitar version of Borsalino (Atkins, 1997) was playing gently over the classroom’s high
quality sound system. Acoustic music such as this was regularly played both in the ITV
classroom and over the campus cable prior to the start of class. For me, the music
coupled with the nicer (and smaller) classroom set a more relaxed tone for the start of
class than in 331 l 1.32

Students were scattered about the small auditorium and several were reading The
Midwestern News, the campus newspaper. When class began five minutes later, perhaps
two thirds of the 90 seats were occupied. The music faded and newspapers were folded
and put away as Dr. McNair stepped up to the podium and began to speak.

Other than being slightly older, students did not appear categorically different

from those in B81 1 1. Again, most wore shorts, some wore baseball caps, and a few

 

’2 This, of course, is an individual preference. The music being played was a CD I had recently purchased.
It seems unlikely that most students would recognize this music.

100

. , ,
,.
All: evens}.

:0 5‘44!

ijj} frOm [

“bill I '9
we lied

appeared unkempt. While there was no one with magenta hair in this class, the
appearance of the students looked to be a typical cross-section of college students in
1998. The same description, as is no real surprise, also applies to the students in both of
the education classes.

Class began with the sharing of the phone number for the studio — after some
confusion the number was shown on the bottom of the television monitors that showed
the broadcast version of class. Students were encouraged to phone in questions from
home. Dr. McNair made a joke about his call-in program. Class then focused on the
reading assigned for the previous day, the Science article described briefly above.
Lecture moved to a specific diarrhea-causing pathogen and the science behind it.

In talking about the antigens, McNair asked, “What is the control in this
experiment?” He waits several seconds before answering his own question. A few
minutes later, I heard for the first time a student comment directed to an instructor. It
was “Your notes are off the screen.” McNair apologized and fixed the problem, only to
have it recur in a matter of minutes, when he moved onto the next diagram. See Figure
3.7. When he wrote off screen this time, the comments were more general and no one
asked him to bring the notes back on screen.

The lecture topic then moved to the reading for this class — an article by Jane
Brody from the New York Times (Brody, 1990). As the transition took place, the camera
remained on the class; as Dr. McNair moved onto the next topic, the camera came back to
him and remained focused on him for the remaining twenty minutes of class.

This next article described a program to identify mothers and potential mothers

who were treated as infants for phenylketonuria (PKU), an inherited metabolic disorder.

101

R

{Em

' PM
’ hm

. Flu

f.\
, lure 3.

 

BCH- ‘to 1
J. McNair

50nd— Egue icimu blah-qnuv-l Jur- h. “an. Eula.) ‘Fku ctr-4424.:
CW 9H1...“ P 6%)

 

 

 

 

but rick m+

Cm. “MW‘

a 00-14 $-
“2.: p. a" W‘Afl kaT C F)
‘ -;I I i
T‘A o,’¢\
BCCPLP) 0" .‘
41qu$: “‘. (Ur-‘wvg drum; Tue . ° ' . . £514..
93": 3:237; '6‘th - Pk“ “Mm“‘lh‘v'mw‘:
. - ' 0
00¢»- carlmfi- 4‘“) OMB ‘ . . . _ .
i
n a
¢.c'u$w3-n g N 'mc‘cnn'n Pique.“
Phcdael-a-Fc | 7' N
N- C"
Lmausu‘ odor) ”1‘ ‘ 00 PA win“:
all \0 __ gPinCPhfi-B‘C
ngfiefimphfiflt

0 ”~va rlfl— House is at monomr- .9 sq the («APR amino nail.)

Pit-U 'lt fiaouullt‘ 4— FWD-kipiullu' W7M¢ms
Pkg/hf“ ‘IOOé Pfic ““4 ‘U h" M " kH- Ar W’qvok
(Zav «indie-e net-ml)

O PHVQM‘Q to“: M’i'10‘l—N O.og_

0 31¢ Pm‘fi ’

 

 

‘00 e
0 PCR
‘50 _..._.
z. ‘. I. 3‘. J.
- 91¢ “1““)

 

Figure 3.7 Notes from the BCH401 course-pack describing the biochemistry behind
issues described in a New York Times article on PKU (Brody, 1990).

 

 

 

102

 

 

' ..‘I‘hfi'v 9

m, .

' I
0 O I
.
751.0. :k

'- ,
I; "V
‘* wm.‘ j

“ Went

i .

I it.
£3319" > ‘

‘uAdlllJ

Dr llt‘Ndjr

-
.

9""; x
04.153 [ill]:

7‘:
Witt/t.

As children, a simple heel-prick test diagnosed these women as having PKU and they
were placed on protein restricted diets that prevented mental retardation. In late
childhood, most of these women went off their special diets. As potential mothers,
doctors believe they should be back on these special diets to prevent their children from
suffering from problems related to their unusual metabolisms.

Dr. McNair described the biochemistry of PKU using his prepared notes that were
part of the course-pack. These are shown on the monitors, but are not legible unless you
are following along with the course-pack. This particular set of notes, reproduced in
Figure 3.7, consists of hand-written notes with diagrams and a graph, all hand-drawn.
Notes for later lectures typically included photocopies of diagrams from the text or other
sources as well as hand—drawn diagrams.

McNair notes that students need to memorize the structure and the codes shown in
the notes. At 8:50 a.m., McNair said, “I’m going to quit there and finish up tomorrow.”
Chet Atkins comes over the speakers and the classroom/studio rapidly empties except a
few students who linger and ask a question or two.

I walked down to talk with Dr. McN air and overheard part of one of these
conversations. A student was asking about what was necessary to succeed in the class.
Dr. McNair responded that a typical student should plan to spend 15 to 20 hours outside

of class time to do well in the class.

The BCH401 syllabus
The syllabus is included in the course-pack. The course-pack includes a cover

page with the cost ($19.64), the course number (but not course name) and the instructor’s

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BCH401 Lecture and Test Schedule, Fall 1998
Lecturer: James H. McNair, Assistant: Wong, Yanping
Date my Topics
31 Aug Mon Introduction; Science article on recombinant antigen
1 Sep Tue NY Times article on PKU
3 Thu Basic concepts of biochemistry and molecular biology
4 Fri Amino acids
7 Mon Labor Day Holiday
8 Tue 3 inborn errors of amino acid metabolism
10 Thu TEST 1 (70 points) True-False and Multiple Choice
11 Fri Protein structure
14 Mon Hemoglobin; biosynthesis of heme
15 Tue Hemoglobin structure, function and malfunction
17 Thu Enzymes: LDH; reaction coupling; hydrogen shuffles
18 Fri Enzyme nomenclature and kinetics
21 Mon Allosteric control of enzymes; equilibria
22 Tue Enzyme thermodynamics
24 Thu TEST 2 (100 points) True-False and Multiple Choice
25 Fri Carbohydrate absorption
28 Mon Glycolysis and gluconeogenesis
29 Tue Mitochondrial origin, structure and functions; FAQ
1 Oct Thu Citric cycle; ATP yields of FAO, glycolysis
2 Fri Ketone bodies; fatty acid synthesis; its regualtion
5 Mon Fatty acid nomenclature and origins; eicosanoids
2 [sic] Tue Triglycerides and derivative lipids
8 Thu TEST 3 (100 points) True-False and Multiple Choice
9 Fri Cholesterol biosynthesis and derivatives
12 Mon Bile acids and bile
13 Tue Plasma lipoproteins
15 Thu Plasma lipoproteins
16 Fri Steroids
19 Mon Steroids
20 Tue Steroids
22 Thu TEST 4 (100 points) True-False and Multiple Choice
23 Fri Urea cycle; related amino acid metabolism
26 Mon Creatine; ketogenic/glucogenic amino acids; SAM
27 Tue Glycogen metabolism
29 Thu Glycogen metabolism
30 Fri The hexosemonophosphate shunt
2 Nov Mon Purine biosynthesis
F igure 3.83 Lecture schedule from BCH401 syllabus.

 

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Tue Purine catabolism
5 Thu TEST 5 (100 points) True-False and Multiple Choice
6 Fri Purine salvage; clynical problems
9 Mon Pyramidine biosynthesis
10 Tue Structure of DNA
12 Thu DNA replication
13 Fri DNA mutation and repair
16 Mon Gene rearrangements
17 Tue Gene rearrangements
19 Thu TEST 6 (100 points) True-False and Multiple Choice
20 Fri Gene rearrangements
23 Mon Transcription
24 Tue Transcription
26 Thu Thanksgiving
27 Fri Holiday
30 Mon Transcription
1 Dec Tue Transcription
3 Thu Transcription
4 Fri Translation
7 Mon Translation
8 Tue Translation
10 Thu TEST 7 (130 points) True-False and Multiple Choice
11 Fri To be announced
18 Fri 7:45 — 9:45 am FINAL CUMULATIVE EXAM - TRUE-FALSE

AND MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

 

 

Figure 3.8a Lecture schedule from BCH401 syllabus (continued).

 

name. The first page is a title page that repeats the information from the cover page and

adds the course assistant’s name. After the publication permissions’ page is the course

schedule, reproduced in Figure 3.8a.

Further select excerpts from the syllabus are included in Figure 3.8b. The next

section of this chapter includes a description of the textbook taken from the syllabus. The

grade expectations outlined in the syllabus for BCH401 are quite similar to those in

BS] 1 1, so similar that it was not necessary to reproduce them. In BS 1 1 1, an 83% is a

4.0; in BCH401 an 85% is required. The remainder of the scale varies by about the same

amount between the two courses.

105

 

' ‘fin'

\
.-¢v§A.-

u., 'h ‘
tv‘ '

A.I edibll

Lily“... .,
‘- . -\ L.)

. . 1 - ‘
. I'
““~ s‘.:..l

7gp! ‘.
«‘15), St

.1. ‘
"ME .A‘ \I

DON

n;;,

Q .‘~,’

- . I

1 u. 1‘.
‘ 5

it

h.
1.

‘5‘" .
“1&4? f

Y3“ .‘llttgj

.
‘-
3‘“. ‘

t' _
“N11 \r‘dr

The course grade is based exclusively on exam grades, as in BS1 11. However,
students may replace their average grade with the final exam grade if the final exam
grade is higher. The exact text explaining this policy is reproduced in Figure 3.8b. The
syllabus also describes that students would be given answer keys to the exam in exchange
for their Scantron answer sheets when they leave the exam. This, along with a paragraph
about cheating, and “even the appearance of cheating,” are the only points in the syllabus
that convey a negative tone. The paragraph closes with “Both/all parties will receive
zeroes, so keep completely to yourself.” So, even here where the message is strong, the
tone is still conversational rather than preachy as in the 851 11 syllabus’s lists of DOs
and DON ’Ts, perhaps as a result of more mature students, perhaps a result of different
pedagogical approaches. .

Unlike in BS111, students are allowed to make up exams. “Written (essay-type)
makeup exams will be given at the end of the semester to students who miss midterms.
You should understand, however, that the essay tests examine your knowledge in more
detail than multiple choice/true false tests, and the typical student performs more poorly
on essay tests.”

The syllabus also included information related to the taping and broadcast of the
class. The campus and local cable channels are provided with the caveat that it may be
necessary to verify channels. It is also noted that a portable phone will be available from
the course assistant in Kreher Hall, so questions may be called in from the lecture hall.

The syllabus ends with the instructions for the student survey described above.

106

 

CONTENT: This is a one-semester introductory course in biochemistry and molecular
biology. Because the material in this discipline of biology has grown with such
enormous rapidity, it has become impossible to address every topic that used to be
covered in such a course. Therefore the instructor has consciously omitted many topics
and abbreviated others, in order to concentrate on fundamentals of protein, carbohydrate,
lipid and nucleic acid metabolism. For example, vitamins despite their importance in
metabolism are mentioned only when a vitamin-derived compound participates in a
reaction included in a lecture. Students are encouraged to read the textbook on their own
to satisfy their curiosity about many topics not raised in lectures. However, students
should also be aware that a number of lecture topics are not treated in detail, if at all, in
the text.

IESTS; As you can see from the lecture schedule above, there are 7 semi- weekly
tests and a cumulative final exam. WEE:
Hall, which rs large enough to allow alternate seating of students”

.. The cumulative final exam is intended to allow any student to improve her/his
grade: if you score a 4.0 on the final, you will receive a 4.0 for the course. However, if
you do better in the course than on the final, you will receive the better of the two grades.
While this may sound a little like blackjack, it is designed to sustain your motivation,
even when things look bleak! Students learn subjects at different speeds. Some who
learn rapidly remember very little in the end, while some who learn more slowly retain a
great deal and understand more. If you are inclined to gamble, you can in theory skip all
the semi-weekly tests and just take the final. For the average student, however, this is a
formula for disaster.

U ION are included at the end of every unit in the course-pack.
There are no required recitations for the course, and no take-home problem sets. At the

back of the course-pack you will find keyed copies of Spring 1998 tests.

MISTALES IN LECTURES QR QN EXAMS: If you feel the instructor has made a
mistake in lecture, please call it to his attention. Correction will be made during a
subsequent lecture. Grade changes will be made if the instructor's mistake on an exam
warrants.

OFFICE HOURS (HELP SESSIONS): These will be held in room 114 Biochemistry
Building from 3:00-5:00 pm Monday and Tuesday. There will also be E-mail office

hours at any time you log on; the instructor will try to respond with 24 hours of receiving
you questions EXCEPT on Wednesday 8 preceding Thursday midterm exams, when he
will not respond. The Email address is McNair401@----. If you have obviously skipped
a lecture or not done your homework before asking for help, he will tell you so and direct
you back to the videotape. With over two hundred students asking Email questions, time
is precious. You may also arrange office hours with the course assistant at mutual
convenience.

 

 

Lliigure 3.8b: Excerpts from the BCH401 Basic Biochemistry Syllabus.

 

 

107

 
 

L13

9.; H 7'
mt N.

.i-gI‘H‘

I‘»

I'm ,. W
uh‘ I?“
".

\v .

The BCH401 Text and Course-pack

Biochemistry 4‘h Edition by Lubert Stryer, published by W. H. Freeman. (Stryer, 1995)
The text is described in the syllabus as follows:

“TEXT: While there are texts with better illustrations and more
information, Stryer does a good job of focusing on basics, while keeping
up with the important changes which drive thinking and research in the
field. There are no formally assigned readings, but it would be prudent for
you to read corresponding material in the text. You usually can find it
either by using the table of contents or the index. Most of the figures and
tables in the course pack are copied directly from Stryer, although other
sources are also used.”

 

Clearly, BCH401 is less textbook-driven than 851 1 1. This is clear not only from
the way the text is described here, but also from the course schedule’s lack of explicit
references to the text. This approach is more in line with reforms suggested by the
TIMSS Reports that suggest textbooks drive the curriculum too much in American K-12
science education and that they should instead be used more as reference books than as
curriculum.

The course-pack is 268 pages, beginning with a sheet of reproduction permissions
for diagrams from texts and articles as well as the two articles used in class during the
first week. This sheet is followed by the course syllabus described above, the student
survey shown in Figure 3.6 and then by the two articles used in the first week of classes.
The remainder of the course pack is a collection of notes to be filled in during lecture and
study, practice questions for most chapters or other readings and for lectures. The
course-pack ends with all seven midterm exams and the final exam from the previous

spring. The exams make up the last 50 pages of the course-pack.

108

ll .2

"Lg-h:

\{,;:“i

.n v
.Ci'wi

K.“
K

‘1.
arm ‘

The set of practice questions for “Inborn Errors of Amino Acid Metabolism,
Protein Structure and Post-translations Modification etc” is shown in Figure 3.9. This is
the set of study questions for the class focused on in the description of a typical day

below. There were study questions for each set of daily notes in the coursepack.

A typical day in BCH401

Class often began informally with McN air talking about the weather or other
pleasantries. When it was nice, he talked some about his garden. This typically took but
a minute and he would then delve into the content for the day.

It was not unusual for him to speak some of the history of our understanding and
how conceptions in biochemistry had changed. He noted that when he came to
Midwestern University, introns had not yet been discovered and that all enzymes were
believed to be proteins. It is now known, he said, “Believe it or not, some of them are
RNA.”

The coursepack contained no further articles from the popular press beyond the
Brody article used in the first week (Brody, 1990)”, so here too the explicit connections
to the world outside of class diminished (but only slightly). One example of a connection
was when McNair made explicit connections to Parkinson’s Disease and mental
retardation while describing inborn errors of metabolism and revisiting PKU. That day,
September 11, was particularly interesting. For one thing, much of the class addressed

urine. Something we all know at least a little about.

 

3“ In fact, there were no further articles in the coursepack at all.

109

 

/.'I:C3”7'7m(jmwy

:7
{—5
2
(a)

 

BCH401
J McN

Practice Questions on Inbom Errors of Amino Acid Metabolism, Protein Structure and
Post-translations Modification etc [sic]

Draw and map the metabolic pathway of the first 4 compounds in normal human
phenylalanine metabolism. On your map, indicate the basis for PKU and alcaptonuria.

Draw the structures and map the pathway involved in normal banched-chain [sic]
amino metabolism. On your map, indicate the basis for maply [sic] syrup urine disorder.

Write the reaction for a typical transanimation. Draw the structures of Vitamin B6 and
pyridoxal phosphate.

Identify and explain the principal characteristics of the peptide bond.
Draw the peptide SEKDEL.

Write the codons for the start and finish of eukaryotic transcription.
Draw the following post—translational protein modifications.

A. proline 4-hydroxylation, lysine 8-hydroxylation
B. glutamate y—carboxylation

C. Serine, threonine and tyrosine O-phosphorylation
D. (asparagine) N-linked glycosylation

E. lysine/lysinal cross-linking

F. lysine oxidative deamination

G. (It-amine or cys-SH fatty acylation

H. serine or threonine O-glycosylation

 

 

LF_igure 3.9: Practice Questions for the BCH401 class described below.

Early in class, I noted that the girl sitting next to me was fighting sleep with
frequent severe head-bobs. This kind of behavior was common. When I remembered to
look for it, I could virtually always find someone asleep in either BCH401 or B81 1 l. I
also noticed that she still had the “L” sticker on her shirt, indicating that she had recently

purchased the size-large shirt. I suspected a hangover.

110

 

1
- ‘u‘ 3"
Jug. uh}

'3‘}
at»).

b}

?_b
(b

"n . v, in
“Us.

:SWSJ 1

P'.\_.
NZLHI‘

‘I

"1

‘uk\‘l\}l

I 4- it:
P 9'

Ll he n‘
Elisa

uL

in

At 8: 12 came the first question (according to McNair) in two weeks. He was very
pleased to be asked and reminded folks at home to call in (this never happened during my
observations). The question was, “What does that say?” He was using a Sharpie-type
marker that was losing sharpness. Much of what was written that day was very hard to
read.

When describing alcaptonuria, a very rare hereditary disorder that is characterized
by the excretion of large volumes of dark colored urine, he was asked a more substantive
question that sought an explanation about a statement just made related to blockage in
alcaptonuria. The student said, “You’re saying it causes a blockage. A blockage of
what?” McNair responded, “A metabolic pathway is not completed because of a
deficiency of the enzyme homogentisic acid oxidase; therefore, the further metabolism of
homogentisic acid is prevented. Perhaps blockage isn’t quite the right wor .”

It is interesting to note that this question, which actually sought explanation,
passed without comment whereas the question about an illegible word received
encouragement. Of course, that encouragement may have served as a catalyst for this
question.

When McNair flipped the page he found that his pen had bled through so he said
“I’ll need to talk you through the next page of notes.” Then he redrew some of what was
in the notes — a chemical structure associated with Maple Syrup Urine Disorder. This
genetic problem produces “cc keto acid DH (speaking as he wrote), which makes the
urine smell and taste sweet, like maple syrup.”

McN air continued writing notes mostly in the form of chemical structures. He

broke into song as he drew on the overhead the hexapeptide MYPAIN. He sang (to no

111

:2: I re.

g~ gr xx
\u...»..\»

. 3‘.“ 9
MY..." .\
h

‘0... \"".1‘
.husag, \

" \r .
i .
A“: UK A

...A
.. ,3.“
my \‘u
.,.__
“\

tune I recognize), “My pain is your pain,” and talked about a colleague who sang the
sequence. I think, for the viewers at home, this redefined edutainment.

As he wrote with the not-so-sharpie, his diagram contained much that was
illegible. No one commented on this, perhaps because they could read chemical
structures better than I, but I suspect that did not address the entire audience in the lecture
hall or watching from home. Of course, many were not watching in real time, so they
could not ask questions. I drew about a third of the molecule before giving up because I
could not read enough of his writing to hope to be able to translate this when I got back
home and had time to pour over the notes. The coursepack page with my notes on
MYPAIN is shown as Figure 3.10.

Much of the class was far over my head, but I saw him connecting applications of
the science he was teaching. Observations in BCH401 became more difficult for me as
the semester progressed since much of the language was foreign to me. The following
was said as part of the same lecture described above, and it reflects common terminology
used in the class: “Hyperalinemia. High levels of valine. It doesn’t even transaminate.”

McNair said, “That’s the end of the amino acid disorder discussion.” He asked a
few questions that he waited a few seconds for answers and answered himself. He told
the students to “anticipate confusion” as they worked on the study questions. He then

drew a pair of cystines in a disulfide linkage, quickly said a bit about that and moved on.

112

Dru.

IL .\C
2x .. .1”
\n. .l.. \HH.

E

e:
is...”
t

V

 

 

” 1., efie
k Sqwei 0.36” i
1 In“

 

Draw 4;}:2, hexapzp4-toK-c M 7 PA I N 2.13;?

  

.,
,1 5k ‘X
y}: \ /“ ,. 91cc.
at If L Nu W53 " (”do

I 65" ‘
u; 9:3;
03‘s ,

 

Draw a. dual-€444. bowl OV‘J‘ 44¢ dipCp—i-«Af CC .‘
15:/‘9 .{t

0 I
t
‘ .V. T . ,
.t. ~

 

 

Figure 3.10: One of five pages of notes from the BCH401 course-pack for 9/1 1198.
This includes the notes that I wrote in the coursepack during class. I took notes both in
the coursepack and in my own notebook. Notes in my notebook were field notes, as were
some of the notes above. While the notes are somewhat difficult to read, they show the
nature of the coursepack.

 

113

 

#133. ‘
mU'Lul

L ,1
'7’ J
r—r—v

14" ~
“dull:

I was somewhat relieved when at the end of that class of September 11, McNair
moved on to a table in the coursepack reproduced from the text (Stryer, 1995). The table
was labeled “The genetic code,” and McNair walked the class through the algorithm to
write peptide sequences. Algorithms I can follow and I actually was able to crank
through the example ahead of him. I had no idea what it meant, however.

He closed class by saying, “Time to go back to bed!”

The frustration I felt in getting a handle on what was going on was shared by at
least some of the students. In the spring semester when I dropped in on Andy Frank’s
section of TE402 to talk to students about interviews, two of the students who were
taking BCH401 along with TE402 came in and asked ifI was still looking for people to
interview. They were clearly frustrated. They had taken a test that morning and were
dismayed about the material they had been expected to memorize. One of the two
women took out her BCH coursepack and said, “Look at what we’re expected to know!”
She almost violently flipped through page after page of molecular structures, saying that
they all had to be memorized. Her fist pounded the table with each page. Her colleague
made the point that she would never need this material again for the rest of her life, and if
she did, she could look it up!

Over the course of the semester, I went to the lecture hall in Kreher once for
lecture (on the big screen) and once for an examination. By the time class had started,
there were eleven in the room besides me. One was the TA. They watched campus
information scroll down the screen before the lecture began as acoustic music (again,
Chet Atkins) played over the sound system. A drop in attendance was evident in the

studio classroom in the first week as students tuned into class in other ways, watching

114

’ l
e'r on: |
MIT! 1:0.

shit?! .

Anew:

3'4!“
I‘~hl-5. ]
b

I 5!,1~~

:ul\,;c
by; . “
JQCIU
\

ig'ngS

, " "1:.
“‘Hhéxl

from home or watching the tapes in the library. This visit was early in the term, and I

suspect attendance dropped here too.

Assessments in BCH401

Tests took place in C 108 Kreher every two weeks. They were objective tests
(again, much to Dr. McNair’s dismay) and almost exclusively true-false. He would have
preferred asking the kinds of questions in the study question sets on the exams. Both of
these forms of assessment required considerable memorization for the student to be
successful as is common for biochemistry classes. As the term progressed the tests
included more molecular structure.

The syllabus has the following information related to tests:

“1 ESTS: As you can see from the lecture schedule above, there are
7 semi-weekly [sic, the tests were biweekly] tests and a cumulative final
exam Wm which 18
large enough to allow alternate seating of students. The total possible
points on the semi-weekly tests are 700. If you score 595/700 (85%) you
are guaranteed a 4.0 in the course. 525 points (75%) guarantee you a 3.0,
and 455 points (65%) a 2.0. The cumulative final exam is intended to
allow any student to improve her/his grade: if you score a 4.0 on the final,
you will receive a 4.0 for the course. However, if you do better in the
course than on the final, you will receive the better of the two grades.
While this may sound a little like blackjack, it is designed to sustain you
motivation, even when things look bleak! Students learn subjects at
different speeds. Some who learn rapidly remember very little in the end,
while some who learn slowly retain a great deal and understand more. If
you are inclined to gamble, you can in theory skip all the semi-weekly
tests and just take the final. For the average student, however, this is a
formula for disaster.”

It is worth noting that neither of the science classes I observed curve exam grades.
Again, answer keys are exchanged for completed computerized answer sheets as

students exit each exam.

115

n3 ~_-,
L—Q¥\
1 b

If “1

W122!

 

Each exam began with a structural description of the exam itself: “There are four
pages and 56 question on this exam: 52 of the questions are worth 1 point and four others
are worth more: Question 12 (3 points), 24 (5 points), 41 (5 points). The total possible

points is 70.” Some sample items are shown in Figure 3.11

 

In the ELISA test employed by Haq et al [1995] to quantify antigen production by plants,
(TRUE = l, FALSE = 2)

8. the antigen was LT-B (T)

9. the first antibody was raised by injecting mice with LT-B (T)

10. The second (enzyme-linked) antibody was anti-LTB (F)

11. The antigen was trapped (immobilized) by excess ganglioside (T)

12. (3 points, TRUE = 1, FALSE = 2) subsequent to the Haq et al [1995]
experiement, children were successfully immunized at the University of Maryland

Medical School against E coli enterotoxin LT-B by gavage with recombinant
antibodies to LT-B (F)

The structure at right is accurately
described as TRUE=1) or (FALSE=2)
31. deaminated cytosine (F) ADD DRAWING
32. methyluracil (T)
33. thymine (T)
34. found in transfer RNA but not messenger RNA (T)

 

 

Figure 3.11 Excerpts from test number one in BCH401.
Correct answers are indicated in parentheses.

 

Later tests included more elaborate molecules. An example from exam number
four is a multiple choice question with a diagramed molecule that reads: “(4 points) The
structure at the right is CD phosphatidylcholine; ® phosphatidylserine; C3)
phosphatidylethanolanfine; @ phosphatidylinositol; C5) cardiolipin” Tests tended to have
a few questions that directly addressed diseases and disorders, but the vast majority did
not explicitly have connections to common experience that would be recognized by a

layperson.

116

 

p

31);]?

«a,
...

SL‘H‘”

u 3:!

’7';
b
5' ~ h

The cumulative final exam is described in the syllabus and in the syllabus section
above. As described above, scoring a 4.0 on the cumulative final will result in a 4.0 for
the course. This option is the only way in which students with final grades of 4.0 could
differ and McNair made clear that it was fairly unlikely for a student to fail or skip

midterm examinations and earn a 4.0 on the cumulative final examination.

Summary Comments for BCH401:

Like BS1 11, Basic Biochemistry was an intensive facts-based and lecture—based
course. However it was different from 881 11 in important ways. Connections to “real
world” applications were more common. The amount of memorization required was also
greater. The role of the textbook was less than in BS1 l 1. Like B81 1 1, the course was
punctuated with humor and the instructor came across as quite likeable although perhaps
a bit eccentric.

Like in BS111, students were treated as if they were a homogeneous group. Their
most common class activity was note taking - this and breathing seemed to be the only
appropriate classroom activities. In fairness, questions were encouraged but rare. Most
students had extraordinarily limited contact with the professor, as most students did not
come to class at the same time or in the same space as the person teaching the course. In
spite of the professor’s wishes to work more closely with the students, he saw the class
size as being an insurmountable obstacle for a close working relationship with most

students and consequently the relationship hardly existed at all.

117

leach

{1M

x

a“. a“ ‘1
\h.[.

grv-‘
‘11
S1111A

inl)‘

51 a!
.1. \1‘

"1‘..."
\\.s.

1.
st.‘

r‘L‘.“
H

‘k

n...

.
I“A11

—‘
rm

Teacher Education Classes:

There were a few basic logistical differences between the science courses
observed and the education courses observed. First, both education courses had small
enrollments. TE250 had 32 students. TE401 met in subsections of about 20; the total
enrollment for the course with three instructors was near 60. As noted above, the science
classes had well over one hundred students in the smaller of the two classes. Second, the
meeting times of education classes were twice the length of the meeting times of the
science courses, though they were typically less frequent?4 While Teacher Education
classes were twice as long, the descriptions below are not twice as long as the ones
above. The nature of what happened in the two different kinds of classes was distinctly
different which led to a different kind of description. Third, in the education classes,
faculty introduced themselves using their first names and students commonly referred to
faculty by their first names. In the science classes I observed the faculty were never
referred to using any name. If students said anything loud enough for the rest of the class
to hear, it was always directed toward the professor, so names were not needed.
Consequently, I tended in my writing to use first names for education faculty and refer to
science faculty by their last name or title. This follows the practice of the seniors in their
interviews.

There were multiple sections of TE250, unlike either of the science courses.
TE401 also had multiple sections with the same course name, but each targeted different

secondary school disciplines. The elementary teacher candidates took a course of the

 

3‘ TE401 has unique structure that is explained in the section on that course. It has a science component, a
reading in the content area component and a field component in the schools. Depending on how you look
at TE401, it could be said that it met two, three or five times per week and carried six semester hours of
credit.

118

 

 

if!

I I)
.3

>

.1!

same name. Like for secondary teacher candidates, this was the first course of a four-

course sequence. For elementary majors the sequence covered all core disciplines.

Teacher Education 250: Human Diversity: Power and Opportunity in Social
Institutions

Catalog Information:
Credits: Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3
Prerequisite: none
Description: Comparative study of schools and other social institutions. Social
construction and maintenance of diversity and inequality. Political, social and
economic consequences for individuals and groups.

Schedule Information:

Maximum enrollment: 32

Number enrolled: 32

Class meeting times: 10:20 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. Tuesday & Thursday

Location: 103 Plant & Soil Science Building

Instructor: Chika Hughes
The Instructor for TE250:

Unlike all the other faculty members mentioned in this study, Chika Hughes was
not of European ancestry. She usually wore dresses with a somewhat formal look. She
exudes energy and enthusiasm. In our initial discussion about my observing her class,

she was more than willing to participate and welcomed my participation in the class as

well as my observation. She had done research in classrooms before.

119

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- window .
pillar / radiator
Overhead
$34!} V 4mg 1:») pI'OJCCtOI'
F r screen

:22:- :‘-{‘§ 15:;- 41:4:
_),. .\ $5,. : $324+! 1.:
FM" ‘ ‘z " ; .3 >2:- ii -i: 7.";‘2

 

 

 

 

Tablet /

arm desk

Figure 3.12a 103 Crop & Soil Science Building, before class. TE250.
This schematic shows the configuration of the classroom before teacher education
students entered and rearranged the room for class. The desks were returned to rows at

the end of class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

pillar

    
 
 
   

 

 

 

 

wmdow radiator

2522222

table

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

screen

 

 

 

92222

 

 

E E E EL- 5:
Tablet /

arm desk

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.12b 109 Crop & Soil Science Building, during class. TE250.

This schematic shows one common configuration of the classroom during class. Desks
were also sometimes gathered into groups of two, three, four or occasionally more. The
desks were returned to rows at the end of class.

 

 

120

Chit!

(”at

he ,

”i ii

“11'

V)

 
 

Chika’s biography on the College of Education’s webpage describes her as follows:
Chika Hughes is an assistant professor of teacher education. Her
primary research interest is the study of educational reform from a cross-
nationai perspective and its impact on the contribution of schooling--
particularly the role of teachers--to worldwide inequalities produced by
economic, political, and social development in peripheral populations. She

has written on teacher education reform and its effects on teachers,
teaching practice, and learning.

The room for TE250

The room was a small classroom in the university’s Plant & Soil Science
Building. In the hallway outside the classroom there was an emergency shower, though
the classroom was not a lab facility. The front wall of the classroom had a retractable
projection screen above blackboards that ran the length of the wall. Underneath the
blackboards, light blue Formica in a large sheet covered the concrete wall. The other
walls were concrete block painted off-white. Again, the school colors were blue and
white. See Figure 3.12.

When students entered the classroom, the 30 or so tablet arm desks were arranged
in neat rows. At the end of the class, they were returned to this state. During class, the
chairs were repositioned as needed, most often in a large circle, but sometimes in two
circles or into small groups of two, three or four. There was a single door at the front of

the room, set back slightly from the hallway.

The first week in TE250
The first session was Tuesday, September 1 at 10:20 a.m. I arrive at the Crop and
Soils Building and entered the room later than I had hoped at 10:19 a.m. The classroom

had already been arranged into a circle of desks rather than the rows that the room was

121

always in when students entered and left the classroom and Chika had already started.

She explained that students were to draw a concept map related to inequality and share

these in groups of four.

The students looked similar to those of the other classes I had seen, but perhaps
less ethnically diverse. This was the third class I had observed. The day before, I had
seen BS] 11 and first thing that morning I had seen BCH401. In this class of thirty-two,
there was only one person of color. While people of color had been a distinct minority in

the other classrooms, they numbered more than one in thirty.

Chika explained briefly about how to draw a concept map and had the students
break into groups. These would be used in the students’ introductions of themselves to
the class. Students got to work, drawing their maps and talking quietly in their small
gr OUps. I was asked to draw one as well. At 10:30 a.m., Chika notes, “There’s a form in
the syllabus that I’d like you to fill out so I can get to know you.” Students looked to the

S)lllabus and filled out the form if they had completed their concept maps.

Students completed the TE250 Background Information Form which, like in
BCH401 (see Figure 3.6) asked for some basic information, but asked for more of it and
asked for more specific information. The survey for BCH401 was a half a page long.

The Background Information Form for TE250 was two full pages.

In addition to requesting e-mail address, advisor’s name, major and courses
COmpleted in education, the form also asked, “What are you expecting to learn from this
class?” a question quite similar to that asked by McNair (see Figure 3.6). The form went
on to ask, “What does the title of the course, Human Diversity, Power and Opportunity in

SOczial Institutions suggest to you?” and several related questions. This includes

122

questions dealing with personal experience related to the course topic, i.e., “Have you
CXperienced unequal treatment in any way or form? How? When? What do you
attribute this situation to?”

The form also asked about teaching experience, availability for tutoring and if the
student had read any of the course texts. The form closed with the question, “17. Is there
anything else you would like to say about the course or any related matter?” and finally,
“Thank you for your cooperation! !”

At 10:35 a.m., about ten minutes after students had gotten to work on the tasks of
completing the concept maps and the Background Information Forms, student were asked
to. “share your concept maps -- introduce yourselves.” Desks were slid back to reform
the circle and a student was pointed to to begin. Brad began by stating his name, and
Saying that he, “. . .went initially to a school where everyone was rich and didn’t fit in and
then moved to a school where most were black and he still didn’t fit in.” Tom, who was
Sitting to Brad’s right, spoke next. He said, “I want to become a teacher so that I can give
baCk to all those who have done for me,” and said that he was math major and a history
Ininor.

This continued around the circle and in the next fifty-five minutes all thirty-two
Stl-lclents would say at least a few words about themselves, with occasional prompts,
Clinifications and guiding questions from Chika.

Students’ descriptions of themselves and their experiences with inequality varied.

IVlany didn’t mention their experiences with inequality. Many stated why they were
interested in becoming teachers. Mary introduced herself as an elementary major with a

Spanish minor and said that she loves to work with kids and hopes to teach middle school

123

Spanish. Chika talked about the value of learning language at an early age. Lisa was an
elementary major who had worked summers in the parks and recreation department in her
hometown. She talked about inequality in the application process to the teacher
education program and how she believed that certain kinds of work experiences were
valued over others in the writing of essays. She described how she, “. . .didn’t have the
luxury of working in a summer camp with little pay because I need to pay my own way.”
Chika responded by talking some about meritocracy and how, indeed, in our society,
some kinds of work, “. . .rightly or wrongly, is valued more than others. This is an issue
you will face frequently as a teacher, both in relation to yourselves and your careers and
rel ated to your students.”

Sally spoke next describing how a great social science teacher in high school had
inSpired her. She then spoke of feelings of inequality in her summer work doing road
COnstruction. She was the only “girl” on the crew and caught grief from the men. She
uSed her fingers to delineate the quotes around girl. Karl identified himself next simply
by saying, “I’m a sarcastic guy.” Chika told him and the class that now is the time when

Y 01.1 distinguish your personal and professional self.

Gaston, the lone black student said that he was a mathematics major from [a large
Inici-western city] and he had seen “lots of kids dropping out around me through high
SChool and I want to be a role model.” He also said that both his parents were teachers.

At 11:18 a.m., there were still ten students to go and Chika said that the pace

needed to pick up. Matt describes himself as a political economy major who works
construction and makes great money but doesn’t want to do that all year. He decided that

by teaching, he could still work construction in the summer and that he decided on high

124

school over elementary, “cuz I can’t stand crying.” He was not the first to explain
pragmatic reasons for teaching — Lou an English minor and theatre minor had said, “I’ll
be honest. I’m lazy. Iwant summers of .”

More commonly though, motivations for teaching (when stated) were far more
altruistic or emotional. “I love kids” was said more than once.

The last twenty minutes of class was spent distributing and discussing the
syllabus. Like in the science classes, the syllabus was reviewed section by section and
the review felt somewhat rushed. The syllabus is described in the next section.

During the class, everyone’s voice had been heard. After class was over, several
Students lingered. Unlike in the science classes students talked with each other after class
as well as with the instructor. About as many (around 10) students lingered after this
Class of 32 as had stayed in the science classes of over 100. They lingered longer than in

the science classes, but also had no class starting within ten minutes of the end of class in

the same room (as was the case for B31 1 1).

The syllabus for TE250

The syllabus was ten largely single-spaced pages, which made it the longest of the

fOur syllabi by a large margin. It opened with a Paulo Freire quote from W

W:

There is not such a thing as a neutral education process. Education either
functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the
younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about
conformity to it, or it becomes “the practice of freedom,” the means by
which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and
discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. ((Freire,

1993) p. 15)

125

What was done in a paragraph in each of the science courses studied, the course
description, is done in three single-spaced pages. The course overview described some of
the promises and politics of schools in the US, following up on the Freire quotation
above. After this brief introduction, the syllabus stated two sets of assumptions “thought
to influence the operation of American schools” that were to be explored in the course.

Those assumptions were:

a) American schools are constrained by the socio-economic and political
contexts within which they function (e.g. inequality in schools reflect
inequality in the larger society);
b) American schools are largely public institutions with some degree of
autonomy relative to other public institutions and their stakeholders (e. g.
teachers, administrators, parents, and students) have some influence over
the direction, organization, contents, and processes of schooling.
Consequently, schools have the potential for mitigating the unequal
tendencies of the larger society and for promoting social equality.
The syllabus continued on to describe how the course would “uncover the origin and
COnsequences of social differentiation in the US, and the differential effects of
educational policies and practices on students’ learning.” This investigation will be
Concurrent with critical analysis of how schools provide differing experiences and
unequal treatment of students. The course will also study ongoing attempts at decreasing
t1Tlese inequalities by “improving learning and critical thinking among teachers” and other
involved individuals.
The next section of the syllabus explained the five course themes in slightly more
than two pages. Each of the themes is stated as a question or set of questions and then the
implications of those questions are explored with connections to the required course

r eadings. For each theme, a paragraph explained the implications of the theme further

and a second paragraph, in italics, more explicitly stated the focus of study for the theme.

126

Each of those italicized paragraphs begins with “In this theme we will critically
examine...; ” “In this theme we will study... ” or “we will study...” Those themes are:

1. How does social class structure condition individuals’ educational
opportunities? How is the federal government attempting to address issues of
diversity, power and opportunity in schools?

2. What is the interaction between social class, social/cultural capital and the
school curriculum?

3. How do such individual attributes as race, language, gender, and physical
ability among others, affect the balance of power and educational Opportunity
in schools?

4. How are schools organized to deal with individual diversity and how does this
organization limit possibilities for change?

5. How can the sources of inequality in schools be challenged? What are some
alternatives to traditional schooling for a more equal society?

 

Theme 4: How are schools organized to deal with individual diversity and how does
this organization limit possibilities for change?

Schools are social institutions that by definition were created to impart common values
and knowledge to a [sic] increasingly diverse population. As waves of educational
reform have swept our schools, recurring concerns with the function and organization of
SC hools and the way they structure inequality have prevailed. A dilemma that schools
cOnfront is their need for efficiency (educating large numbers of diverse students within a
lintlited time-frame) while attempting to address the needs of diverse students. The
PVolution of the one-room schools into larger and complex institutions was modeled after
lIlClustrial models. The organization of the modern school divided students artificially by
grades and other characteristics and exposed them to a pre-designed curriculum expected
‘0 address their learning needs. Educational researchers argue that classifying students in
this manner is detrimental to student learning and have found that poor students end up
1‘ eceiving watered-down curriculum whereas economically better off students receive
tter education. At the same time, the complexity of the school organization added to its
hi ghly bureaucratic structure has made it difficult for families (one of the equalizing
f0l‘ces in schooling) to intervene and serve as advocates for their children’s better access
to a quality education.

In this theme we will study the impact of the organization and structure of schooling -
Such as tracking and ability grouping — on students’ learning. Using a case study, we
Will take an inside look at a school analyzing the limitations encountered by teachers and
parents when attempting to gain access to more academic school knowledge for a group
\OQinority students in the school.

fig"; 3.13 Theme 4 from the TE250 syllabus.

 

127

 

The full text for Theme 4 is shown in Figure 3.13 as an example of how this is
laid for each theme in the syllabus. Theme 4 was chosen because it links to themes
within this dissertation.

The next section of the syllabus was entitled, “Course Expectations and
Requirements,” and began with the listing of required readings (see the following section

on course texts). In addition to listing the texts, eight guiding questions to consider while
reading are included. The questions include “What does this reading have to do with
particular aspects of diversity, power, opportunity, inequality, and/or schools,” and “How
does the argument relate to other material you have read or to your own experience in
SC hool?”

The next subheading in this section was class participation. The syllabus states:

“Attendance is expected at all sessions. You should read the material

before hand and be prepared to discuss it intelligently and analytically...

The success of this class depends on active pggicipaticg. Group work and

whole class discussion will be a key part of this course. Three missed

classes is the strict maximum. If you miss more than three classes you

will be asked to talk with the class coordinator or with the department

chairperson.”

For this section the class coordinator and class instructor are one in the same. Dr.
HUghes was the faculty member in charge of all sections of TE250. There were 8
Seetions which each enrolled approximately 30 students. Graduate students under the
tutelage of Chika taught most sections of the class. The language on attendance was
coInmon to syllabi for all sections of the class though there was freedom in syllabus and

Conrse design in general. All sections also included an emphasis on “W
W,” which was “a minimum requirement for satisfactory completion for

this course.” Students who knew they had writing difficulties were instructed to see the

128

"T

instructor to arrange assistance. Written work that reflected inadequate writing skill was

to be returned without a grade.

memes; You are expected to turn in a typed-one-page memo to me every week. The memo is
meant to be reflective of the material you are reading. The memo should state an idea, question or
proposition that occurred to you at the time of doing the readings for the week (you can use the questions
stated above as you read and write your memo). In addition to stating an ideal question you should discuss
the need for raising the question or the relevance of the idea or proposition subject of your memo. You will
need to briefly discuss the readings and how the reading material informs your question / idea or
proposition. As you write your memo please be careful to reference the readings clearly so I can look up
the specific section of the reading object of your memo if needed. The memo should include reflections

an d / or a critical reaction for the readings of the week in which the memo is due (so weekends are a good
time to get the readings done and write the memo!). Memos should not be longer than ONE-TYPED page
and should be turned in every Tuesday before the beginning of the class. You should bring two copies of
your memo so that you can keep one of the copies for discussion in class. I will not accept late memos. If
you do not turn in your memo before the beginning of class on Tuesdays your grade for that week will be a
zero. I will not accept memos after the class has begun on Tuesday has began, my reason is that I do not
Want any of you to miss class on Tuesdays because you are late typing your memo. In total a number of 11
me mos should be turned in with the first memo due on Tuesday 9/8 and the last due Tuesday 12/1 (memos
are due 9/8, 9/15, 9/22, 9/29, 10/6, 10/13, 10/27, 11/3, 11/10, 11/17, and 12/1). The only Tuesdays that will
nOt require a memo will be Tuesday 10/20 and 1218 which are the weeks the mid-term and final paper are

due, and on Tuesday 11/24 Thanksgiving week.

W5: You are asked to form a team and prepare a presentation for the whole class. The

tea ms should be larger than 4 and will be formed the first day of class after we introduce each other. You
Should then choose a theme that interest you and within the them a sub-theme and the day your team would
like to present. I will provide guidelines for a lesson plan as a way to organize your presentation. The team
and I will meet one week before the presentation so I can give you support as you prepare to appear before

the group.

S—Quiceleaming: Every time I teach this class, students ask if there are opportunities available to them to
Work with children. This semester we have that opportunity. Students in this class are strongly encouraged
‘0 involve themselves in a service learning activity in West Jahunga Public Schools tutoring or mentoring
stllclents one-on-one two days per week in the late afternoon after school. Students who have time or work
restrictions are encouraged to find alternative service activities later in the day or on weekends. If you feel
‘t i s not possible for you to do service learning, or that you are already involved in a service learning
a?tivity please come and talk to me after class. Attendance to service learning activities will, in addition to
glvc you important insights into how different children learn, count toward your grade. Insights from your

experiences should be reported in your weekly memos.

- ' : The mid-term and final papers’ purpose is to help you integrate the readings,

films, cases, discussions and other class experiences in a coherent and useful manner.

W: I will ask you to select and respond to a question I will provide to you two weeks

before the paper is due. Your answer to this question should be type-written in a minimum of 5 double
§Daced pages and a maximum of 7. I will not read papers that are longer than 7 pages. The mid-term paper

w! Tuesday 10/20 before class begins.
Figure 3.14 Course assignment descriptions and requirements from the TE250

S llabus.

 

129

 

   

v! rill

 

EQLLheflnalpamr you will have a choice. You can, as in the mid— term, answer to [sic] a question provided
by me Q: write a paper on a topic of your choice related to the themes 1n the course. The final paper should

be W. The question will be distributed two
weeks before the paper is due. If you decide to write on a topic of your choice I need to receive from you a
brief proposal with the title topic of the paper and a paragraph stating the reason why this is an important
issue to address (please write you [sic] name and phone number on the proposal page). The last class
session 12110 will be devoted to an [sic] informal oral presentations of papers. The final paper is due
Thursday 12/10 before class begins. Please bring two copies — one for me and the other for your

presentation and to keep.

Note: All written work must be prepared solely by you this semester for exclusive submission to this
co urse. With the rare exception of a formal medical excuse or serious mitigating circumstances, no

Incomplete grades will be given.

Weekly memos 30%
Team presentations 15%
15%

Service learning
M id-Tenn Paper 20%

Final Paper 20%
Figure 3.14 Course assignment descriptions and requirements from the TE250

8! llabus (continued).

 

 

The section goes on to describe the course assignments. This text is included in
its entirety in Figure 3.14.

As in the science syllabi, there are stern words related to class expectations.
There was no provision for late papers here similar to the prohibition against make-up
e)‘lams in BS111. Supportive language is used here as well as the firm rules, particularly
as related to the presentations.

The course schedule was four pages in the syllabus. The topic, the reading(s) and
frequently, the principal activity, described each day’s class. Videos were listed for
SCVen of the thirty class sessions. These videos included a variety of genres from videos
of lectures given by authors of readings for the course, to a segment from the PBS series,

Eyes on the Prize to the film Stand and Deliver.

The schedule for addressing Theme 4 is shown in Figure 3.15.

130

 

Theme 4: How are schools organized to deal with individual diversity and how does
this organization limit / facilitate possibilities for change?

Thursday, 10/29: Tracking and ability grouping in schools
Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, part 1: The policy and practice
of curriculum inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 12-17.
Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, part 2: Curriculum inequality
and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 148-154.
Education Letter (1987). Organizing classes by ability.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

 

Debate: For and against tracking

Tuesday, 11/3 Parental involvement in schools

Edwards. P. & Garcia, GE. (1991). Parental involvement in
mainstream schools: An issue of equity, in Foster, M. (Ed.)
Readings on equal education. NY: AMS Press

[Hughes] (1998)

 

 

Fi re 3.15: The course schedule for Theme 4 from the TE250 syllabus.

 

 

The TE250 texts
This course required four books, three booklets and a substantial course-pack.
The four books are:

Freedman, S.G. (1990). Small victories: the real world of a teacher, her students
and their high school. New York: Haprer & Row

Kotlowitz, A. (1991). There are no children here: The story of two boys growing
up in the other America. New York: Anchor Books.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston: Beacon Press

Orenstein, P. (1994) Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence
gap. New York: Anchor Books.

The three booklets were all publications of the National Center for Education Statistics, a
unit of the US. Department of Education’s Office of Education Research and
Improvement. Those booklets are: The pecket ccnditicn of education; the mini-digest of
W; and Wm.

131

None of the course texts were textbooks laid out in units with questions at the end
of the chapter as was the case in the two science classes. The course-pack consisted of a
collection of articles and book chapters, again substantially different from the course-
pack for BCH401, the science class that had a course-pack. BCH401’s course-pack did

include two short articles, but the bulk of it was fill-in-the-blank notes, study questions

and old exams.

A typical day in TE250

There was little obvious difference between the students in this class and those I
had seen in the two science classes. Whether in science or teacher education, some
Stu dents looked clean and fresh, a few appeared to be unkempt, some wore baseball caps
bac kwards, about half were male and about half were female, and a small percentage
Were ethnic minorities. In both settings, there were a few students who were noticeably
different (eccentric?) - i. e. magenta hair in BS11 1, and the way Joseph carried himself in
TE401 (described in more detail in both the typical day in 401 and in the next chapter).

The differences between these classes were not in whom was taking them, but what those

StIJclents did when they were in the classroom.

The typical day was not tremendously different from the first day in character.
Like on that first day, Chika was the most visible actor in the class, and most student
VoiCes were heard in class on most days I observed. Unlike in either of the science

classes, a day did not pass where some student voice was not central to the happenings in

t
he Classroom.

132

 

A few students would arrive before class began, sometimes before Chika, and
arrange the chairs in a circle. Students would filter in and fill the chairs, filling most of
the room, but absences were more conspicuous here than in science classes. If four
students were gone, it was noticeable in part because full attendance meant virtually no
empty chairs.

It was not unusual for class to begin with students making announcements about
vol unteer opportunities, followed by Chika discussing the students’ memos. They did
Show improvement over the course of the term and she would regularly ask students to

t2111c about the comments they received and sometimes ask students with better grades to

Pas 3 their papers around the circle.

Class discussion was typically grounded in the readings and sometimes connected
‘0 Videos watched in class. Videos segments I saw were fairly short — less than a half an
hOur and used as a launching point for class discussion. On one occasion I noticed
Stladents doing things not related to class during the video. One woman was reading from
a geography study guide, others were reading other things, including one student reading

the newspaper. Unlike in the science classes, I never noticed anyone sleeping.

Usually part of class time would be spent in small groups either discussion of the
r eadings or video or working on some kind of other assignment. The topics of discussion
that I saw (and participated in) were related to issues of equity in schools and to
understanding social difference. On September 17, the class activity had students split
into groups to discuss the reading, (Lareau, 1987), which described representatives from
font different socioeconomic groups. Half the class discussed Working Class in

Comparison to Middle Class and the other half of the class compared Professional

133

families to Executive Elite. The class came back together to share their small group

discussions and complete a grid on the chalkboard summarizing what was discussed.

That grid is reproduced in Figure 3.16.

While note taking was not a primary student activity in TE250, some kind of

writing was fairly common, for at least some members of each small group. This might

take the form of writing on the chalkboard or completing a prepared handout.

 

Working Class (WC) + Middle Class (MC)

 

What do they have in common?

What are the differences?

 

 

 

Role of Lost enthusiasm Catch up Explain/expand
T No analysis, restricted Family issues Rules (general)
Role of Learn for job (routine) Have to be there Some creativity -
S There just to get for fun
\ through Right answers
Role of Not curious, creative or for Survival skills Textbook
Subject discussion Basic mechanics T lecturing
\{Llatter Busywork Rote

 

 

Professional + Executive Elite

 

\
Role of

Non-restrictive structure

Executive Elite Ts seem to have more

 

 

 

 

best

 

\T Ts are guides
Role of -must have greater Ss in Executive Elite more understanding
S understanding of material of empirical
- Are given freedom to do The affluent [used interchangeably with
things differently at their own professional in discussion] were more
\ pace creative
Role of -Encourages independent EE preparing to be elite, need certain things
SUbject thought Affluent - preps $8 to be professionals
matter -prepping Ss to the best of the

 

 

\
lfifle 3.1

6 TE250 Discussion summary recorded on chalkboard.

Students would often be engaged in conversation with each other or with Chika

be fOre and after class. Students also participated in conversations during class that were

targeting the class content, diversity in American schools. The class always had a

comfortable feeling about it and my observations led me to believe that students

134

 

generally enjoyed the class. One observation that indicated that the class was enjoyed
was comfortable conversations that were the heart of the class, another was that students

tended to linger after the class was over talking with each other and with Chika.

Assessments in TE250

In describing the assessments used in TE250, I will be beginning by stating what
the assessments are not. They are not traditional tests, either objective or subjective.
They are, as described in the syllabus, all written assignments done outside of class time.
Unlike in either of the science courses, assessments are diverse, both across the semester
and across individuals. That is, one assignment looks different from the next (compare
Service learning to writing a paper to doing a team presentation). And one student’s 4.0
le‘vel course work probably looks substantially different from another’s. Papers are the
most heavily weighted assignments and other kinds of work influence the grade
Sl—lbstantially as well. This includes presentations and the service learning component of
the course. Skills relating to person-to-person interaction were intended to be assessed
here.

The written work of the students received substantial written feedback from the
pr Ofessor, and common trends in the students’ work were discussed in class when

as Signments were returned.

Summary Comments for TE250:
This course could be described as small and personal. Students came to know
each other through the activities of the class and came to know the professor as well. In

t . . .
he 80phomore level scrence course, students were encouraged to work in groups outsrde

135

 

of class. In this class, they were required to work together in class and out of class to
prepare presentations. Anonymity was not an option here. Student voices were a part of
class every day and it was not unheard of for every student in class to speak to the entire
class.
The work of the course was practically oriented and assessed in a variety of ways.

The volume of content covered seemed far less than in either of the science courses and
there seemed to be nothing to memorize. Note taking was uncommon whereas it seemed
to be the primary student activity in both science classes.

This course was largely about diversity (multiculturalism) and relationships.
Understanding diversity and what it means for the operation of classrooms (and therefore
how to navigate relationships) was central to the course. This was not only part of the

Course content, but also part of what the instructor incorporated into her teaching. In this
Class, as opposed to the science classes, the professor sought to know each individual
Stuclent — to have a relationship of a sort. She also actively fostered relationships between

Class members during class time while the science professors only verbally encouraged

the development of relationships outside of class time (study groupS)-

TeflCher Education 401: Teaching Subject Matter to Diverse Learners

Catalog Information:
Credits: Total Credits: 5 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 Lab Hours: 8

Prerequisites: Completion of Tier I writing requirement. 35 TE30l (Learners and

Learning in Context)36
Restrictions: Not open to freshmen or sophomores. Open only to students

admitted to the teacher certification program.

33\

3'5 University writing requirements are described in the appendix.
250 is a prerequisite for TE301.

 

136

Description: Examining teaching as enabling diverse learners to inquire into and
construct subject-specific meanings. Adapting subject matter to learner diversity.
Exploring multiple ways diverse learners make sense of the curriculum.

Schedule Information:
Maximum enrollment: 3537
Number enrolled: 60 (approximately 20 per subsection)
Class meeting times: 12:40 pm. — 2:30 p.m., Tuesday & Thursday; 4:20 pm. -

6:10 p.m., Wednesday s, + 4 hours/week in field

Location: 121 South Aquino Hall
Karen Jones

Instructors: For science subsections:
Larry Glanton
Andy Frank
For Content Area Literacy subsection: Peggy Schick
Amy Magin

The Instructors for TE401:

There were sections of TE401 for each of the major secondary subjects. In this
Context, science is considered one subject. Sections for other (non-core) disciplines were
tau ght in other colleges and departments; i.e., the agricultural education section was
tau ght in the College of Agriculture. The science section was subdivided into three
Sec tions because of large enrollment. The three subsections generally met separately, but
Would meet together on occasion most often when there were guest speakers (either
pr aCticing teachers or current teaching interns).

There, again, was a content area literacy subsection that met for half the
Seme ster.38 For this portion of the course, there were two instructors: Peggy Schick and
Amy Magin (both graduate students). Between the two of them, they split the science,
home economics and agriscience students into two sections for each instructor. For each
instmctor, one section met on Wednesdays from 4:30 to 6:20 pm. and the second met the

Sam . , . . . .
e time on Thursdays. Although Amy 5 section was observed three times, it w1ll not

K

nQVAS noted in Chapter 2. the enrollment exceeded the cap and a third instructor was added. The catalog
er reflected the third instructor and the change in enrollment cap.

 

137

be described in great detail here. This portion of the course was in line with the culture

of teacher education.
There were three instructors for the science portion of TE401. Karen Jones was

the faculty member who coordinated the three sections and her subsection was the focus
of my observation in TE401. Karen was a Ph.D. biochemist with a deep interest in
education. After completing her Ph.D., she enrolled in the Midwestern University’s
teacher certification program. As she worked her way toward certification, she became
more involved in the program than atypical student and ended up working for the
university in a variety of ways. By the fall of 1998, she had worked in a joint
appointment between the Colleges of Education and Natural Science for more than five
Y ears. This appointment included teaching in the teacher education program; co-teaching
With Patti Giltner, the instructor for NSC401, a course for graduate students on teaching

College science; and involvement in multiple projects that typically relied on her ability to

act as a translator between scientists and educators.

Karen wore her long brown hair in a single braid and dressed casually. Karen
WOI‘ked comfortably in both colleges. She was the daughter of a prominent scientist and
her husband was on the faculty in Physics and Astronomy. She was intimately familiar
with the culture of science and had immersed herself into the culture of education. She
had Cut her teeth working in an urban middle school as a teaching intern (after

completing her Ph.D.), as a field instructor of interns and in projects where she worked

c
011'c‘tboratively with teachers.

 

3‘*\
h the Spring, there would be a similar structure for addressing instructional technology.

138

 

 

Larry Glanton was a retired science teacher who, like his wife, worked part time
for the university. Both Larry and his wife worked in a variety of ways in the Teacher
Education Department. Larry supervised student teachers and co—taught a subsection of
401. Of the three instructors, Larry was the only one who would not follow this set of
students through the two-year course sequence. He was essentially acting as a long-term

substitute for Mike Burns, a full professor who had planned to teach the course, but had
teaching time bought out to meet the demands of various research projects. Mike would

return to teach the remaining three courses in the two-year sequence and would

occasionally visit the course during 401.

Andy Frank was a first-year graduate student who came to Midwestern State
University with ten years of experience teaching high school physics and calculus in the
Pacific Northwest. He was tall, lanky and decidedly silly. He and I shared a common

bond in that we had both taught high school physics at least in part because it was a job

that provided an excuse for playing with toys -- in front of an audience.

The rooms for TE401
The classroom for Karen’s subsection of TE401, 121 South Aquino Hall, was the

Only classroom in my study that was in a building that predated the 19605 era of rapid
Campus growth. The south wing of Aquino Hall was built early in the century3‘9 and the
classroom had the look of the old laboratory classroom that it was. It was the only

C: .
lasSroom that I observed 1n that had any real character.

3,,\

The north wing of the building was an addition during the 19605 building boom.

 

139

Of the classrooms I observed in, this room was the most cluttered by far. This
was likely due to the fact that this classroom is a home base for science education. All of
the other classrooms visited were used by a variety of instructors from a variety of
disciplines. This classroom and 110, its mirror image down the hall, were used for
classes in science education, for science teacher professional development programs and

not much else. The instructors who used these classrooms all knew each other and, with
the exception of graduate students in education, had worked together for many years.

The large demonstration table along the front of the room and the lab bench along
the side were both made of black polished slate. The floor was Formica in what seems to
be its most common shade - beige with specks of brown. The seating in this room was
around lab tables that were frequently rearranged. The lab tables had light blue-green
laminate tops that I assume replaced earlier tabletops. The legs were made of hardwood,
probably maple, and there was also an apron of hardwood below the tabletop. The apron
and the tops of the legs were covered with graffiti on every table. The tables were

Sometimes arranged in clusters of two tables, occasionally in rows and often in the

hOrseshoe arrangement shown in Figure 3.17.

Chairs were the newest furnishings in the room. They had aluminum frames and

bl‘JC plastic backs and seats. They were stackable. No chairs are shown in Figure 3.17,

though there are about 36 typically in the room. The online course schedule states the

room capacity is 36.
Again, TE401 was divided into three subsections that sometimes met together.

One of the other subsections met in a room down the hall in 110 South Aquino that was a

mirror image of 121, with a slightly different assortment of clutter. 110 is the classroom

140

for Natural Science 401 - a class mentioned by most students in their interviews that will
be very briefly described in the next section of the chapter. The third subsection of
TE401 met around the corner in North Aquino, the newer wing of the building. The
arrangement of this classroom was similar to that of 109 Crop & Soil Science, the room
used for TE250 (see Figure 3.12). The North Aquino classroom had been more recently

remodeled, however and was carpeted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demonstration Moveable
Portable table lab tables
fume ' Window AC
hood l/l radiator
File
cabinet
1
II
Ceiling [E/ overhead I [able
mounted .1
screen . I
I Al
I ll _

 

 

 

 

 
   
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

refrigerator
Shelf with,
Lab bench “MISCELLA-
°'°S¢‘ with five sinks NEOUS. NON-
open shelves HAZARDOUS
above hold ORGANIC
glassware MATERIALS"

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.17 121 South Aquino. TE401. This schematic shows one common

configuration of the classroom during class. Tables were also sometimes set up in pairs

%ilitate group work, and occasionally set up in rows.

 

‘—

 

 

There was also a separate classroom for TE401’s Content Area Literacy

S"‘lbsection. This room was in the College of Education’s building and was similar to the

141

 

other smaller classrooms. It was carpeted and furnished with new tables and chairs that

were, in each of the three of these classes I observed, arranged in a circle or large square.

The first week of TE401
By the time TE401 began at 12:40 on Tuesday afternoon of the first week of

classes, I had been to all of the courses I was to observe for the dissertation. The class
began with a very full classroom — the class had many of the 60 or so students in 121
South Aquino, a room that the schedule stated can accommodate 36. Some had already
been redirected to where they were meeting, so it was not too near double capacity.
Karen began class with a brief introduction, “I’m one of the three and a half instructors
for this course.” She went on to say a bit about what that means. Mike Burns was the
half instructor who would be there occasionally this term and then throughout the
remaining three semesters. Mike showed up at exactly 12:40 and pointed latecomers

around the comer to Larry’s classroom. These were the students he and Larry would

Share or trade off. He also pointed students to Andy’s room down the hall.

The students left behind in Karen’s room were all white and the class was about

an equal mix of men and women. A few minutes into class (during the instructor’s

Intl‘oductions) a black male came into class and found a seat.

Karen then handed out surveys (see Figure 3.18). Students got to work quietly on
the Survey and Karen took roll, reading off the names from her class list. Students also
rtlade name placards that they placed on the tables in front of them. She then introduced
her Self (again): “I’m Karen, Karen Jones and I’d like to introduce you to a few other

I3e0Dle around the room that you’ll be getting to know. Mike Burns. Mike do you want

142

 

to tell any of your stories?” Mike started about by saying, “I’m here today and gone
tomorrow,” and stated that he would not be here much this term as he had been “sold off
into indentured servitude.” He described how he would be out of the country teaching in
an area of the world recently rocked by terrorist bombings. “I need to go so
consequently, I will.” He ran through his travel schedule. He would be back for the next
term and through the next two after that. Mike talked about his experiences as a teacher,
noting, “I’ve been at this business a while, as you might tell from the wrinkles and sags in
my cheeks and all of that sort of thing. It’s a very delightful career that you’re embarking
on, it’s an exciting one, it’s a very demanding one. If you’re in it because you think it’s
easy, forget it. Just because you have those nice long summer vacations and the high pay
teachers get, umm, it’s a very challenging career... It’s a lot of fun. I wouldn’t have
missed it for the world. I look forward to working with you.”

Karen then introduced me and I described my background as a high school Earth
science and physics teacher in Upstate New York, and went on to say, “I’m sitting here
today, not as a teacher but as related to my dissertation interests.” I briefly described the
nature of my study, noting what courses that I was to be observing. Karen asked how
many are currently taking BCH401 and a student asks for clarification, if I’m just
interested in those taking the course now. Several hands go up, distinguishing those who
had already taken from those who were taking it currently. I count up the students and let

them know that they will be hearing more from me.

143

 

TE401 Secondary Science K. Jones/L. Glanton/A. Frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Local Phone

Local Address Email:
Major:
Minor:

 

 

Perm. Address

Where was you TE301 Field Placement?

School Teacher
Subject(s) Grade level(s)
Please briefly describe some of your experiences that are relevant to your future career as
a teacher.

Which school activities (if any) would you like to advise/coach as a teacher?

Did you have a good summer? What did you do?

What hobbies/interests do you have?

Do you have any concems/special needs that would be helpful for us to know as your
instructors?

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.18 The survey administered early in the first TE401 class. Spaces for
answer to questions were deleted.

 

Introduced next was Andy Corrigan, the faculty member who coordinates and
supervises the grad students teaching the content area literacy portion of the course.
Andy talked about logistical issues of where, when, and who and handed out a schedule
showing that science students would be taking the content area literacy portion of the
course starting today and be done at the midpoint of the semester. He then talked about
the conceptual issues this portion of the class would address, “The first part of the course
will deal with what you’re going to do when you get placed in a high school and you’ve
got kids in your class who can’t read or write. The next part we’ll talk about what kinds
Of things you can do about that. The last part will talk about how you can get involved in
practical ways. ...We have requirements for the course, but they are all pass/fail.” He

described, reading from the handout, that this section of the course only lasts through the

144

 

first seven weeks of the semester. He also pointed out that the technology portion of the
course for this class would be the first seven weeks of the next semester and that he
would not oversee that portion of the class. Andy said that this structure for the course,
the separate section for content area literacy, was new this year and that feedback is
strongly encouraged to make the course as valuable as possible. He asked for questions.
Two students asked logistical questions dealing with schedules that Andy answered
easily. Andy said, “I look forward to seeing you tomorrow” and moved on to another
subsection. Andy did not mention that he would not be the actual instructor for these
students.

Karen then asked, “How many of you are bio majors?” Twelve of twenty hands
went up."0 “Keep your hands up. How many of the bio majors are chem minors?
Everybody. Ok. Chem majors?” Three hands rose. “Physics or physical science?”
Three hands went up. “How about Earth science?” Two more. “Anybody else?” One
student was a math major who wanted to teach science. There was a smattering of other
minors. She asked each non-science minor what their minors were. Two were history;
two were “poli sci;” one was sociology and one was math. She told the students that they
would get a chance to work in their minors in their internships and in the next term.

Karen next instructed the students to write “The three things you really want to
learn in this class so you can feel secure going into the internship.” She repeated the
instructions and added, “Then we’ll go through the syllabus and see how it all fits
together.” She also told the students that these would be collected and the instructors

Would read through them. As the students worked, Karen walked about to touch base

\

4° The fall 1998 science education seniors had a substantial majority of biology majors. In a typical cohort,
about half would be biology, for this large (that is, all 60 students enrolled) group it was two thirds.

145

with students and to help her clarify names. Specifically she spoke to both of the sets of
duplicate first names — two Brads and two Susans. She made a visible effort to associate
names and faces. She noticeably scanned the room looking back and forth between name
placards and the faces associated with them.

Karen asked the groups to come up with lists of what they wanted to learn to
prepare themselves for the internship. Each group’s list had to have at least one
suggestion from each member of the group. “You might have duplicates. That’s fine.”

“Before you start, learn everyone’s name.” Karen elicited suggestions on
strategies for learning names and a student suggested using association. “Sure,” Karen
responded, “and then you can all put your nametags down, practice.” She then directed
them onto work and added, “You collectively are each other’s best resource.” The
volume of noise in the classroom went up considerably as the groups got to work on the
task.

I joined the group with one of the Brads, Duey (a.k.a., Duane) and Diane. Both
Diane and Duey were post baccalaureate certification candidates. We briefly introduced
ourselves and talked about ways to remember names. Because the room was louder,
much of our conversation was not audible on the tape and I did not take copious notes as
I was engaged in the conversation. However, our conversation was clearly punctuated by
laughter and some points were audible. Diane said the most important thing that she
wanted to learn was how to handle a class. As each member of the group offered
suggestions, there was also a conversation relating this to the previous courses in the

teacher education program.

146

Karen asked each group to report one thing from their lists and wrote the
suggestions on the overhead projector. This information is shown in Figure 3.19. When
she came to our group, Diane’s suggestion was read by Duey and Karen asked, “What do
you mean by ‘handle’?” Duey responded, “control, be comfortable with, practically
reach everyone.” Karen responded to each fragment with an “ok” or a “uh huh,” and
moved onto the next group. Karen made sure to hear from all of the groups at least once

in completing her list on the overhead.

 

Reach slow + gifted 83*
Control a class
Instructional technology
Levels of content
Lesson plans

Labs

Creative methods
Science ed joined w/T E
Motivate Ss

Unit planning

Interest

Efficiency

Teach for retention

PR

Practice teaching

Using textbooks

 

 

Figure 3.19 The list of topics seniors wanted to learn before the internship as
recorded by Karen on the overhead.
*Ss is an abbreviation for students.

 

What she wrote on the overhead was usually an abbreviated version of what the
student suggested and did not reflect the back and forth conversation that took place on
many points. For example, when, “teach for retention” was written on the overhead, the
conversation began with a student saying, “How do you teach students so they retain, not
just memorize?” Karen responded by saying “Oooh, hey, good one. We want to teach

for retention” [as she wrote].

147

 

Karen then transitioned into syllabus review: “There should be a pile of syllabi for
your group somewhere. Pull that out, pass ‘em around and flip to the third page to see
our schedule. Let’s see where each of these components comes up.” Students shuffled
about and found their syllabi and flip to the course schedule.

Karen proceeded into syllabus review, using the just generated list to guide her
through what would be her longest monologue of the class. Excerpts from that mini-
lecture of seven minutes are included below. In her review of the students’ list of topics,
she gave a preview focusing on this course and provided a glimpse of three following it
in the science education course sequence. She said a few sentences about each topic on
the list in the order written on the overhead, pointing students to the appropriate spot in

the syllabus as she went:

“Teaching slow and gifted students, ok, comes in the planning.
We have to plan ahead for that. In this semester, we’re going to
concentrate on lesson planning... You see in caps there, ‘lesson
planning?’ Next semester, we’re going to concentrate on unit planning,
that is, planning for bigger chunks. As you think about planning, you need
to think about who our students are. It’s not going to be the same if we
have a remedial class, if we have an honors class or if we have a generic
class. So that will come in the planning.

Controlling a class. Ok. Flip to the second part. We’re going to
spend a whole section on management, but, before that, we’re going to
think about management in terms of specific strategies. How do you
manage a lab with all that equipment out and kids are free to move
around? How do you manage... um. .. when you’re showing a video,
when kids are antsy or starting to fall asleep or whatever? We’re going to
think about management in specific strategies and overall this semester.

...The level of content. What should we teach? That’s the very
first topic we’re going to deal with. We’ll follow that with lesson
planning and then we’re going to talk about specific strategies. What are
the strategies for (pause) October 27‘h is going to be lab. We’re not going
to do labs generically. We’re going to think about labs for chemistry, labs
for biology, labs for Earth science. We’re going to try and do things very
practically.

...For practice, you’re going to get two kinds of practice in actual
teaching. By the end of September you will teach a lesson here, in this

148

class. In October, out in your field placement, and again in November you

will teach a lesson as part of your field work. Second semester, you will

get to teach three days in a row. You will have to plan for three

consecutive days. That’s the kind of practice you’re going to get.

[After textbooks, the last item on the list]... Are there any

questions about the kinds of things we’ll be doing?”

This course overview grew out of student generated requests within the
instructors designed framework. While it was the instructor speaking, it was markedly
different from long monologues in either of the science classes. It also ended with a
(non-rhetorical) question directed to the students and ample wait time to answer it.
Student did ask questions about field placements and Karen assured them that placements
would be discussed when the all three subsections came back together as a whole class,
but she also immediately addressed some aspects of the question. Other questions were
asked and addressed as well.

At 1:28 p.m., she announced that there would be a break and previewed what
would happen after the break at 1:35. Students took the break, some wandering down the
hall to the bathroom and vending machines, others lingering in the classroom chatting
amongst themselves and with Karen. At 1:35 p.m., all three TE401 instructors and sixty
students reconvened in 121South Aquino. It was standing room only in the old science
laboratory classroom with a seating capacity of 36. Students and instructors occupied not
only all the chairs in the room, but also most of the counter space and still many were left
standing. I gave up my chair to a student and found it difficult to continue my note
taking. Note taking did not appear to be a concern of the students.

Karen started back up noting that the class had not yet been all together and

therefore not everyone knew all the instructors. “We’re going to practice names. My

149

name is. ..?” Many students responded in chorus “Karen.” Karen moved toward Larry
and said, as she gestured toward Larry, “This is. . .?” Again, many students responded
with a clear, “Larry.” Karen said “Larry, Larry Glanton. His name and email address are
listed here [as she pointed to the front page of the syllabus.]” She moved on to the other
instructors and me.

Karen noted that email and phone contact information was on the front of the
syllabus and that there would be a class email listserv set up for discussion and
information sharing. She invited students to call, email or drop by on the instructors as
they try to make themselves as available as possible.

Karen reviewed information relating to the content area literacy portion of the
class that met on Wednesday or Thursday afternoons of the current semester and the
instructional technology section that would meet in the same time slot for the first half of
the next semester. The second half of the next semester would address the students’
minors.

Karen then moved onto the pieces of the syllabus not addressed in small group -
required readings, (which were not yet available in the bookstore). There were two
required books — one the state science standards and the other was AAAS’s Science for
All Americans (AAAS, 1989), an optional text on classroom management and a course
pack that was a small collection of articles (referenced in the syllabus’s schedule).

The attendance policy was reviewed next and then students were told that they
would be getting photos taken in groups of five, which would be labeled and the
instructors would post to help them learn names. As the photos were taken, students

were dismissed though many hung on and chatted with each other or the instructors.

150

The syllabus for TE401
The syllabus for TE401 was four pages long, the same length as the syllabus for
B81 11 and shorter than the other two syllabi. It was the shortest syllabus packet as it did
not include any other materials besides the syllabus. Like the others, it led with
instructors’ names, offices and contact information, meeting times and places and
required reading. The required reading is listed in the next section of this chapter. The
section on times and places included the logistics for class meetings in Aquino Hall and
the following other requirements:
Plus:
4 hours (2 x 2 hours) of arranged time at your field placement site starting in
October
2 hours Wednesday or Thursday afternoons where you will address the state’s
requirements that you understand content area literacy and instructional
technology and where you will have some opportunities to work on teaching in
your minor.
Although it does not say so in the syllabus, the Wednesday and Thursday activities are
spread across the year, not just the semester. Karen and Andy Corrigan made this clear in
the first class.

The next section of the syllabus addressed course goals. The goals are reproduced

in their entirety in Figure 3.20a.

151

 

Course Goals

Next fall you will prepare to become the primary adult in a science classroom. You will
be responsible for the well-being and learning of the students in that classroom. Our goal
for TE401 and 402 is to prepare you for those responsibilities. By the end of this school
year, we hope that you will be well-started beginners ready to learn from your
experiences and the people around you from the MSU and public school communities.
Below we outline some of what goes into becoming a well-started beginning science
teacher.

As you already know, teaching is a more complex profession than it appears to a student.
We hope that during this course you will develop your own understanding of the multiple
facets of teaching science. One way to think of the process of teaching science is to use
the framework of Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko. In this framework, and effective
teacher needs to understand: 1) the content s/he is teaching; 2) how people learn; 3) how
particular students learn particular topics; 4) curricula or ways to teach particular
topics; and 5) how to assess or follow student progress (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,
1994). We will learn how to pick out each aspect in real classrooms, and we will begin to
learn how to plan for, implement, and reflect on each aspect.

In today’s world there are many demands on science teachers. We will look at state and
national documents that describe the modern vision of what and how a science teacher
should teach. Two of these are required reading for the course.

We would like you to learn many practical things this year, such as how to give clear
directions to a group of students, how to plan and implement labs, how to make particular
topics relevant to students, how to manage students’ behavior and prevent discipline
problems. However it is impossible to learn all of the particulars of science teaching
even in the two years that we have together. Therefore we will also study some
theoretical frameworks that will help you to evaluate new ideas, reflect on your own
practice, and thus support your continued growth as a science teacher after you complete
the teacher certification program.

 

 

__F_igure 3.20a: The course Goals as stated in the TE401 syllabus.

 

 

The largest single section of the syllabus was the course schedule with

assignments. That is reproduced in Figure 3.20b.

152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Class Activities Assignments due
Sept. 1 Course Overview
Science Autobiography
Sept. 3 WHAT SHOULD WE TEACH? Science Autobiography
Elements of memorable teaching
Overview of SEGOSE"I Multiple dimensions of
understanding science
Sept. 8 Identifying key ideas
Setting objectives for teaching — “using”
objectives
Introduction to cases for peer teaching
Sept. 10 LESSON PLANNING SEMSPlus reading
What are the elements of a lesson plan?
Learning cycle
Mercedes model
Sept. 15 Guest speakers
Sept. 17 Prepare for peer teaching
Sept. 22 Application & process in standard content Lesson plans for peer
Peer teach an application teaching
Sept. 24 Process of science Zen and the Art of
SEGOSE — “constructing” & “reflecting” Motorcycle Maintenance
objectives reading
Peer teach an application
Sept. 29 Examples of how and we know or how we can Bring Benchmarks
find out
Peer teach an application
Oct. 1 OBSERVING THE COMPLEXITIES OF
CLASSROOMS
STAM as an observation tool
Peer teach an application
Oct. 6 Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) Magnusson, et. al. Reading
PCK in an observed lesson
Peer teach an application
Oct. 8 Private Universe — how students learn science
Oct. 13 Reports from the field Journal entry on first week
Preparing to teach/writing objectives of observation
Oct. 15 Preparing to teach/planning activities & Journal entry on objectives
assessment
Oct. 20 Lectures/projects Lesson plan for teaching
Oct. 22 Mini-lecture for peers
Oct. 27 Labs Journal entry labs or demos
F’gure 3.20b: The class schedule and list of assignments from the TE401 syllabus.

 

 

4' SEGOSE is the State Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (a pseudonym).

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oct. 29 Models/simulation
Nov. 3 Reports from the field Reflection on lSt teaching
Nov. 5 Math in science class
Nov. 10 Whole class discussion/question asking Lesson plan for 2nd teaching
Nov. 12 Videos
Nov. 17 RESOURCES
Organizing resources
Textbook as resource
Nov. 19 Textbooks Journal entry on resources
your CT likes to use
Nov. 24 MANAGEMENT Bring Weinstien
Concept map
Giving directions
Nov. 26 Thanksgiving
Dec. 1 Swap Shop Swap Shop material
Discipline
Dec. 3 HelpinLSs read Analysis of a textbook
Dec. 8 Helping 83 write
Dec. 10 Planning for TE402 Reflection on 2"" teaching

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.20b: The class schedule and list of assignments from the TE401 syllabus
(continued).

 

The final short segment of the syllabus was grading criteria and course

requirements. That is shown in its entirety in Figure 3.200. The Private Universe

reference on October 8 refers to the Private Universe video series, so here like in TE250,

videotape was used in instruction. The schedule also reflects other employed in-class

instructional strategies. This includes guest speakers, peer teaching, reports from

fieldwork and a swap shop of teaching materials. This contrasts sharply with the single

teaching method employed in both science classes.

154

 

 

Grading

5% Science autobiography
30% 3 lessons

20% 4 journal entries

15% Reflection on 1“ teaching
10% Analysis of a textbook
15% Final reflection paper
5% Participation

This semester this course includes three required elements:

6) Our time together on Tuesdays and Thursday,

@ The module of content area literacy that you attend on Wednesday or

Thursdays during the first of half of the semester,

0) Your attendance and performance in your field placement
All of these components must be completed successfully for you to pass the course. If
you fail to complete any of these components, you will receive a grade of 0.0 or
Incomplete. The content area literacy will be graded on a pass-fail basis. Once you have
complete [sic] it successfully, your grade will be determined by you [sic] performance in
Tuesday-Thursday seminar and field placement. .

 

 

Figure 3.20c: Gradig and course requirements from the TE401 syllabus.

 

 

As in all the other syllabi, there are stern words related to student expectations
and clearly spelled out consequences for failure to meet expectations. Like in the senior
level science syllabus, there is much here that is incomprehensible to the lay person.

What, for example, is meant by “Mercedes model” or “STAM?”

The TE401 texts

The course required two books and a coursepack and recommended a third book.
The readings as listed in the syllabus were:

State Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (1991)"2

Course packet

 

‘2 A pseudonym

155

Project 2061: American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993).
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford Press

Optional reading — Weinstein (1996). Secondary Classroom Management. New
York: McGraw Hill.

The 63 page coursepack included a state generated document on unit planning, an excerpt
from Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. (Pirsig, 1974), and
(Magnusson et al., 1994). The Weinstein text was used, at least as an optional text, in all

the courses specific to secondary teacher candidates; that is all courses after TE401.

A typical day in TE401

The first day in TE401 was in many ways a typical day. The most conspicuous
person in the room was Karen, the instructor, but student voices were heard regularly and
not simply in the asking of questions, but also in the sharing of information and opinion.

There was usually time spent in small group discussions that typically had some
specific task to be completed. During these conversations, I learned information not only
about how students approached the tasks designed for them but also about the students
themselves. I was surprised to learn when talking with Earth science majors that at least
two of the four who were in my group would not be graduating in time to complete their
internship the following academic year. It made wonder what they were doing there.

These Earth science majors were working together in a group as they were
planning a lesson on volcanoes. As a former Earth science teacher I was drawn to the
group. Another group was working on a lesson on DNA fingerprinting and a third group
was focused on wetlands. At Karen’s suggestion, I sat between two groups but I found it

difficult to keep straight what was going on in either group. I felt somewhat guilty in

156

hearing and not responding to factually incorrect information in the volcano group, in

3

part because I would have (wrongly) felt guilty for interfering with what I was studying4 .

Each group was to generate a statement that incorporated a big idea and an
application for the science they were addressing. At the end of this segment of group
work, the students wrote their groups’ statements on the chalkboard. Those five
statements are listed below.

0) “Plate tectonics: Volcanoes are the result of one plate subducting under
another.” This was almost immediately rewritten to read, “Plate tectonics:
two types of volcanoes, Hawaiian and Pyroclastic, can result from one
plate subducting under another.

® DNA is a double helix structured molecule that carries unique
information for development, growth, and reproduction for each living
organism.

® The molecules/chemicals derived from plants, such as corn, are
essential components in food products used in daily life.

69 The journey from egg to butterfly involves 5 major steps in which there
is a total rearrangement of the organism with no resemblence to the
previous step.

6) Diversity is exhibited in an ecosystem such as a wetland when a range
of species inhabiting the area include members from all or most of the 5
kingdoms: Plant, Animal, Fungi, Monera, Protista.

This exercise was the beginning of planning to teach a lesson to the class. Over
the next few weeks, the students would continue to develop the idea and iron out
problems — like the idea that Hawaiian volcanoes do not form from one plate subducting
under another. Hawaii is in the middle of a tectonic plate, and while that plate is
subducting under another at its distant edge, this is not the direct cause of the volcanoes

at Hawaii. This was the error that troubled me in the Earth science group.

4" I was also concerned about my own misconceptions — they were using labels for volcano types that I had
not heard used before to classify all types of volcanoes - pyroclastic and Hawaiian. I had learned and
taught that volcanoes were classified as shield, cinder cone or composite. An lntemet search found that
these labels are more common than those used by the 401 students. A pyroclastic cone is a cinder cone.

157

Following the presentation of the ideas, students were directed to their
coursepacks to read about the learning cycle (Berkheimer, 1992). For their lesson
planning, groups were to choose between this framework and the Mercedes Model
(Gallagher, 1992). The Mercedes Model is discussed in Chapter 6 as a tool for the
science educator to draw connections between college science courses and teacher
education courses.

As the semester progressed the groups taught their lessons with varying amounts
of success. The group presentations are done in other subsections, so Karen’s students
taught Andy’s students and so on. The peer teaching I saw had students involved in
creating something -— one group had students describe parasites that they created, another
asked students to create food webs. A third had student groups create a fictional critter
with five stage life cycles. These lessons seemed to follow a pattern established by Karen
— students presented some information and then had the rest of the class work in groups
on an activity. At the end of their lessons they had students report back to the class.
Each presentation ended with a round of applause.

Both of these models were explicitly modeled in the class throughout the
semester. Karen would occasionally ask questions like, “What did I just do?” and point
the students to one of the conceptual models used in class or a teaching strategy.

Modeling was a key idea in the daily practice in TE401. Karen would present a
topic like objectives, show a few examples and model her thinking about creating them as
she stepped through writing an objective.

Longer classes required a break and students would chat informally during the

downtime. Often this related to their work in the field and concerns related to finalizing

158

the placement early in the term, and for some students, concerns about what their mentor
teachers did with students.

Like in TE250, readings were typically directly related to class activity
and explicitly used in class. For example, when the section from Zen and the Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance(Pirsig, 1974) (pp. 92-96) was assigned, the in-class
activity mapped the process of figuring out what was wrong with a motorcycle to
the states’ science objectives related to the nature of science. Again, the process
here was an explicit model. Karen told the class that this reading and activity was
done for two reasons: to help the teacher candidates fill in gaps in their own
thinking relative to the nature of science and to give them “a reading you might
use with your own students on the process of science other than that really boring

first chapter of your textbook.”

Assessments in TE401

Assessments in TE401 took more forms than in any of the other classes. As is the
norm for Teacher Education classes at Midwestern, there were no sit-down tests of any
kind. Part of the assessment was pass/fail, the content area literacy section where
students produced written papers. Students were graded on their class participation, part
of which was working in groups to teach the rest of the class some science content.
Attendance was also part of the assessment and evaluation in TE401.

Students were expected to behave professionally in their field placements. This
requires being present and punctual and completing the tasks the mentor teacher requests

from or is promised by the teacher candidate. Failure to live up to these expectations

159

leads to failure of the course. The most heavily weighted assignments were reflective in
nature — based on their experiences teaching lessons in the field, what did they learn?
What would they do differently next time they teach? These two papers constituted
almost a third of the course grade. 95% of the course grade is determined by somewhat
open-ended written work. Certainly, the work of one student with a 4.0 at the end of the
term could look substantially different from the work of other students receiving the same
grade.

Like in TE250, papers were handed back during class time with a fair amount of
teacher-written feedback, and like in TE250, general themes the teacher noticed in
grading were discussed. For example, when lesson plans were returned, Karen noted that
students typically did a good job with both the science statement and with the objectives,

but the match between these two components often had problems.

Summary Comments for TE401:

TE401 was heterogeneous in many ways. The class had several components -
fieldwork in schools, content area literacy taught by grad students, and the three
subsections taught by Karen the faculty member with a dual appointment in two colleges,
Andy the grad student in Teacher Education, and Larry the retired teacher. The focus of
my observation was Karen’s piece of this that was itself heterogeneous. In each of my
visits, a variety of teaching strategies was employed, with student voice always playing a
central role.

There was also attention to student differences in at least a few different ways.

The instructor first made a visible effort to learn each student’s name. Students were also

160

broken into groups according to their majors. Like in TE250, relationships among
students and between students and the instructor were fostered during class time. The
reader should pause and consider the relationship of this course to the three frameworks

sketched out in the overview of the dissertation.

Natural Sciences 401: Science Laboratories for Secondary Schools

This course was not observed as part of the dissertation study, however, it was
mentioned by most seniors in their interviews and was also a required course for teacher
certification in biology. Some of the same information that was gathered for the above

courses was also collected for NSC401 and is provided below.

Catalog Information:
Credits: Total Credits: 4 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 6
4(2-6)
Restrictions: Open only to seniors in the College of Natural Science with a
teacher certification option. Completion of Tier I writing requirement.
Description: Laboratory equipment, supplies, demonstrations, exercises, and
safety. Care of live organisms. Disposal of biological and chemical wastes. Field
trips required.

Schedule Information:
Maximum enrollment: 35
Number enrolled: 32
Class meeting times: 8:00 a.m. to 8:50 a.m., Tuesday & Thursday; 9:10 a.m. to
noon, Tuesday & Thursday
Location: 121 & 110 South Aquino Hall
Instructor: Patti Giltner

The Instructor for NS C401 :
Patti Giltner was a biologist by training who has worked for many years primarily

teaching courses geared for both practicing and preservice teachers. She describes her

161

work as follows on the WebPages for faculty in the education division of the College of

Natural Science.

My primary responsibility and interests lie in promoting science content
knowledge of both preservice and inservice teachers. I teach an intensive
laboratory course for seniors in the College of Natural Science planning
on becoming science teachers, NSC401. The intent of this course is to
provide students with a toolkit, which includes laboratory work in the
basic sciences, developing laboratory exercises, reading scientific
literature, teaching with everyday objects, etc. I also am director of the
Division's graduate programs (Interdepartment Physical Science and
Interdepartment Biological Science for 7-12 certified science teachers;
General Science for K-8 certified teachers) for inservice teachers. I teach,
along with [biology faculty member], the series of Cell and Molecular
Biology courses for secondary teachers. We also organize and oversee our
students' summer research projects as well as their written theses.

Patti has also co-taught the graduate course on teaching college science with

Karen Jones and has worked with her on several other projects.

The rooms for NS C401

The course was taught in two of the three classrooms that were used for TE401 —
one was South Aquino 121 which is the room diagrammed for the TE401 section of this
chapter. The second classroom, which was where the class usually met, was a mirror
image of South Aquino 121 and just down the hall. While the bricks and mortar were
simply mirror images, the room arrangement was different. The arrangement of the
chairs and tables in 121 changed on occasion. Generally, the tables and chairs in 110

were left as they were. See Figure 3.21 below.

162

 

 

 

 

 

radiator

 

 

 

Moveable
lab tables

 

 

Window AC

 

 

 

E“?

 

File
cabinet

 

 

 

 

 

table

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

table

 

Demonstration

 

 

 

w ‘11

 

 

 

Overhead

 

 

‘El

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Lab bench with
five sinks open
shelves above
hold glassware

 

 

 

 

 

    

Ceiling
mounted
screen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shelf w/
various
household
chemicals (i.e.,
food coloring)

 

 

Figure 3.21 110 South Aquino. NSC401. This schematic shows the common
configuration of the classroom. Student designed experiments were often set up on the
tables near the back of the room.

 

Summary and Interpretation

Students appeared to be generic — they were about as likely to be neatly or

sloppily dressed, to appear hungover“ or not, whether they were in a science class or a

teacher education class. What they experienced in the two settings (in the two cultures)

was strikingly different.

163

 

“Two settings” from the four classes is a logical demarcation. If there were no
sound, it would be difficult to tell one science class from the other or one education class
from the other education class. The science classes used the same mode of instruction
every day that I observed instruction. The professor stood at the front of the classroom
writing notes on the overhead and talking. Both education classes had days with students
presenting, and students played some kind of active role in every education class I
observed. Also, both education classes used multiple texts and videos while the science
classes each used a single text and no video.

The first new piece of information that struck me (the notion of big versus small
and lecture versus discussion were not revelations to me) was that in both education
classes, anonymity was impossible, whereas in the science classes anonymity was the
norm. In the first day of both education classes, students wrote their names on folded 5”
x 8” index cards and placed them on their desks or tables.

In the science classes, there was one active actor in each class, the professor, and
scores or hundreds of students who were generally passive. In the teacher education
classes, student voices were central to each class I observed.

In reviewing my field notes months later, I was struck by how I felt compelled to
take the wrong kind of notes in the science classes. It was too easy to slip back into what
I had been programmed to do by years and years of science classes. Rather than taking
notes about the students and professor and the general classroom dynamics, I often took
notes like the students. I did recognize every time this happened that it had happened, but

I retreated to this in almost every class I visited in B31 11 and in Biochemistry.

 

4‘ A complete judgement call — I never asked, never smelled their breath and those who had this look about
them were a small but noticeable minority in the four classes observed.

164

This problem did not occur in the Teacher Education classes, likely in part
because students so infrequently took notes. There were a wider variety of conspicuous
activities in the teacher education classes to take note about. In all four classes, I ended
up frequently engaged as a student would be, which meant taking notes in science classes
and typically discussing something or other in the teacher education classes.

The science classes assumed homogeneity while the teacher education classes not

only assumed heterogeneity, but treated that heterogeneity as a resource.

Comparison Tables

The following pages include tables summarizing the courses in various ways
along with some explanatory text. These tables are intended to bring back attention to the
fact that students were moving between their science and education courses everyday or
every week. The presentation of material in the bulk of this chapter addresses science
and then education. In daily interactions, students move from one culture to the other.
Again, see the typical senior’s student schedule in Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1 and 3.2 gives a very brief overview of the four courses in a format
allowing for side-by-side comparison. The tables begin with full course names and
catalog descriptions for the four courses in this study. Note that both science and teacher
education course titles and descriptions rely heavily on discipline specific vocabulary.
Also note that both course title and course description are considerably longer for the

Teacher Education courses than for the science courses.

165

 

Table 3.1: Sophomore Level Courses Observed

 

Characteristic

Biological Sciences 111
Cells and Molecules

Teacher Education 250
Human Diversity: Power and

Opgnunity in Social Institutions

 

Catalog
Information

Credits: Total Credits: 3
Lecture/Recitarion/Discussion Hours: 3
Prerequisite: CEM 141 or CEM 151
(General Chemistry).

Not open to students with credit in:
DVS 145

Description: Cell structure and
function; macromolecular synthesis;
energy metabolism; molecular aspects of

development; principles of genetics.

Credits: Total Credits: 3
Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3
Prerequisite: none

Description: Comparative study of
schools and other social institutions.
Social construction and maintenance of
diversity and inequality. Political. social
and economic consequences for
individuals and groups.

 

 

Instructor

l on Peters (for the first half of the
semester)

Phil Opanashuk (for the second half of
the semester)

 

Class Size
Instructional
Strategies

Karen Jones

 

Number enrolled: 391

Lecture. There was also a lab for the
course that was required for a subset of
the students in the class including the
teacher candidates.

 

Nature of
Student Voice

Questions were encouraged but rare. In
the few instances that questions were
asked. they were seeking clarification of
factual information, typically asking
what a word on the overhead is because
the writing was illegible. Rarely
questions were asked of the class. These
sought one word or short phrases for
answers.

 

 

Text & Other
Instructional
Resources

 

Textbook:

Edition. Benjamin/Cummings

Publishers, Menlo Park, CA.
Overhead transparencies and
handwritten notes on the overhead were
also used.

students also presented to the class. ‘

rFour books:
Campbell, Neil A. (1996) Biology 4'h Freedman. S.G. (1990). Small victories:

Number enrolled: 32

Primarily discussion and cooperative
group work. Videotapes were shown
regularly and discussed. Groups of

Student voice played a central role in
every class session observed. This took a
variety of forms — in whole class
discussion, small group work and student
presentations. Generally students spoke
at some length when they spoke. that is.
they did not typically state one word
answers to questions.

the real world of a teacher, her
students and their high school. New
York: Haprer & Row

Kotlowitz, A. (1991). There are no
children here: The story of two boys
growing up in the other America. New
York: Anchor Books.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their
ideas. Boston: Beacon Press

Orenstein, P. (1994) Schoolgirls: Young
women, self-esteem, and the confidence
gap. New York: Anchor Books.

Three booklets: all publications of the
National Center for Education
Statistics. Those booklets are: The

mini dim-M of ’ statistics' and

Several articles and videos (too

 

 

numerous to mention)

 

166

 

Table 3.1: Sophomore Level Courses Observed (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Biological Sciences 11] Teacher Education 250
Cells and Molecules (continued) Human Diversity: Power and Opportunity
in Social Institutions (continued)
Assessment Three multiple choice midterm exams Weekly memos - responses to readings
and a cumulative multiple choice final Team presentations on one of the
exam. Questions were typically factual course themes
recall. Service learning work
Midterm paper
Final paper
Classroom discussion was an additional.
informal assessment
Table 3.2: Senior Level Courses Observed
Characteristic Biochemistry 4012 Basic Biochemistry Teacher Education 401: Teaching Subject
Matter to Diverse Learners
Catalog Credits: Total Credits: 4 Credits: Total Credits: 5
Information Lecture/RecitaHon/Discussion Hours: 4 Lecture/Recitatron/Discussion Hours: 3
Prerequisite: CEM 252 or CEM 352 Lab Hours: 8 Prerequisites: Completion
(Organic Chemistry ll)‘5 of Tier I writing requirement. "TE301
Restrictions: Not open to students in (Learners and Learning in Context)“
the Biochemistry or in the Restrictions: Not open to freshmen or
Biochemistry/Biotechnology major. sophomores. Open only to students
Not open to students with credit in: admitted to the teacher certification
BCl-l 200 or BCH 461“6 program.
Description: Structure and function of Description: Examining teaching as
major biomolecules, metabolism, and enabling diverse Ieamers to inquire into
regulation. Examples emphasize the and construct subject-specific meanings.
mammalian organism. Adapting subject matter to learner
diversity. Exploring multiple ways diverse
learners make sense of the curriculum.
Instructors James McNair For science subsections:
Karen Jones, Larry Glanton, and Andy
Frank
For Content Area Literacy subsection:
Pe Schick, Am Ma in
Class Size Number enrolled: 181 Number enrolled: 60 (approximately 20
W
Instructional Lecture. Primarily discussion and cooperative
Strategies group work. The class generally met in

 

 

subsections of 20 or fewer. Groups of
students presented to the class regularly.
Videotapes were shown occasionally and
discussed.

 

 

 

‘5 Prerequisites for the prerequisite include only chemistry and mathematics classes. though virtually all
biology teacher candidates would have completed BS] 10 and 831 l l.

‘6 BCH200 was Introduction to Biochemistry and BCH461 was Biochemistry I. These were courses
required for biochemistry majors.
‘7 The Tier I requirement is met by taking a course from a long list across the university which requires

written work.

‘8 TE250 is a prerequisite for TE301.

167

 

Table 3.2: Senior Level Courses Observed (continued)

 

Characteristic

Biochemistry 40]: Basic Biochemistry
(continued)

 

Nature of
Student Voice

Questions were encouraged but rare.
Students questions were asked in two of
the six observations. In one instance the
question was substantive and led to a
conversation between the professor and
a student about the Haq article. In the
other class with questions, the questions
were about illegible text on the
overhead.

Teacher Education 40]: Teaching Subject
Matter to Diverse Learners (continued)
Student voice played a central role in every
class session observed. This took a variety
of forms — in whole class discussion. small
group work and student presentations.
Generally students spoke at some length
when they spoke, that is they did not
typically state one-word answers to
questions.

 

Text & Other
Instructional
Resources

Textbook:

Biochemistry 4‘h Edition by Lubert
Stryer, published by W. H. Freeman.
(Stryer 1995)

The text was used as a reference and

readings were not explicitly assigned.

Coursepack:

The course-pack is 268 pages, beginning

with a sheet of reproduction permissions

for diagrams from texts and articles as
well as the two articles used in class
during the first week. The articles were

a Jane Brody piece from the New York

Times (Brody 1990) and an article from

the Journal Science (Haq, Mason et al.

1995). The bulk of the course packet

was fill-in—the-blank notes. but it also

included sets of study questions for each
unit.

Overhead transparencies and

handwritten notes on the overhead were

also used.

 

 

Assessment

 

Books:

State Essential Goals and Objectives for
Science Education (1991)"9

Project 2061: American Association for
the Advancement of Science (1993).
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New
York: Oxford Press

Optional reading — Weinstein (1996).
Secondary Classroom Management.
New York: McGraw Hill.

Coursepack

This 63 page document included a state

generated document on unit planning. an

observation rubric developed by two of the

course instructors and an excerpt from

Pirsig’s

mouse 1974). and

(Magnusson. Krajcik et al. 1994).

Overhead transparencies and handwritten

notes on the overhead were also used.

 

Seven biweekly exams that were almost
exclusively true-false and a cumulative
true-false final exam. Questions were
typically factual recall.

 

Science autobiography

3 lessons

4 journal entries
Reflection on 1" teaching
Analysis of a textbook
Final reflection paper
Participation

 

 

Both Chika Hughes and Jon Peters gave clear reasons why class attendance is

important. The reasons, shown in Table 3.3 are quite different. Peters seems to believe

that the important things are what he does as the instructor. Chika Hughes emphasizes

instead what the students do during class time.

168

 

Science

Teacher Education

 

B 111

“Most important... is that you do come to lecture.

I know you’ve been preached to before. I don’t
like to preach... A live lecture is much different
than if you’re listening to the lecture on tape;
buying notes from those people that sell them
outback, which you’ve already gotten little
pamphlets about... Idon’t condone that at all. I
think it’s an infringement on my rights, however,
I have no legal way that I can stop the course
from being scribed. I do think by being here you
get a lot more out of the lecture. The way I
emphasize things, the way I point to things, the
things I write on the overhead are all part of the
learning experience. So I do believe if you come
to lecture you get a lot more out of it.”

TE250
“Attendance is expected at all
sessions. You should read the
material before hand and be
prepared to discuss it intelligently
and analytically... The success of
this class depends on active
participation. Group work and
whole class discussion will be a key
part of this course. Three missed
classes is the strict maximum. If
you miss more than three classes
you will be asked to talk with the
class coordinator or with the
department chairperson.”

 

 

Reasons for attending lectures as expressed by

Dr. Peters in the first glass.

 

Reasons for coming to class as
described by Chika Hughes in the

syllabus.

 

 

Table 3.3 The professors’ reasons for going to class in B811] and TE250.

 

 

The courses described here map on well to the Two Cultures Model described in

the outset of this dissertation. What students experience as they move between science

and education courses is strikingly different. The two science classrooms operate in

largely the same way: they are both large lecture classes with purely objective

assessment. Each science course relies primarily on its own textbook (although this is

less true for biochemistry). Students are generally anonymous and passive during class

time. In contrast, the education classes are small, personal with varied assessments and

teaching strategies and resources.

 

‘9 A pseudonym

169

 

The two cultures can be viewed separately for the convenience of making models,
but for the reality of students’ lives, they are connected through those students. What is

the nature and meaning of that relationship?

170

Chapter 4

WHAT THE SENIORS HAD TO SAY ABOUT THEIR COURSEWORK

Don: How would you describe your typical teacher education course?

Bill: I would describe it as exactly opposite of any science course that
I’ve ever taken. All my TE courses were classroom courses as
opposed to lecture hall classes. They were 30 or less students, I’d
say. And they were mainly discussion. A little bit of general

reading and writing. It was a lot different than science. I think
that’s what turned me on to education.

This chapter uses interview data from the seniors to build on observational data
described in the previous chapter. The seven seniors50 were interviewed early in the
second semester of their senior year using the protocol from the Salish New Teacher
Preservice Program Interview (included as Appendix B). During the time of the
interview, they were all enrolled in TE402, the second course of the four-course science-
specific education sequence. At this point, they had each spent over a semester working
in the same high school or middle school classrooms and had done at least a small
amount of teaching in those classrooms. In most cases, they were expecting to be
engaged in the yearlong teaching internship starting the following fall. Joseph was
planning to attend professional school in the fall.

The initial interviews followed the New Teacher Preservice Program Interview

protocol from the Salish Project (included as Appendix B). The second group interview

 

5" As noted in Chapter 2, the seniors interviewed were all of those Biological Science Majors enrolled in TE
40] at the time of observation who had either taken BCH401 with McNair or who were taking it
concurrently with TE401.

171

was less structured and began by sharing transcripts of the earlier interview. This group
interview included the three seniors who were able to attend. Before beginning the group
discussion, the seniors were asked to draw a concept map or other representation of their

science and education classes showing the connections between the two sets of classes.

The Interviews

Joseph, Bill and Brad

Seven senior Biological Science majors were interviewed. As noted in chapter 2,
these seniors were selected because they were taking TE401 at the time of the
observations and they had taken or were taking BCH401 with Dr. McNair. All seniors
who met that description agreed to be interviewed in the initial interview. Three of those
seven were able to take part in the group discussion the semester following TE401.
Those three will receive the most attention in this chapter.

Joseph, Bill and Brad were representative of the seven seniors in a number of
ways. Each was from one of the three subsections of TE401. Joseph was in Karen
Jones’s (where I did my observations). Bill was in Andy Frank’s; and Brad was in Mike
Bums’s. Joseph was planning to go to professional school the following year. Bill and
Brad would go on to complete the teaching internship, as all those interviewed except
Joseph planned to do.

Joseph was the most vocal of the seven interviewed and was also the most critical
of the program. Eccentric is a label that might be appropriate for Joseph. In some ways,
Joseph appeared to be an outlier, but Bill and Brad affirmed much of what he vocalized

in the group discussion. Closer inspection shows that his answers were not surprising in

172

light of Salish data. He seemed unafraid to say what others might have thought but
hesitated to say.

Joseph and Brad both saw themselves more closely affiliated with science than
with teaching. Bill saw himself more affiliated with teaching and, in fact, would have
pursued social studies as a certification area if he were to start college over again. He had
started college as a pre-med student so when he decided to teach, biology was the area
where he had the most credits. Brad was the quietest of the three. Like most of

participants, these three started college with no plans of going into teaching.

The words of Bill, Brian and Joseph

What follows are the words and drawings of Bill, Brian and Joseph. Selected
excerpts are taken from each of their individual interviews, schematics that are
representations of work done by seniors at the start of our group discussion“ and some
interesting points from the group discussion. Before the discussion began, I gave the
seniors their interview transcripts from the first interview rearranged in tabular format so
that the parallel questions about science and teacher education courses and their answers
were side by side. I have significantly abbreviated and slightly reformatted those tables
in what follows. I gave the seniors a chance to review their transcripts and then I asked
the seniors to either diagram or describe the relationship between their college science
courses and their teacher education courses. At the beginning of the group discussion,

each senior shared what they had written or drawn.

 

5‘ Strict formatting guidelines for dissertation printing preclude the inclusion of the senior’s actual
drawings.

173

Bill

If Bill, whose quote opens this chapter, were to start college over, he would have
chosen to be a social studies teacher rather than a science teacher. Bill chose science
because he started in premed and then decided to be a teacher. Bill was a Biological
Sciences major and Chemistry minor. Table 4.1 includes selected excerpts from Bill’s
interview and it is followed by Figure 4.1, a schematic of the representation he drew of

the connections between his science and education coursework.

 

Table 4.1. Selected excerpts from Bill’s New Teacher Preservice Program Interview

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science I Education

General Comments:

“I’d have to say either science courses Don: “How would you describe your
are lectures, lecture format or they’re a lab typical teacher education course?”
format. And every once in a while they Bill: “I would describe it exactly opposite
like to throw in a recitation section in the of any science course that I’ve ever
lecture. It’s pretty much non-interactive taken. All my TE courses were
lecture. ...The instructor stands up in front classroom courses as opposed to lecture
of the class and imparts the information to hall. 30 or less students, I’d say. And
the class.” they were mainly discussion. A little bit

Bill described his college science labs as of general reading and writing. It was a
mostly cookbook though there were a few lot different than science. I think that’s
biology labs that were more open-ended. what turned me on to education.”
One diffusion lab had students develop “1 think my field experiences were the
their own procedures. Of chemistry labs most interesting parts of my college career,
though, Bill said, "I don't recall a single as far as going into education. I leamed as
chem lab that had a genuine investigation much as more in field experiences as I did
or experiment." Bill drew attention to in any of my courses, even my teacher ed
differences between bio and chem more courses.”
than once — lab groups in biology were
cooperative groups but this was not at all
the case in chemistry. All chemistry labs
were cookbook while there were a few
examples of bio labs that were not.
On Assessment and Evaluation:

“1 don’t think I can ever remember “Papers - As far as how they evaluate the
having an essay exam other than — Maybe
every once in a while there was a quiz in papers, it’s different every semester. I
recitation that might have had a few word

 

 

174

 

 

short answer fill-in-the-blank questions.”

guess I don’t feel at all that there’s any
wrong answer in any TE course, which
makes me very comfortable because I’m
very afraid of being wrong (laughing) even
these questions. I’m afraid that I’m
answering these wrong. I think that it kind
of goes back to the objective of - getting
students to think critically about...
concepts. As long as you’re thinking

critically about something, you’re right.”

 

Important Experiences:

 

Bill believed bio labs were important
because he'll be a bio teacher and he needs
to know how to do labs and it helped him
learn the concepts. "Chemistry labs,
because of the way they were formatted, I
don't remember much of them anyway sol
don't think they were very important.
(laughs) The lectures, I don't see as all that
important because I could have learned all
that stuff on my own but I had to pay
money to get credit so I could actually
graduate."

“I have to say TE250 was one of my most
memorable courses because we covered a
lot of social issues in education that I
hadn’t previously been exposed to or
[made] aware of. And then 401 and 402 in
particular because they’re content based.
And the field experiences. . .. [and] I think
Andy Frank has a very unique perspective
on teaching... I think that’s the reason that
401 and 402 have been a couple of the
most important courses I’ve taken.”

NSC401 was important because it gave
him ideas about how to perform labs in his
own classroom and he learned content — "It
may have been content I was supposed to
have learned earlier" (We both laughed
heartily).

 

Texts and other instructional resources:

 

 

“Basically the objective was to present
the ideas that are in a textbook in a verbal
format. I didn’t see any process approach
to it. I don’t recall ever having a
coursepack in a science class other than in
lab classes. There was [usually] a single
textbook. A lab manual was typically full

 

“Usually there’s a course pack with a
collection of articles assembled by the
instructor; a few — educational research
books, I guess you could call them. Kozol,
Jonathon Kozol. I remember reading a few
articles by Lisa Delpit stuff like that.

Every once in a while we’d see a movie or

 

175

 

 

of information that everyone skipped over
and skipped onto something else. We
used computers every once in a while in
simulations of genetics.”

9,

tWO.

 

On Faculty:

 

“[In the] typical science course the
instructor was pretty much there if you
needed help. And if not, he didn’t want to
see or hear from you. I guess it was pretty
impersonal. I didn’t take advantage
personally. I always felt that if I didn’t
understand a concept or something that was
my own fault. You know, I took a lot of
responsibility. And often times there were
concepts that I didn’t understand that I
tried hard to figure out what was going on
and I still didn’t take any initiative to go
and talk to the instructor because it seemed
like the instructor was so — hard to
approach. And I often felt that my
understanding was so minimal that I
wouldn’t be able to relate to the
instructors.”

 

Don: How would you describe the student
- faculty relationship in your teacher
education program?

Bill: It’s much less formal and much more
personal than the other courses, the science
courses.

 

On connections between science and education courses:

 

“[U]ntil TE401 and 402 there was no correlation at all [between science and education
courses]. In 401 and 402 having an instructor that comes from a physics background,
even then I don’t think that biology courses, chemistry courses that I previously took

come into play as often as they should.”

 

How the student perceived the program philosophy:

 

 

The philosophy of the education department, as Bill saw it was, “to get away from
traditional instruction where a teacher stands up in front of a class and lectures and does
pretty much same as my college instructors in college science. So they kind of, it’s kind
of like they’re battling against each other. The way science classes are usually taught
and the TB classes are saying this is not how it’s supposed to be done.”

 

176

 

wad Emu

GEE?

      
     

23863

 

.95 99233
3 :5
293.603

.Itlllllrrr

mncaoam

     

   

2333
02.33

.- 2m 0 .2: -.
, :02 8 ~88:

wees"?
32:8.

maozoo

   
       
    

oo :83"

 

 

 

229
33138
AH: Rom

0083923"
_ow_.:.:%¢mos_:o
"zoos.

"30:50
8382

693:6.
SooQ

  
   

803850
.338

    
   
 

   

308mm
b.3390:

   

       

5W

3<omz©mqoz

Ewe—d .5. 5:6 52. 2. 8:58:25 $3.8: mama—.8 2E 238:3. ace—Sac;

177

Brad

Brad was a quiet student who paused to consider answers before responding to

questions and sometimes paused to reforrnulate answers as we spoke. Brad had a double

major in Biological Sciences and Zoology and he had a Chemistry minor. Table 4.2

includes selected excerpts from Brad’s interview and it is followed by Figure 4.2, a

schematic of the representation he drew of the connections between his science and

education coursework.

 

Table 4.2. Selected excerpts from Brad’s New Teacher Preservice Program

Interview

 

Science

I Education

 

General Comments:

 

The typical science course was “ a large
lecture class, a hundred or more people, not
much interaction, unless you went in to see
the professor during office hours... Most
of the classes are multiple choice exams
and fact based.”

“The smallest science class I took was 70
or 80 students. They averaged around 150
and some were 300 or 400.”

Don: “You said the objectives for the
science courses emphasized learning
facts. What would you say about the
objectives in your TE classes?

Brad: "There really weren't any facts."

His TE401 and 402 field experience was
in an urban high school biology classroom.
He found it interesting and enjoyable as
well as an interesting contrast to his own
high school experience in a small rural
high school in Upstate New York.

 

On Assessment and Evaluation:

 

Most assessment was done by multiple
choice exam. Labs and, in a few classes,
essay exams were also part of the
evaluation.

There were quizzes in the early education
classes. (Brad was the only of the seven to
say there were any tests or quizzes in
education classes). “For the most part,
[evaluation was] based on papers and
projects.”

 

 

Important Experiences:

 

 

“Labs were definitely important. A lot of
times I’d complain about them because
they were a lot more work... Biology labs
were helpful. Chemistry labs - I’d just do
the procedure, I wouldn’t really know what
was going on.” The labs were important,

The diversity class (TE250), “It just
opened my eyes to a lot of different
perspectives and how to reach people with
different needs... NSC, Patti’s class. That
was good. We had to write out labs... and
think about a lot of different options for

 

 

178

 

 

“Est because thgy were hands-on.”

I teaching something.”

 

Texts and other instructional resources:

 

I usually ended up reading the textbooks '

for the first test and then I found out.I

didn't needto read it. I could get it all out .

of lecture.

On instructional resources: “Not
textbooks but books.”

 

On Faculty:

 

The relationships with science faculty
were “impersonal... In the smaller classes
it wasn’t so bad.” He had gotten to know
one professor a bit, “I wish I had gone and
met with all of my professors during office
hours.” He clearly did not generally take
advantage of office hours.

“Really good,” is how Brad described his
relationship with education faculty. “I’ve
really enjoyed TE401 and 402 [with Larry
Glanton]. The instructors he had in some
earlier classes were graduate students and
he had been less impressed with them,
though he had good relationships with
them.

 

 

On connections between science and education courses:

 

(long pause) “There really isn’t a whole lot of relationship I can think of... In 401 and
402 there has been more chemistry and biology, but the [things we learn in science
classes] are at such a high level compared to what we’ll teach that there isn’t much of a
relationship. NSC is more of a tie between my science and education classes.”

 

How the student perceived the program philosophL:

 

 

Teach less content, but in greater depth.

 

179

 

             

a: .
H's“... man u zoo
383.3

35 a 7%» 2 9.25.3A 3252

p53“. a
3:232. 32838: 3:933 Hun“;
Ema 3:

3o: /

38:2. 2823:

«Suzoufioa 5522.
‘8 328

83 azogggoca:

.3531
32:3 Ea: 5

$3 (a;
.2: 33 .
1880 336335

Ems—d PM. wanna 02.83 33. em 8:58:25 US$8.— mamoaoe E:— QEQEe: 85335;.

  

       

00.3% mango
0258

 

    

   
      

$53
3.. «220
393

92:.
98533

        
 

:2 3:6
98 58.3...

180

Joseph

Joseph was a genuine character. He was passionate about what he believed and

wouldn’t hesitate to share his Opinions. Joseph had a double major in Biological

Sciences and Zoology and he was a Chemistry minor. Table 4.3 includes selected

excerpts from Bill’s interview and it is followed by Figure 4.3, a schematic of the

representation he drew of the connections between his science and education coursework.

 

Table 4.3. Selected excerpts from Joseph’s New Teacher Preservice Program

Interview

;

 

Science

Education

 

General Comments:

 

When asked to describe his science
classes his answer was “very populated —
lecture — note—taking - very little
interaction — three tests.” He did note that
some classes targeted concepts, some
targeted processes but that most had the
learning of facts as the primary objective.
He said, “We have to memorize names —
It’s really dumb. Some kind of ego-science
thing... If someone’s really interested,
they’re going to learn the names, but why
force us to do that?” Labs were cookbook
and while the intention of the instructor
was to teach concepts the labs ended up
only teaching lab skills.

 

When asked to describe his education
classes his answer was “Pretty laid back.
Comfortable — modeling, coaching. What
we’re about to do ourselves, Karen did do,
while she’s explaining it.” He spoke
primarily about Karen’s class. “A big,
huge thing is how to make material
relevant to students’ lives. . .. We do a lot
of bell work... addressing our own
misconceptions. . .. Often we have the same
misconceptions because we were taught in
the same way. We’re the reform. We have
to deal with our own misconceptions.”

Field experience was boring. “Really
well behaved kids — nothing interesting
ever happens. I’m trying to figure out how
to get more out of it. . .. I don’t know how
many scientists learn by sitting back and
watching someone else wor .”

 

On Assessment and Evaluation:

 

 

Assessment was almost exclusively by
exams and exams were almost exclusively
multiple choice, and, “I’m not a good
multiple choice test-taker.” His genetics
course had a few short answers and fill in
the blanks and his evolution class had
“some really good, really thoughtful
[essay] questions.” Those good questions
included explaining processes so a kid

 

“Papers. Lots of papers. We get assessed
using those things with lots of boxes —
[rubrics?] Yeah, rubrics. No tests.”

 

181

 

 

could understand them. Two professors
taught the course, each for half the
semester. The other professor gave
multiple choice exams. Some intro labs
were graded on attendance. Some upper
level chem labs were graded on lab results,
i.e., percent yield. Cancer Biology, an
elective with about a dozen students, was
assessed completely by three extensive
(library) research papers.

 

 

Important Experiences:

 

His Cancer Biology class with 10 or 12
students was important because of the
small class size and because the research
papers made him go into real depth with a
subject he chose — lung cancer.

 

“I loved Patti’s class. All the labs are
great, all the hands on stuff... Ilike the
way Karen teaches.”

 

Texts and other instructional resources:

 

“Some of the books came with a CD
ROM. I wouldn't even open those — you
get more money when you sell the book
back.”

“SEGOSE52 are used a lot.” On
computer use, “We use them basically for
word-processing. I guess there’s a so-
called tech requirement, whatever that
means. A one day thing.”

 

On Faculty:

 

Joseph was the only senior who said he
took regular advantage of office hours and
was the only student who spoke highly of
most of his science professors. He worked
in botanical research and as a TA for one
professor who he described as “super,
super nice.” He used similar terms to
describe a number of other science faculty.

 

“They’re pretty cool... There’s good
mutual respect.” He said of his professor
for his diversity class (TE250), “I liked my
professor, loved my professor.” He spoke
highly of every education professor he
mentioned though he was sometimes
critical of their techniques.

 

On connections between science and education courses:

 

Science and education we related in that you needed the science content to teach it and
you that background also helped you to think about how to organize the content. “The
knowledge for teaching. That’s where the relationship lies.” There was also science
content understanding in the science methods class when doing the aforementioned bell

work.

 

 

How the student perceived the program philosophy:

 

 

’2 State Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education, a pseudonym.

182

 

 

 

The philosophy of the teacher education program, as Joseph saw it, was to make the
content relevant to the students. “Karen is always asking, ‘how are you going to make
this connect to the kids’ lives?”’ In the group discussion, Joseph talked about depth of
knowledge, “They have all that depth, they might only teach the surface, but it will
influence the way you teach the surface.”

 

183

 

0000020
I000
000023.03

 

. 00.. 0:20 00:“ i
300300800 ,

00.0 :30 Hm Jeofljé
2...... 00300....“
50000000: 05.:
$0. . 00.0.0

_: "000:9. 0000000: 0.0000 .20 .000 00330: 00:80.0 0.“ 00.0:00 0:0 8.x 0005 :05. 30.. 3.0:" 00 00330:?
3.0::0000800. _: 000 .00 :. 00 0.00000 030.03 :0 03800 .30 00:0. 0:0 0000:.~.:0 ":03 .20 0 .0000:
550.0 $0 "000: 0800:..0. 5.0 00.. 3.0 50.0:0 .0000: 00:0. _: 00. 10 3030.00 0:0 .003.:0 3002 303000
0:0 .: was 5.0 00.000 000% 0000.030 0.“ 3300.000 0, ":0... 000.0000:03.0 0.00000. .....0 0:0 30.: 002.0000:
0.000 5.00 200 00.. _n 3000 00::0000: 0300.0:00 9002.30 3000032030 550.0 00800. 000 "00.0 5:0" .20
.00300 :03 00.0 :00 0.00000 0, 8300 30.. 305.0000 .30 "000 :020 .000.

...:0 3030.2 500 ....0 .23. .60.. (0*...3260: 0:20 (0*...
Ems—.0 a.m. 30003.0 500 0:0 00001030: en 025003050 ".0300: 00.0500 0:0 00:00:03 09.00035...»

184

The Group Discussion

Late in the second semester the three students described above gathered together
with me to talk about the issues that arose from their original interviews. As noted above,
this gathering began by reviewing interview transcripts and then drawing or describing
the relationship between science and education courses. Those drawing are represented
schematically in the Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 above. The discussion began with the
students sharing their representations.

Brad described his drawing first:

I put teacher education on one side and college science courses on the
other and just kind of branched off from there. They’re only connected by
a few lines. For teacher education I had how we learned about learning
theories, -- involved writing reflective papers we had group discussions,
group work, emphasized the process of finding new knowledge, and -- for
the college science courses I had took test which were essay or multiple
choice, sat in lectures, with little interaction, and there were large classes.
The lectures taught us facts. We learned about facts by rote memorization.
We didn’t have many group discussions. And performed labs. The labs --
tied in with the teacher education by the class NSC401, How to teach labs
and they also tied in with group work in teacher education cause labs are a
kind of group work. Also in the college science courses I had we learned
about discoveries and so -- that can be tied in with teacher education
because it’s the process of finding new knowledge which probably could
tie in with labs as well. So that was mine.

Bill and Joseph both saw their representations as quite similar to Brad’s. Bill
said, “I can go next because mine probably just about put it right on top of Brad’s. It
would be the same. I have science course on one side and TE on the other side. And just
like Brad, actually, the only link that I have between the two is NSC401 (laughs all

around).”

185

What’s Your Major?

One of the most interesting questions I asked was, “How do you answer the
question, ‘What’s your major?”’ This question was not part of the original Salish
protocol and was asked only of the three seniors who participated in the group discussion.
Their answers reflect both the disconnect between their science and education courses
and the complexities they face in adding these two disparate pieces together. I include
their responses in their entirety.

Don: This is kind of weird question, but I’m going to ask it anyway. How
do you answer the question, “What’s your major?” (chuckles around)

Bill: That’s kind of funny because I just got my graduation
announcements this past weekend. They asked me what my major was
and I didn’t want to put down biology because I didn’t - most of my
relatives that I’m going to send these graduation announcements to really
don’t know what is going on with my life. I haven’t seen them in years, so
I decided that I didn’t want to put biology and I didn’t want to put
education, so I put science education. That’s usually what I tell people
what my major is.

Don: What about you, Brad?

Brad: Well, it all depends (laughs). It’s different every time. I don’t
know. I have a double major in zoology and biology and a chem minor,
so it takes like a minute to say it all (laughs all around). I usually just say
either zoology — or say education or secondary education. I never really
know what to say to tell you the truth.

Joseph: I’m in the exact same situation as him. I usually don’t like saying
it either. I’ll just say I study science. If you have any further questions,
and they really want to know, and I don’t like answering that question
anyway, but if they really want to know, major in zoology, well biology
too, education department has me get a minor in chem, whatever that
means (laughs all around). But that’s basically it. It takes too long to say
that and plus it’s always everybody’s always, “What’s your major?” I
don’t really like talking about school that much. I mean I love school but
I’m so much in it that I (inaudible). I like other things too.

186

This exchange also demonstrates the felt need for affiliation. None of the three

appear comfortable with the de facto ambiguity of their major. They are, again, all

Biological Sciences Majors, (and Brad and Joseph have second majors in Zoology) but

none of them find this label terribly descriptive of what they do or who they are.

Was it good for you?

you?”

The last question I asked in the group discussion was “Has this been helpful for

Bill: I think so. It’s gotten me to think about a lot of things that would
have completely passed me by had you not brought them to my attention.

Joseph: I’ve thought about a lot of that stuff. I mean it’s fine for me to
think about it, but the only way I could answer yes to that question is if
something gets changed, you know, or something comes about, you know,
but if it stays in my mind, it’s only for me to think about.

Brad: Yeah, I especially agree with Bill, that there’s a lot of stuff I didn’t
really think about before and it was good to think about and I’m sure I’ll
continue to think about it. And how — what I can do to help - as I’m
teaching my students - to prepare them for college and how they can make
better connections between material.

Patterns of Response

There were two key issues arising from these interviews. The first is that their

responses, with minor exceptions, resonated with those of the Salish participants three

years earlier. The second key issue arising from these interviews is that the seniors

typically saw the course Natural Sciences 401: Science Laboratories for Secondary

187

Schools, as the only programmatic connection53 between their college science courses and

their education courses.

Comparison to Salish and Seymour and Hewitt

The participants all described their program as sharply dichotomous as the Salish
participants had three years prior. Their descriptions of science classes also resonated
with the participants in Seymour and Hewitt’s study that addressed why undergraduates
leave the sciences (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997)“. Like the students in Seymour and
Hewitt’s study, the seniors interviewed were generally critical of their science programs
and especially of the teaching. Seymour and Hewitt’s study is discussed in some detail in
Chapter 1.

All seven respondents described their typical classes in generally similar ways
that followed the patterns shown in Table 1.1 in Chapter 1. In science, classes were
large, the professor expected students to memorize facts. Textbooks were the primary
texts. Assessment was almost exclusively objective exams. Science faculty were seen
typically as impersonal or simply as busy individuals who the students did not know.
Only Joseph said that he made regular use of office hours and knew science faculty well.
All identified the primary goal of the typical science course was to teach content. Maria
spoke of the amount of information in a way typical to all the seniors, “I kind of felt like
they had a set amount of material they had to get through. They had to get through it no

matter what. The lecture is kind of cramming information.” All seven spoke of the

 

’3 The seniors in the group discussion saw the interviews and group discussion as helpful in making
connections between their science and pedagogical preparation.
5‘ This study is discussed in Chapter 1.

188

focus on memorization (as both Peters and McN air had mentioned explicitly in their first
lectures).

The students were all biology majors with chemistry minors and they were
typically more critical of their chemistry labs than their biology labs though, as a group,
they thought quality labs were fairly uncommon. When I asked Maria what was the
smallest science class she had taken she said, “I had some pretty small ones in the honors
college, so my smallest class was probably 70 in an honors class.” I was surprised that a
class of 70 students was regarded as small! Only Joseph and Darcy had had college
science classes with fewer than 60 students in a class, though all had some experience
with smaller recitation and lab sections. Darcy’s smaller classes were in The DaVinci
School briefly described below.

The students did not speak with an absolutely uniform voice, of course. Most
notably different was Joseph, who liked more of his science program and more science
faculty than the others interviewed. He also was the only one who made it clear that he
made a consistent effort to get to know the faculty he took classes from. This also
resonates with the Salish sample. The Salish participants who had engaged in scientific
research (as Joseph had done) were far more likely to think positively of their program
and to think more positively of the science faculty than those who had not engaged in
research. It remains unclear what might cause this association. Does the research
experience change attitudes or do people who seek out the experience start with a
different attitude?

There is one way that the seniors I interviewed differed from the students in

Seymour and Hewitt’s work: they made no mention of problems associated with curved

189

grading. Curving grades apparently was not a common practice in Midwestern
University’s biology courses.

The science specific education courses they had taken or were taking, TE401 and
402 were also generally well regarded although the endorsements were not as universal
as those for Patti’s class. The evaluation of their lower level and other courses that were
not subject specific education classes varied, though they generally found them more
useful than the Salish participants had a few years earlier. Joseph was the most critical
and he did not plan to teach. The education courses were across the board generally well
regarded though the respondents did note that some things were taught over and over
again and they did not see the purpose of the repetition of teaching about cooperative
learning and constructivism. This repetition was somewhat intentional, though that point
was either not made to the students or not appreciated. Like the Salish responses just
under half (three of seven) of the students began with “I don’t know” or a similar
response to the question, “What was the philosophy of your teacher education program
related to science education and related to science teaching?” Most, like in Salish, did go
on to state an answer, typically including the idea of less is more and to move away from
traditional lecture method. The seven all expressed that they found their education
instructors typically likable and approachable.

Again, none of the respondents responded in a way contrary to the responses of
the Salish Participants in the New Teacher Preservice Program Interview. Salish

participant responses are summarized in Chapter 1, especially in Table 1.1.

190

NSC401 as the connection between science and education

The only course required for their majors that was universally well regarded was
Patti Giltner’s Natural Science 401: Science Laboratories for Secondary Schools. This is
the capstone course for the Biological Science major. Essentially all Biological Science
majors are also seeking teaching certification but the requirements for certification are
separate from the requirements for the major. As noted previously, this course is
essentially an additional subject specific pedagogy course required for Biological Science
and Chemistry majors that focused specifically on the high school laboratory. In the
group discussion, Brad, Bill and Joseph all identified NSC401 as the primary connection
between their science and education courses. Joseph said, “basically the only connection
I made also was NSC401 I really liked it, it took everything we learned in science and
we made teachable labs out of it or at least the stuff we wanted to take out of our science
classes.”

At the time of the Salish Project, this class was an elective. Those Salish
participants who took the course regarded it in much the same way the participants in my
study did. The issue that this course is seen as the only programmatic connection
between science and education coursework is a problem on multiple levels. ® Not all of
the future science teachers are required to take such a course (though at Midwestern
University all biology and chemistry teacher candidates are now required to do so). (2
Considering that making the connection between content and how to teach it is the central
role of what teachers should do, this issue deserves a central and explicit role in teacher

preparation. (3) The nature of the NSC401 course is not deeply investigated in this

191

dissertation. (This third problem is of a different sort than the first two — methodological
rather than substantive).

It is fair to say that the focus of this course was on how to teach using the school
laboratories. The instructor describes it this way on her website: “The intent of this
course is to provide students with a toolkit, which includes laboratory work in the basic
sciences, developing laboratory exercises, reading scientific literature, teaching with
everyday objects, etc.” Joseph, one of the seniors, described the course this way: “We
took what we learned from science classes & turned that knowledge into teachable labs.”
This is a key piece of science teaching but not by any means the only key piece. Further

information on the course is included in Chapter 3.

Other Issues

Joseph also was in some ways more like the kind of student that professors
imagine. He, unlike the others, consistently formed study groups in his science classes
and took advantage of office hours.

The most conspicuous way that these Joseph, Bill and Brad were not
representative of the group is that they were all male. Of the seven who met the selection
criteria, two were female; Maria and Darcy. Both Darcy and Maria had taken some of
their science course in the Honors College as had Brad. It is worth noting that three of
the seven future teachers had taken some honors coursework. Maria was also a student in
the DaVinci School — an integrated science program within the College of Natural
Science. In this school within a school, students are in smaller classes and there is some
thematic instruction. DaVinci describes itself as, “an undergraduate residential program

for students pursuing broad, science-based fields of study. “ Students in the program

192

initially are housed in the same residence hall, “. . .where the School’s classrooms,
laboratories, and offices (both faculty and administrative) are located. Because of its
residential nature, DaVinci offers the intimate setting and the individual attention of a

small college along with the resources and opportunities of a major research university.”

Conclusion

Like those in the Salish Project, these seniors saw their science teacher education
program as two parallel but disconnected programs. What these seniors were taught in
their science classes and what they were taught in their education had little explicit
connection between them. As had been the case before, when I looked at an answer to a
question about a science class and tried to imagine the opposite response, this, typically,
was what was said about the education class. The lone agreed upon connection is
N SC401, a class that focuses on teaching in the high school laboratory.

Science classes taught content at a level far beyond what they would typically
teach was taught in a way that not only is not deemed inappropriate by education faculty,
but in effective opposition to what education faculty deem appropriate. In Bill’s words,

“it’s kind of like they’re battling against each other.”

193

Chapter 5

A CASE STUDY IN FOSTERING A HEALTHIER RELATIONSHIP - SMEC

This chapter describes The Science & Mathematics Education Collaborative
(SMEC), an organization that is intended to improve communication and collaboration
between scientists and educators. The chapter focuses largely on the dynamics of the
groups Science Education Brown Bag Lunches (BBLs) and on the building of
community.

The Science & Mathematics Education Collaborative (SMEC) is a loosely
coupled organization that has improved communication and fostered collaboration among
faculty in the Colleges of Education and Natural Science. The improved communication
and collaboration is intended to improve mathematics and science teaching and learning
from kindergarten through graduate school. We believe we are making strides towards
these goals. This chapter will briefly describe the history of the organization with an eye
to understanding the obstacles faced and the progress we have made. The analysis
should help us to maintain and expand our work and inform the work of others. The
work of SMEC will be illustrated by analyzing three cases: (1) the apparently
confrontational discussions in our Brown Bag Lunch series; (2) the nature of the
institutional and individual support; and (3) the development of a successful grant
proposal. The first two of these cases can be described as catalysts for the formation of
SMEC, but they are also more than that. The formation of SMEC can be seen as a

catalyst for the third case.

194

The three research questions for this study are (1) What are the differences
between the culture of college science and the culture of teacher education? (2) What
factors, mechanisms or conditions have contributed to our progress? (3) What factors,
mechanisms or conditions have limited our progress?

A diagrammatic representation of this chapter is shown in Figure 5.1.

      
   

 

Undergraduate
Education ‘1

were catalysts for

  
 
  
   

The Science a

Mathematics
Education

collaborative

  
     
   

 
 
 
 
 
 

Grant Proposal
Development
(Case 3)

auenfion
focused
on

  
 
     
   
 

membership is

helpsbridge

cultural
divide
between

College of
Natural
Science

    
   

' College of I
Education

from from

 

Individuals committed to improving math and science teaching and learning

 

Figure 5.1: Some connections of topics within Chapter 5

195

Rationale for Collaboration

Criticisms of the teaching of math and science at the K-12 level are common
place. See for example, (AAAS, 1989, 1993; Darling-Hammond, 1995; NRC, 1996;
Schmidt, 1997; Shamos, 1995). Recently (and historically), such criticisms have also
focused on undergraduate teaching. See for example, (NSF, 1996; Seymour & Hewitt,
1997). For a historic perspective see (Osbum, 1921) for example.

Within the Colleges of Education and Natural Science were many caring
professionals dedicated to improving mathematics and science teaching and learning at
all levels. It seemed common that faculty in one college were not aware of or did not
understand the work related to these goals in the other college. SMEC was established to
improve math and science teaching by improving communication and collaboration
among faculty in the two colleges. While faculty in the two colleges shared students, the
goals for these shared students seemed quite different, even in opposition to each other.

The aims of the organization are shown in Figure 2.

Precursors

Catalysts for Collaboration

In the fall of 1994, Midwestern University hosted a meeting to review an early
draft of Project 2061’s Blueprint for Science Literacy, involving scientists and science

educators from around the country. At that meeting, there was a heated exchange

196

between physicist Greg Garno and science educator Don Walter, both (unbeknownst to
each other) of Midwestern University.

Don found the conversation worth continuing and talked further to Greg and
discovered they were both from Midwestern University. As a result of this conversation,
Don established the Science Education Brown Bag Lunch (BBL) Group. This group has
continued to meet regularly since 1994. The setting is always informal, sometimes
without an established agenda, but usually focused around a particular reading or issue.
Attendance typically varies between ten and twenty, and both colleges are always
represented. Beginning in the fall of 1998, mathematicians and math educators with
interests in issues affecting both mathematics and science education have joined the
conversations. This addition has helped keep the conversations intense, and the
interactions of two mathematicians and the established Brown Bag Lunch group will be

the first case addressed in this chapter.

Program Structures

Several factors preceded the formal establishment of this collaborative. There is a
respected, long-standing and sizable science education faculty group in the College of
Education. Every fall, virtually all of the science education faculty and graduate students
participate in weekly seminars, and in the last two years, a small number of faculty from
the College of Natural Science have joined these seminars. The theme of this course,
Teacher Education 955, changes from year to year. In 1998, the focus was on the

differences in culture between the two colleges.

197

Under the leadership of Calvin Theiss, The Division of Mathematics and Science
(commonly referred to as “The Division”) formed within the College of Natural Science
serving as a point of contact for the College of Education. For the last two and a half
years, The Division has been under the leadership of Brian Wysor. In 1999, Evelyn
Pelosi will assume the directorship of The Division. The Division is the formal structure
in which masters’ degree programs for practicing science teachers are housed. The
Division also includes two faculty, one tenure stream and one temporary, with joint
appointments in the two colleges. Several other faculty and support staff serve bridging
roles between the two colleges. Institutional support is the second of the three cases
addressed in this chapter.

As communication improved through channels like the SMEC website, listserv
and through SMEC meetings and BBLs, another type of catalyst came into play — RFPs.
The story of the development of a successful grant proposal will be the third and final

case investigated in this chapter.

The Aims of SMEC

Following the first meeting in January of 1997, website development began as
one vehicle for information dissemination - a primary goal of the collaborative. A
listserv was also established. By the fall of 1999 the list included over forty subscribers
from the two colleges, the State Department of Education and directors of the state’s

Math and Science Centers.

198

The opening text of SMEC’s website defines the aims of the organization. This is
provided here for context. The aims are shown in Figure 2. The text was written in the

spring of 1997, shortly after the first meeting.

 

Figure 5.2: The Aims of SMEC

 

 

What is The Science & Mathematics Education Collaborative ?

The Science & Mathematics Education Collaborative is a new and unique group at

Midwestern University. SMEC seeks to improve science and mathematics teaching at all

levels. Begun under an initiative of the Dean in the College of Education, this group has

received strong support from the College of Natural Science, and encompasses most of

the research faculty in science and mathematics education in the two colleges. The

current participants number more than forty and include staff members from the State

Department of Education.

The aims of this group include:

0 Creating new images of what science and mathematics education might be

0 Providing a forum for consideration of needs and priorities for work in science and
math education, i.e., strategic planning

0 Informing our faculty better of one another's work and of relevant developments at
the national, state, regional and local levels

- Facilitating preparation of collaborative projects that interrelate multiple aspects of
our work

0 Communicating the scope and impact of our combined efforts to administrators and
policy makers

0 Focusing of institutional support for major proposals

0 Providing an access point for queries, expressions of concern or proposals about
science and math education

0 Providing a more informed, timely, and effective voice on policy matters that arise
Fostering an intellectual community for faculty and advanced graduate students

This group is in a position to work with others around the University in strategic planning
for new and continuing initiatives.

 

Case 1: Brown Bags and Controversy

As noted in the introduction, the Science Education Brown Bag Lunch (BBL)

emerged from a heated exchange between physicist Greg Garno and science educator

199

 

Don Walter. The exchange took place in 1994 when Midwestern University hosted a
national meeting to review a draft of Blueprints for Science Literacy. This exchange led
to continued discussions among scientists and science educators through the Science
Education Brown Bag Lunch group. Don Walter coordinated the BBL from its creation in
1994 through the fall of 1998 when Don passed the reins to Don Duggan-Haas and
SMEC.

Throughout the history of the BBL, a wide range of topics related to science
education have been discussed, including reform documents, big ideas in science
disciplines, how to teach specific concepts, politics of the State Board of Education and
much, much more.

Heated exchange is part and parcel of BBLs. Pounding the table to make one’s
point is not unheard of. There are issues discussed in every meeting in which all
discussants clearly do not see eye-to-eye. In the fall of 1998, two mathematicians, David
Margolius and Jeremy Richter, began regular participation in the BBL. Both are opposed
to mathematics education reform and attribute difficulties their current college students
are having in their classes to the reforms. They hold similar concerns about the reforms
in science education.

David and Jeremy were drawn to the first meeting of the fall where the topic of
discussion was Testimony of Stan Metzenberg, Ph.D. before the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Basic Research (Metzenberg,
1998a, 1998b). Metzenberg’s harsh criticisms of science education standards and

educational research (which Don Duggan-Haas characterized as an attack in the

200

meeting’s agenda) appear to be in line with the criticisms of many scientists and
mathematicians who have joined our conversations.

These discussions were seen as political and addressing issues where we can
make no difference by some of the scientists who had participated regularly in our
conversations. For that reason, some chose not to come to these meetings. The
discussion of the Metzenberg piece led to the suggestion from David Margolius that we
discuss how the State Standards help or fail to help teachers in planning and teaching — a
much more pragmatic approach. This was the primary topic of discussion for the March
16, 1999 BBL. The specific state standards were handed out along with related text from
California standards at a prior BBL.

The standards discussed dealt primarily with electric circuits and the discussion
grew heated in determining what is fundamental for middle school children to learn about
circuits. Mathematician David Margolius argued that knowing how to series and parallel
circuits operate is fundamental. Science educator Don Walter argued that getting
students to understand that electricity flows in a loop is the fundamental understanding
for middle school students to understand about circuits.

Grade specific benchmarks (like California) versus standards (like this state’s and
the national standards) were also an issue. Don argued that the politics of the American
schools preclude a grade-by-grade national or state curriculum, though there is movement
toward a more coherent curriculum at the state level. David argued that such a
curriculum is necessary.

After the meeting formally ended, Don and David continued to talk for a full

hour. David asked Don if this was worth his time. Don responded that while it often

201

frustrating to argue for what is generally agreed upon after years of research, it is worth
his time as long as individuals remain engaged in the conversation.

The specifics of this discussion is not the point of describing it here. The point is
that again and again, in discussion after discussion, scientists and mathematicians have
taken initial positions diametrically opposed to those typically taken by science
educators. And, more importantly, they keep talking. What appears to be an obstacle,
differing world views, should be recognized as progress — they talk to each other, and
more importantly, are coming to respect each others strengths. The fact that these
conversations have now gone on for more than four years is a testament to their value. In
the words of Scott Peck, we are, “working through the chaos” (Peck, 1998).

At the following BBL, Joe spoke about Peck’s work and used Figure 5.3 in his
discussion of progress in community building. Ground rules for discussion were
suggested based on Peck’s work. Those rule include:

1.Say your name each time you speak and use 'I' statements.

2.Do not interrupt others and listen carefully (or use careful listening).

3.Speak only when moved to speak.
Peck provides other rules, but Joe said that this was probably a good basic set for
beginning. The discussion of Peck’s work and the dynamics of the group was short and I
sensed that David and Jeremy may have been thinking this was “touchy-feely education
crap” that Peters had mentioned in my first meeting with him. They did not say much
and the meeting moved on to look at and discuss the teaching of electric circuits using
one of the Private Universe videotapes as a focus for the conversation (The Harvard-

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 1995).

202

mam—=0 mu .5. m8: .000.» .3000. on 0055.55. 50.0.0050... $000.0. .003.

 

z. 000.. 000.. .1000. 0..
003302... 00580303

 

 

 

 

    
  
  

02.000800:
0, 0800050
300000000

 
 

00.00. 000030 .0.
30.00030 0,
00 :_...0n 0.0.00 :00

000::000 8
:05. 003:0

        
    

  
  

030.008... 000 3 05000000300 02 30000050 .00

.008 no 3.0:" no

       

  

3:010 ...03
.403 no .003 .0 ....03 n0
...... E. é
0005.00 000:...00 «0000.00
i 0:50:00 i 0033.303
8330:0000: 0:50."

 

203

The consideration of the dynamics of the organization led Joe Stewart to connect
Peck’s work that he had been exposed to in church ,work and used in building community
within one Midwestem’s Professional Development Elementary Schools. This model,
which is sketched out in Figure 5.3, seemed useful for describing the process of the
BBLs. Pseudo community existed at the early BBLs. People were pleasant and polite,
even when they disagreed. This, however, really did not last very long. Genuine anger
emerged within the first year of the BBLs. People became painfully aware of differences
of opinion.

It is tremendously important to recognize that while they are making progress in
these discussions, they are making progress with a subset of those who are willing to talk.
While this is indeed valuable, it is only a beginning. The BBL was a catalyst for the
formation of SMEC. It is now an integral part of what SMEC does to keep the

conversation moving forward.

Case 2: Institutional Support

The kinds of institutional support for SMEC can be classified as either individual
or administrative. Administrative support includes formal recognition and monetary
support. Individual support is in the form of time and work from individuals without
compensation or recognition. SMEC has benefited from both administrative and
individual support. Deans of both colleges have attended SMEC meetings. The College
of Education provides ongoing funding as well as in kind support (electronic resources

like server space and prominent placement of a link within the College’s website, for

204

example). Faculty have given much of their time without load time. This section of the
chapter provides an overview of institutional support.

In 1996, Dean of the College of Education launched an initiative to fund several
“themes” within the college. These themes were intended to foster “intellectual
communities” within the College of Education and internal funding was available. This
served as a catalyst for conversation among the science education faculty group,
encouraged by Joe Stewart. Continued conversation lead to the inclusion of mathematics
within the “theme” proposal and to branching across the two colleges. An organizational
meeting was held that lead to the writing of the internal proposal. Funding of
$8,000/year was awarded beginning in January of 1997. This funding was used to hire
Don Duggan-Haas as the project’s graduate assistant. Funding also was used for large
group meetings the most recent of which was March 18, 1999.

A steering committee formed including a scientist, science educators, a
mathematician, and math educators. Brian Wysor, the first scientist on the Steering
Committee, was an Associate Dean and Director of the Division of Mathematics and
Science Education (DMSE) in the College of Natural Science. The Steering Committee
met monthly while whole group meetings have typically taken place once a semester.
These whole group meetings have lead to additional meetings of smaller groups,
including those involved in substantial grant development activities (see (Duggan-Haas,
Smith, & Miller, 1999) for information regarding accomplishments).

As Director of DMSE and Associate Dean, Brian served as an important bridging
agent between the two colleges. His active participation and support of SMEC played a

very important role in that bridging. DMSE houses masters’ programs for science and

205

math teachers. DMSE was gaining responsibility without a corresponding increase in
resources. There was significant pressure to bring the non-majors’ science courses into
the realm of DMSE without providing the means necessary to run the courses well. Brian
moved into the Director’s position labeled as the Science Co-Director of DMSE, with the
understanding that a Mathematics Co-Director would soon be brought on.

Two searches initially failed to fill the Mathematics Co-Director position during
Brian’s tenure as Director.

Linda Whitney, of the College of Natural Science, developed a science course for
elementary teacher candidates that was taught in the fall of 1998. Throughout the course
and in course development, Linda worked closely with science educators. The course is
being taught again in the spring of 1999, and enrollment is full.

The kind of support that this course has received reflects the strengthening
connections between the two colleges. Linda is a faculty member in the College of
Natural Science and she is being given load time to teach a course. She wrote a proposal,
along with science educators, that advocated adding sections over the next three year so
that the course will eventually be taken by all elementary teacher candidates. The
proposal has been well-received and course development has been facilitated by a NASA
NOVA grant.

SMEC both contributes to and benefits from the strengthening connections

between the colleges.

206

Case 3: Grant Proposal Development

Throughout the spring of 1998, a large grant writing team involving faculty, post
doctoral fellows and graduates students from the Colleges of Natural Science and
Education developed a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Grant proposal. A $1.6 million
award was announced in the summer and work is underway 0) to reform introductory
biology courses for science majors, C2) to expand opportunities for undergraduate research
and 0) to expand faculty professional development programs.

Again, SMEC was positioned to both contribute to and benefit from strengthening
ties between colleges. Don Duggan-Haas was involved in the grant writing process
because of his role in SMEC. Both Joe Stewart and Don Duggan-Haas served in
advisory capacity to the grant team as SMEC representatives. This grant not only brings
in substantial funding, but it explicitly targets improving undergraduate science teaching,
one of the primary foci of SMEC.

The grant work applies educational technology as a tool for the improvement of
biology instruction. Educational technology has been central to the work of SMEC in
1999 and other grant initiatives indicate that the effective use of educational technology
will remain a focus for some time to come. Even before the grant was awarded, the
process of writing the proposal had produced valuable outcomes. Some valued outcomes
are in the form of individual connections within the grant writing team. Another more
tangible outcome is the development of DMSE’s Draft Educational Principles. These are

shown in Figure 5.3.

207

 

Figure 5.3. Guiding Educational Principles for Midwestern University

 

 

1. WWW Effective science instruction illuminates accurate

yet understandable renderings of the concepts, models, and theories unifying vast numbers of
otherwise seemingly unrelated facts. This endows the learner with: 1) deep understanding of the
causes for pattern across facts, and 2) robust power to accurately predict outcomes under a novel
set of initial conditions in a domain governed by the given Big Idea. For most learners, Big Ideas
best come alive when grounded in a limited set of facts carefully chosen by the instructor to be
both necessary and sufficient for illustrating the phenomenological puzzle under scrutiny. It is
appropriate to tell the human story behind the discovery and testing of Big Ideas. Analyzing
experiments and the lines of reasoning between evidence and conclusions helps students begin to
understand science as a process of inquiry as well as a body of knowledge.

2. MW. Students usually overlay newly encountered facts/knowledge as
superficial layers upon a well-established framework of cherished beliefs. Since conceptual

learning often requires abandoning prior beliefs, it is recommended practice to: assist students in
recognizing the shortcomings of their original ideas, offer a more plausible or defensible
alternative idea, model multiple successful applications of the new idea, and have students
independently apply and analyze the new idea (e.g., in homework problems). It is difficult to
assist students in constructing new knowledge if the teacher does not analyze and adjust to
students’ preconceptions and track progression toward the desired new understanding. In
attempting to pay attention to student ideas, it is advisable to have students articulate their
position precisely in their own words, drawings, or other conceptual renderings.

3. WWW. Teachers should provide frequent opportunity for and
varying forms of assessment of student: ideas, beliefs, thinking, reasoning, and difficulties with
given material. Assessments that require only instrumental understandings or factual recall are
insufficient. The information gathered on students’ growing understanding should be used to
continuously adjust and improve teaching.

MW- Wherever possible. science instructional

activities should embody these attributes. Such experiences heighten attentiveness, extend
attention spans, spur more diligent attempts to apply new material, and are more memorable.

5. WWW. Science concepts and procedural skills are learned

best when encountered in a variety of contexts and represented in a variety of ways, e.g.,
analogies, metaphors, models, applications. Students should also be encouraged to represent and
communicate new knowledge in multiple formats, e.g., orally, in writing or drawing, and in new
applications.

6. Wm Throughout the learning process.

students need opportunities to reflect upon and then express their evolving ideas.
Discourse with learning partners provides opportunity for feedback about the adequacy of
understanding from the perspective of peers. Incongruence of perspectives can be a
strong stimulus to solidify and defend one’s thinking and position, or to revise and amend
one’s position in the face of convincing evidence or logic. Discourse surrounding
disparate perspectives can be a strong stimulus for beneficial reflection.

 

208

 

A stated goal of SMEC is, “Facilitating preparation of collaborative projects that
interrelate multiple aspects of our work.” (See Figure 5.2.) The HHMI grant is a very
important collaborative project for both colleges and for our students. While this is not a
direct outgrowth of SMEC, more recent proposals are a direct result. This includes
proposals for a Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Grant proposal and a Rural
Systemic Initiative grant proposal.

Another stated goals is, “Focusing of institutional support for major proposals.”
Again, the HHMI grant and other proposals either recently submitted or under
development have found SMEC’s meetings and electronic communication avenues useful
for proposal development. There is also an effort underway seeking Title H funds
directed by an Associate Dean of the College of Education and involving faculty from
both colleges.

In the Fall of 1998, the scope of educational technology projects in the College of
Education were largely unknown to SMEC participants. This came to light as a result of
Steering Committee meetings and meetings involving Joe Stewart, Brian Wysor and Don
Duggan-Haas, and, eventually, faculty and educational specialists directly involved in
educational technology. This lead to the January 7, 1999 meeting entitled, “Using
Technology in Support of Science & Mathematics Education,” and a follow-up meeting
on March 18, 1999 entitled “What Should Educational Technology Look Like in Three
Years?”

These meetings helped faculty involved in both science and science education
understand the scope of educational technology projects underway in both colleges and to

see how their work might support these efforts and to discuss new possibilities for

209

collaborative efforts. As a result of the first of these two meetings, at least two
significant new grant writing teams have formed. One proposal has been submitted and
the second will be submitted within a month of this writing. The second meeting is part
of still ongoing grant development and analysis of the use of educational technology in

the teacher education program.

Obstacles faced along the way

Scientists and mathematicians typically know their subject matter far better than
do science and math educators. Science and math educators typically know far more
about sound pedagogy than do mathematicians and scientists. In good teaching, content
and pedagogy are inseparable (Shulman, 1987) yet the norm on most college campuses,
including Midwestern University’s, is that these are separated. Content courses are
taught in one college or department and courses on how to teach are housed in another.

See the Cycle of Blame described in Chapter 6, Scientists are From Mars,
Educators are From Venus.

This progress has been more noticeable in science than in mathematics, at least
for undergraduate teaching. Sadly, the most outspoken member of the mathematics
department representing SMEC and the only mathematician on the Steering Committee
passed away in 1998. SMEC has been unable to find a mathematician to take his place
on the committee.

Many of the problems faced can be better understood if it recognized that there
are huge cultural differences between the two colleges. There is a divide between the two

cultures, similar to the one described by (Snow, 1959). These two cultures are defined

210

by, and maintained through, the nature of interactions academics have with each other
and with their students in each college. The differences perceived by students are
delineated in Table 1.1.

The cultural divide is easily recognized by faculty in either college. There is
plentiful anecdotal evidence of the divide, and less evidence on initiatives to narrow the
divide. For example, the conversation between Don Walter and Greg Garno that acted as
a catalyst for the Brown Bag Lunch series highlighted the divide. Their work together
over the four years since that discussion, and their work in other border-crossing
activities indicates that the gap is being closed for these two individuals. Don has been
involved in the grant writing team for the successful grant proposal to Howard Hughes
Medical Institute. He drafted what became the Educational Principles of The Division of
Mathematics and Science Education as part of his work on the proposal. Greg has been
involved in a science curriculum committee for a local district and in other curriculum

development. Both have been regulars at the BBL gatherings for four years.

Conclusion

SMEC has made considerable progress towards its goals. While it is difficult to
determine what is causal in regards to this progress, we believe that SMEC has offered
many avenues towards their fulfillment. The connections between the Colleges of
Education and Natural Science have grown stronger throughout the brief history of the
Science and Mathematics Education Collaborative . Clearly, SMEC has played an

important role in fostering that growth.

21]

In the introduction to this chapter, three research questions were raised. (1) What
are the differences between the culture of college science and the culture of teacher
education? (2) What factors, mechanisms or conditions have contributed to our progress?
(3) What factors, mechanisms or conditions have limited our progress? In closing, I

revisit these questions.

What are the differences between the culture of college science and the culture of teacher
education?

The differences are reflected in our interactions with each other, here explicated
through the description of the Brown Bag Lunch meetings. It is also evident in how our
students perceive what happens in our classrooms as shown in Table 1. Midwestern

University is by no means unusual in the presence of these cultures at odds.

What factors, mechanisms or conditions have contributed to our progress?

The confluence of individual and administrative initiatives -- the Brown Bag
Lunch Group coming together before the Dean of Education’s “Theme Initiative,” and
Joe Stewart’s and Brian Wysor’s perseverance for several related initiatives to see
themselves as related are all important pieces of the puzzle. There is also a broader stick-
to-itiveness, what M. Scott Peck refers to as a willingness to “work through the chaos.”
(Peck 1998). Where there has been success, there has also been a willingness to work
with colleagues that see the world in a different way and a willingness to listen and
respect views other than our own.

There is a common draw. Everyone who is involved in SMEC, be it through

grant work, participation in BBLs and large group meetings or through serving on the

212

steering committee is committed to improving mathematics and science teaching.

Without committed and caring professionals from both colleges, the effort would fail.
SMEC has worked to improve communication and collaboration among

colleagues. SMEC participants are now beginning to study their work towards these

goals.

What factors, mechanisms or conditions have limited our progress?

The dichotomy of academic cultures at odds is not a false dichotomy. Scientists
and mathematicians tend to have conceptions of teaching and learning that are very
different from those held by educators. This is reflected in virtually everything done in
classrooms or for classroom teachers. We do have a small number but growing of
individuals engaged in cultural border-crossing, but the numbers are indeed small. This

is just a humble beginning at sustained change.

213

Chapter 6

THE DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP OF COLLEGE SCIENCE AND
TEACHER PREPARATION

What has been striking in this enduring clash of ideals has been the
divorce of pedagogy from subject-matter specialties.

(Cuban, 1999) p. 52
“[The philosophy of the education department is] to get away from
traditional instruction where a teacher stands up in front of a class and
lectures and does pretty much [the] same as my college instructors in
college science. So they kind of, it’s kind of like they’re battling against
each other. The way science classes are usually taught and the TB classes
are saying this is not how it’s supposed to be done.”

Bill’s New Teacher Preservice Program Interview

This chapter describes how the relationship between college science and teacher
education is a dysfunctional relationship by comparing it to a dysfunctional marriage.
The chapter then moves on to describe three interconnected potential causes for that
dysfunctionality: G) The goals of college science and teacher education are at odds. 0)
Scientists and teacher educators are from different cultures and hold different cultural
views (that often conflict). ® It is easier to place blame for problems than to work to

solve problems.

Scientists are from Mars, Educators are from Venus

The model developed in Chapter 1, based on Snow’s framework, helps to portray
the sharp dichotomy that is science teacher preparation. The information in Chapters 3, 4

and 5 maps onto this framework well, and it is useful way to frame the data. That is, the

214

science content courses are essentially a separate program from the teacher education
courses and the students, the future teachers, who move back and forth between these two
programs see little connection between them. This simple dichotomy however, is not a
terribly rich way to investigate the relationship between the two cultures (college science
and teacher education) and the relationship between the two cultures is as interesting as
the cultures themselves. This relationship manifests itself in one way or another on every
campus where science teachers are certified. Often, and at Midwestern University, this
relationship is dysfunctional.

The characteristics of a failed marriage are mirrored in the characteristics of
science teacher preparation programs. Reflected in the preceding three chapters are the
two primary components to most such programs — content training housed in colleges and
departments of science and pedagogical training housed in colleges and departments of
education. The norm is poor communication between these departments, particularly in
larger institutions. Even when there is communication between scientists and educators
it may not be apparent to teacher candidates in either class.

Science teachers, like most folks, have the desire to affiliate with a culture and
with cultural norms. It seems teachers affiliate with content-centered teaching or with
student-centered teaching as are the norms in their schools. Few teachers affiliate with
understanding-centered teaching (Anderson, 1995). Making the leap to the marriage
metaphor, science teachers end up like the scientists who taught their college science
classes or like the educators who taught their education courses — too much like Dad or
too much like Mom and not somewhere synergistically in the middle. Both Joseph and

Brad readily identified themselves as more closely affiliated with science than education

215

while Bill saw himself as more closely affiliated with education. None of the three
hesitated to choose science or education, they chose one or the other. As Wideen et. al.
(1998) note, the future teacher is left to add the pieces of her or his program together with
little or no direct assistance in this integration. This habit to affiliate with one or the other
is an indicator that that integration does not happen as well as it might.

The divorce of pedagogy and content are central to this study. The unification of
pedagogy and content through pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is fundamental to
good teaching (Shulman, 1986, 1987). This work resonates with Shulman’s belief that
“TE programs would no longer be able to confine their activity to the content free domain
of pedagogy and supervision” (1987, p. 20).

The identification of the marriage metaphor’S led me to read Men Are from Mars,
Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting
What You Want in Your Relationships by John Gray. I found his descriptions of the
relationships between husbands and wives strikingly similar to what I saw happening
between scientists and educators in their discussions in the Science Education BBLs that
were part of the scientist-educator collaborative SMEC and in my broader experience
with scientists and science educators. Gray provides a framework that is useful for
thinking about the relationships between scientists and educators and some thoughts on
how to improve those relationships.

Figure 6.1 takes the opening of Chapter 1 of Men Are from Mars, Women Are
from Venus and replaces references to men and women and Martians and Venusians with

references to scientists and science educators. References to planets are also modified.

 

’5 This idea came to me as result of the barroom conversation described in the overview of the dissertation.

216

Of course, scientists and educators, like men and women, are not truly from
different planets and scientists and educators did not all meet at some historic point and
fall in love. Gradually, though, Universities grew teacher preparation programs while
normal schools grew into universities. This evolution did bring together two different

cultural views, not out of love, but out of necessity and administrative decree.

 

Figure 6.1: Scientists Are from Mars, Educators Are from Venus

 

Imagine that scientists are from Mars (universities) and educators are from Venus
(normal schools). One day long ago the Martians, looking through their telescopes,
discovered the Venusians. .. They fell in love and quickly invented space travel...

The Venusians welcomed the Martians with open arms... The love between the
Martians and Venusians was magical. Though from different worlds, they reveled in
their differences.

Then they decided to fly to Earth. In the beginning everything was wonderful and
beautiful. But the effects of Earth’s atmosphere took hold, and one morning everyone
woke up with. .. selective amnesia!

Both the Martians and Venusians forgot they were from different planets and
were supposed to be different. In one morning everything they had learned about their
differences had been erased from their memory. And since that day scientists and
educators have been in conflict.

 

REMEMBERING OUR DIFFERENCES

 

 

Without the awareness that we are supposed to be different, scientists and
educators are at odds with each other. We expect the opposite sex to be more like
ourselves. We desire them to “want what we want” and “feel what we feel.”

...Scientists mistakenly expect educators to think, communicate, and react the
way scientists do; educators mistakenly expect scientists to feel, communicate, and
respond the way educators do. We have forgotten that scientists and educators are
supposed to be different. As a result our relationships are filled with unnecessary friction
and conflict.

Adapted from (Gray, 1992) Pgs. 9 & 10

 

Teacher candidates, like the children of divorced parents, move back and forth

between the supervision of education faculty and science faculty. These two divorced

217

 

supervisory entities each serve their own purpose in the development of future science

teachers, but they are not cooperative in the endeavor.

Why Is the Relationship Dysfunctional?

“Why can’t we all just get along?”

Rodney King

Why is the relationship of college science and teacher education dysfunctional,
especially if scientists and educators share a common goal of preparing good future
science teachers? There are a myriad of reasons but three causes seem central to the
dyfunctionality: (D cultural dissonance; ® blame; and CD conflicting goals. The cultural
dissonance described in Chapter 1 could be seen as all encompassing, and indeed, the
other causes I describe, blame and conflicting goals, stem from this cultural difference.
While both blame is assigned and goals conflict because of the gulf between science and

education, each issue can be viewed in and of itself.

Conflicting Goals

As Individuals working with the same groups of future teachers, scientists and
teacher educators fill different niches. Scientists and educators should be different from
each other, but the roles they serve in teacher preparation should be more complementary
than the situation I observed at Midwestern. That complementarity can only come after
an agreement of goals for the students who will go on to become teachers. Labaree
(1998) describes three conflicting goals of education. Democratic equality sees schools

as a key place for developing good citizens. Social efficiency sees education as “designed

218

to prepare workers to fill structurally necessary market roles.” Social mobility prepares
individuals for “successful social competition for the more desirable market roles.”
Democratic equality and social efficiency are both public goods — they serve the society
more than the individual. Social mobility is a private good. It is consumer driven
((Labaree, 1997) p. 42).

The purposes of college science are more private goods than public. Most
students in science classes for science majors are, unlike the seniors interviewed for this
study, not there to become teachers. Most are planning to go to graduate or professional
school after graduation. They are enrolled in these classes for their exchange value.
Students come to the realization “what matters most is not the knowledge they learn in
school but the credentials they acquire there” (pp. 55-56).

The following quote is how Chika Hughes opened her syllabus for TE250,
Human Diversity, Power and Opportunity in Social Institutions:

There is not such a thing as a neutral education process. Education either

functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the

younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about
conformity to it, or it becomes “the practice of freedom,” the means by

which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and

discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. ((Freire,

1993) p. 15)56
TE250, like most teacher education classes seemed to more target the goals of democratic
equality and social efficiency than social mobility. The readings for TE25057 are clearly
targeting democratic equality and the economy has a constant need for teachers. Classes

like TE250 may incidentally help students to navigate the rift between college science

and teacher education, but this is not an explicit intention.

 

5" One might argue that this social conflict is manifest in the differences between the way science and
teacher education courses are taught at Midwestern University.

219

Gallagher has developed the “Mercedes model” for delineating some of the
differing goals for addressing the learning of science that portrays learning for
knowledge, application and understanding as complementary (Gallagher, 1992). See
Figures 6.2 and 6.3. The Mercedes Model was used in TE401 to discuss relationship of
knowledge, application and understanding. This is one place where connections between
college science and teacher education were made for the teacher candidate, however none
of the seven seniors mentioned the link”.

Gallagher relays the story of talking with a teacher about the Mercedes Model:

“. . .when I was asked by one experienced teacher who was learning about

how to teach for understanding and application of science knowledge, ‘Do

you mean that what I have been doing for the past several years as a

teacher is wrong?’ I was able to reply, ‘No, you were helping students

acquire the essential base of knowledge. However, you did not go far

enough. . . .’ Then I could ask, ‘What does the model suggest you should

add to your lessons?”’

(Gallagher, In press)
Such an approach is useful not only for working diplomatically with high school and
middle school teachers who are attempting to move their teaching to an inquiry approach,
but also for the scientist attempting to make the same move. Using tools that are

sensitive to the strengths of the others in a relationship is one method to improve the

relationship. At least as important, it is also sensitive to research findings.

 

57 Most of the readings are listed in the syllabus excerpts in Chapter 3.
58 Joseph did mention the introduction of the Mercedes Model as one of the rare teacher education class
moments where he actually took notes.

220

‘I

      
       
      
 
 
   

  

Building a
Knowledge Base

 

 

Finding
Applications

Generating
Understanding
Making Sense
Making
Connections

 
 

 

Figtrre 6.2. The Mercedes Model for Teachirg and Leaming(Gallagher, 1992)

 

 

Building a Generating Finding
Knowledge Base Understanding Applications
Lecturing/Telling Concept mapping Searching for applications
Reading text or other Writing to learn for science principles at

sources
Watching films and videos
Hands-on activities

Most seatwork

Labeling diagrams

Most labs

Most homework
Answering text questions
Most library research

Most objective tests

 

Group tasks requiring more
than factual recall

Reading for Understanding

Journal writing

Representing concepts with
pictures and models

Explaining diagrams

Group work formulating
explanations

Analysis of peers’ work

Extended questioning

Essay tests

 

home and outside school
Using newspapers as a
source of applications
Writing about applications
Representing applications
with pictures and models
Group work describing
applications
Asking “the right question”

Tests with application items

 

 

Figure 6.3. Varied Teaching Strategies for Different Educational Goals

(Gallagher, 1992)

 

221

 

In using such tools to make connections between college science and teacher
education with teacher education students, perhaps more explicit attention should be
drawn to this as a connection. Again, while the Mercedes Model was used in TE401,
none of the students mentioned it as a connection between college science and teacher
education. The Mercedes Model does offer a different way to delineate the goals of
college science and teacher education and through this framework, the goals are
somewhat complementary rather than oppositional.

The goals viewed through Gallagher’s framework, however do not replace the
goals described by Labaree they rather address a different (and equally important) aspect
of the course goals. Gallagher’s model also reveals the college science classes portrayed
in previous chapters as deficient albeit in a more diplomatic fashion.

In spite of science faculty not seeing their courses as weed out courses, when
students identify them as such they fulfill the role of social sorting. As noted in Chapter
1, early science courses tend to sort and select whereas teacher education programs tend
not to do so until late in the program if at all.

“. . .consumers demand a stratified structure of opportunities within each

institution, which offers each child the chance to become clearly

distinguished from his or her fellow students. This means they want the

school to have reading groups (high, medium and low), pull-out programs

for both high-achievers (gifted and talented programs) and low achievers

(special education), high school tracks offering parallel courses in

individual subjects at a variety of levels (advanced placement, college,

general, vocational remedial), letter grades (rather than vague verbal

descriptions of progress), comprehensive standardized testing (to establish

differences in achievement), and differentiated diplomas endorsed or not

endorsed, Regents or regular). ((Labaree, 1997) p. 53)

These contrasts drawn by Labaree from (add his citations, p. 53) map onto

contrast between science and education coursework remarkably well. College science

222

classes include remedial courses to bring at-risk students up to speed, courses for non-
majors, majors’ courses (for the ‘regular’ science students), honors courses (or honors
options) and special programs for the most advanced like NSF’s Research Experiences
for Undergraduates (REU) Program. Education courses follow a single track for
undergraduates (though a small number may pursue an honors option).

Further, the assessments described previously follow the same divide. In science
classes, letter (or numeric) grades distinguish science students one from another.
Qualitative descriptions of teacher candidate progress in teacher education courses and
the internship are the norm. In teacher education courses, 4.08 are common and in the
fifth year, fully half of the credit hours are taken pass/fail (and virtually everyone passes!)
For the courses of the internship year, 3.05 are a minority and grades below 3.0 are truly
rare. The College of Education, like colleges and departments of education elsewhere,
awards grades that are among the highest on campus and is actively discouraged by
university administrators from doing so.

The goals for students from the two cultures are at odds. This creates a tension
stretching the future teacher in opposite directions. According to Labaree, social mobility
and democratic equality are educational goals in opposition: “Whereas social mobility
shares with its partner in the progressive agenda a concern for equal access, it stands in
opposition to the notion of equal treatment, and it works directly counter to the ideal of
civic virtue.” (Labaree, 1997) p. 65.

In the dysfunctional relationship, the offspring are the students who plan to go on
to teach. Mom the educator pulls them toward the goals in alignment with public goods

while Dad the scientist pulls the students toward the private good of social mobility.

223

Seymour and Hewitt found that the only science students typically encouraged toward
teaching by science faculty were women and minorities. Good science students were
often actively discouraged from teaching (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). As noted in
Chapter 1, this may be a result of racism or it may be driven by a desire to provide good

role models for K-12 students.

Cultural Dissonance

Chapter 1 describes the gulf between the two cultures. From that description we
see that the culture of college science evolved as universities evolved and the culture of
teacher education evolved as normal schools evolved into universities. The nature in
which faculty in science speak to their students and with each other is significantly
different than the ways in which faculty in education speak with their student and with
each other. It is as if, in Gray’s words, they are from different planets.59

Individuals within each culture expect those in the other to think and speak the
way they do and they become frustrated when this is not the case. Likewise, individuals
become frustrated when something that seems obvious to one culture is completely
misunderstood by the other. Lisa Delpit, talking about a very different set of cultures, put
it this way:

“In my work within and between cultures, I have come to conclude that

members of any culture transmit information implicitly to co—members.

However, when implicit codes are attempted across cultures,

communication frequently breaks down. Each culture is left saying, ‘Why

don’t those people say what they mean?’ as well as, ‘What’s wrong with
them, don’t they understand?’” ((Delpit, 1988) p. 283)

 

 

I paint With a broad brush here. There are, of course, many exceptions to the generalities described.

224

Perhaps the most important area of cross—cultural conflict is conceptions of good
teaching. On the first day of BS111, Peters said the following:
“I do think by being here you get a lot more out of the lecture. The way I
emphasize things, the way I point to things, the things I write on the
overhead are all part of the learning experience. So I do believe if you
come to lecture you get a lot more out of it.”
Jon Peters, 8/31/98, during the first lecture

It is interesting to consider why Jon Peters thinks students should be in class — not for

what the students will do, but rather for what will be done in front of them. For him,

‘ 4m -;—. -A’qufig

good pedagogy seems to be in no small part about pointing things out and emphasis.
Arguably, Peters’s lectures offer a model of the thinking process in science, but the rest
of the cycle — both the step before modeling, establishing the problem, and the steps
following modeling; coaching, fading and reinforcement are left for the students to do
largely without guidance from the instructor.

Teaching, in the college science paradigm, is telling. In teacher education, as one
of the Salish participants said, teaching is, “I would say a little bit of everything besides
lecture.”

The conflict, of course, runs deeper than just the nature of teaching. The nature of
content is portrayed in vastly different ways in the two settings. Facts and the need to
memorize them are stressed in the science classes described in Chapter 3. In the view of
Brad, in teacher education “There really weren't any facts.” Assessment reflects the
nature of teaching and the nature of what was taught. Reproduce the ideas from the
lecture on objective tests in science and in Bill’s words for papers in teacher education,
“As long as you’re thinking critically about something, you’re right.” This set of

conflicts was discussed much further in Chapter 1.

225

So, what should be done to address problems stemming from the cultural divide?
Recognizing that most of those involved in the preparation of future science teachers,
whether they are faculty in education or faculty in education, genuinely want to prepare
good teachers is a good place to start. Trying to understand the differing worldviews held
by others is also helpful. Taking these steps will help alleviate the unproductive blaming.

Another piece of the solution is the funding of projects that bring scientists and
educators together for program development and/or reform. There are numerous grant
programs that do just this, NSF’s Systemic Initiatives, grants for improving biology
instruction from Howard Hughes Medical Institute and NASA’s NOVA grant program
just to name a few. The existence of these programs are further evidence that the

separation of science and education is problematic.

The Centrality of Blame in Dysfunctional Relationships

The issue raised by Delpit of not understanding other cultures’ internal cues, leads
to the placing of blame. Blame is also, unfortunately, deserved. Educators tend to see
science courses as abysmally taught and rightly so. See (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997) or
(NSF, 1996) for some of the reasons behind this placing of blame. Scientists often see
education courses and education research as “touchy-feely,” as Jon Peters, one of the
introductory biology professors in this study said. They too have justification for their
criticism. Wideen et. al. draw attention to the fact that teacher preparation has
consistently failed to prepare teachers to meet the demands of the first year of teaching.
Hargreaves & J acka (1995) cite Lacey’s ( 1977) conclusion that teacher education

provides “a stressful but ineffective interlude in the shift from being a moderately

226

successful and generally conformist student, to being an institutionally compliant and
pedagogically conservative teacher” (p. 42 as cited on page 159 of Wideen et. al. (1998).

It is generally accepted that science education K-16 has serious problems in this
country. Blame can be placed in a variety of settings and when these arguments are
viewed collectively, the ‘blame path’ is circular. College faculty despair about the quality
of the pre-college preparation of their students (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). High school
teachers blame middle school teachers; middle school teachers blame elementary school
teachers and elementary school teachers blame poor teaching in college for their lack of
content knowledge (McDermott, 1990). In addition to these links, all of the individuals
included have been trained in college or university to do their current work, so blame
may be pointed to college science preparation from anywhere within the cycle. This
includes the college science professors themselves who have generally not seen
consistently good models of teaching in their own professional preparation and who have
had little or no pedagogical preparation. (See Figure 6.2.)

Figure 6.2 shows one possible “cycle of blame” for the problems of science
teaching at many levels. The gray line (and finger) from college faculty back to college
faculty is perhaps the least obvious and most important. Through this reflective loop real
change may be generated. Indeed, what happens inside this box is a key idea of this
dissertation. A glaring example of this finger pointing is the Stan Metzenberg
congressional testimony discussed at one of the BBLs. Metzenberg places the blame for
problems in American science education squarely on the shoulders of science educators
(Metzenberg, 1998b). This testimony has been widely disseminated by the organization,

Mathematically Correct and it is posted on their website,

227

 

http:/[www.mathematicallycorrectcom, along with similar examples of vitriolic blaming

of science and mathematics educators. Vitriolic blame has power. This is what allowed

Metzenberg to testify before the United States Congress.

 

Figure 6.2: Cycle of Blame

 

 

Place blame for
poor preparation 0
students on

 

 

 

Place blame
for
inadequacies
of their own
preparation

 
  
 
  
  
 

 

 

 

 

Place blame for
poor preparation of
students on

 

 

*There is plenty of finger pointing within this box in addition to pointing outside of it!

 
 
 
   

 
 
   
 

 

Place
blame for
poor
preparation
of
students on

 

 

 

 

(Duggan-Haas et al., 1999)

 

228

This cycle is, of course, a simplified model. Both larger and smaller contexts are
ignored. What is the role of family? Of culture?60

Most salient to members of the SMEC collaborative, and to scientists and
educators more generally, is the finger-pointing within the box in the upper left hand
corner of Figure 6.2 (this is not pictured). In other words, the most important finger
pointing is between science faculty and education faculty. There is a fair amount of
blame being assigned by both sets of academics both nationally and at Midwestern. For
example, blaming was too often a central part of our BBLs. This tendency to accuse
others is perhaps the greatest obstacle we face.

So, what should be done in response to the issue of blame? Teachers at all levels
must not simply respond to problems in teaching with statements beginning, “If only...”
but must instead think in terms of, “If I...” or “If we...” (Fullan 1991). In other words,
faculty must assume responsibility rather than place blame. Our SMEC discussions,
particularly those in the Brown Bag Lunch group and in the Steering Committee, have
generally moved beyond blaming. Those who are regular participants still engage in
heated conversation, but they also recognize that other participants in the conversation
have expertise that is valuable to the conversation and that all members of the

conversation care deeply about teaching and learning.

Did Mars make the Martians of did the Martians make Mars ?

Is all this difference grounded in the apparently administratively imposed

restrictions such as class size and the university reward structure? The answer, of course,

 

6“ These factors complexify this picture substantially and raise questions about the broader system of

229

is complex. McN air made clear in our initial meeting that he preferred smaller class size
and essay exams and he used these approaches in his summer version of the same
biochemistry class. Clearly, if classes were smaller and if quality teaching had a more
important place in determining tenure and promotion then the situation would be
markedly different. But it’s not different.

The constraints faced by college science teachers have been researched
extensively. Larry Cuban investigates why teaching has taken a backseat to research in
his book, How Scholars Trumped Teachers: Change Without Reform in University
Curriculum, Teaching and Research, 1890-1990 (Cuban, 1999). The administrators that
together with faculty establish the reward system are themselves primarily former
university faculty. Cuban looks at Stanford University as a case study of the interplay of
research and teaching in the university setting. Stanford’s presidents have offered
themselves as models for the faculty on campus, faculty that were, “. . .hired to do
research but paid to teach: then they were retained or fired on the basis of published
scholarship” (p. 10). These administrative practices, and the practices within classrooms
have remained “largely constant over the last century at Stanford” (pp. 52 - 53).

It is easy to ascribe problems of huge classes and the system that rewards research
over teaching to factors external to the scientists who teach but is somewhat
disingenuous. The reward system does indeed perpetuate the constraints for the scientists
who teach, but the system that creates and perpetuates the constraints is made up in large
part by scientists who teach or by administrators that used to teach. Assigning blame

“file is useful only as a first step to initiate change.

 

Ki . .
science teacher preparation. The simple models described thus far cannot address the deeper complexrties.

230

 

There was a time when Midwestem’s teacher education program also relied
heavily on large lecture hall classes, particularly for the introductory level. The faculty
made choices that eliminated such practices from the program. There were clearly costs
for such decisions, but the benefits seem to outweigh those costs.

Reform in higher education has typically taken the form of curriculum reform.
Unless pedagogical reform accompanies curricular reform student outcomes will likely
change little, thus the subtitle of Cuban’s book, “Change without reform...” (Cuban,
1999).

Separate from the system-imposed differences described above, scientists tend to
have a different approach and philosophy of teaching than teacher educators. Both Peters
and McNair stressed the need to memorize as key to success in each of their courses.
This was never emphasized in the teacher education courses I observed.

This is a positive feedback loop where the Martians make Mars while Mars makes

the Martians. Feedback loops are discussed further in the next chapter.

Conclusion

Counseling can be helpful
Collaborating with others who have different cultural views is a difficult process,
but it is central to the preparation of good teachers. It requires a willingness to work
together to hammer out common goals, and this may mean “working through the chaos”
(Peck, 1998). It may also require a form of counseling. In a sense, this is what Joe was
doing when he introduced Peck’s model for community building and Peck’s rules for

discussion to the BBL. See Figure 5 .3. Gallagher’s Mercedes Model is a tool that might

231

be used in the diplomacy of relationship building. Such relationship counseling is helpful
in moving beyond blaming and onto working together toward specific goals.

More important than counseling is recognition that scientists and educators are
different from one another. There is a tension here but tension can be productive. Like
divorced parents who do not share each other’s worldview, there is dire need to cooperate
in work toward certain goals. For the good of the future teachers we share responsibility
in nurturing, common goals must agreed upon and worked on in complementary ways.
This is not the current situation and the lack of agreement on goals is one of the greatest
obstacle to improvement of science teacher preparation.

Unfortunately, the relationship model whether the relationship is functional of
dysfunctional oversimplifies the realities of science teacher preparation. The
relationships involved in science teacher are myriad and complex — not simply the
scientist, educator, student portrayed here. Again, the Salish study found more variation
in new teacher beliefs and practices within each of the nine science teacher education

programs involved than among those nine universities.

232

Chapter 7

THE ECOSYSTEM OF SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION: DECONSTRUCTING
THE DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP

It’s fun to learn about human physiology, how the heart works, how the
muscles work, how the brain works and all that, but if you don’t
understand how one cell works, by itself, all the intricate things that it
does, you don’t really appreciate the whole picture.

Dr. Peters B81 11 lecture, 8/31/98

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to
everything else in the universe.

John Muir

This chapter folds together the ideas of the first six into a conceptual model of a
Complex Educational System; that is, in this chapter, the system of science teacher
preparation at Midwestern University is portrayed as a complex adaptive system.
Examples of complex adaptive systems permeate the natural and human-made world.
Ecosystems and economies are two examples of complex adaptive systems. They are
systems that are complex and evolve as a result of the interplay of a large number of
actors following a fairly small number of basic rules or laws. When as few as two
components are joined, the characteristics can be beyond those of the constituent parts.
"If we are dealing with a system, the whole is difi‘erent from, not greater than, the sum of
its parts" ((Jervis, 1997) pp. 12 - 13.)

The interplay of multiple actors in large systems makes prediction in such systems

very difficult. The system of education is unarguably a complex adaptive system made

233

of many more overlapping complex adaptive systems including the system of science
teacher preparation.

In this chapter I will draw from a variety of sources to describe the system of
teacher education as a complex adaptive system, or in the language of a recent NSF grant
program announcement, a “Complex Educational System” (NSF, 2000). This portrayal
will begin with an overview of Complex Adaptive Systems followed by a description of
emergent properties and move on to larger and more complex dynamics. The chapter
ends by investigating how optimizing one aspect of a system may “pessimize” other

aspects of the system or the entire system (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999).

What are Complex Adaptive Systems?

First, some definitions:

Complex Adaptive System (CAS): “Within science, complexity is a watchword
for a new way of thinking about the collective behavior of many basic but
interacting units, be they atoms, molecules, neurons, or bits within a
computer. To be more precise, our definition is that complexity is the
study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of such units that are
endowed with the potential to evolve in time. Their interactions lead to
coherent collective phenomena, so-called emergent properties that can be
described only at higher levels than those of the individual units. In this
sense, the whole is more than the sum of its components...

Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield, Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for
Order in a Chaotic World, 1995. (in Sipper, 2000)

emergent evolution: evolution that according to some theories that involves the
appearance of new characters and qualities at complex levels of
organization (as the cell or organism) which cannot be predicted solely
from the study of less complex levels (as the atom or molecule).
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Electronic Edition (1994)

ecological model of science teacher preparation: the system of science teacher
education is a CAS that is an evolving system characterized by punctuated

234

equilibria, chaos, emergent properties and various actors filling various
niches.

Alan AtKisson describes systems elegantly and somewhat humorously in “It’s the
System,” Chapter 4 of his book, Believing Cassandra: An Optimist Looks at a Pessimist’s
World. While his work targets environmental rather than educational systems, his
description of systems has broad applicability. Figure 7.1 is composed of substantial

excerpts from that chapter.

 

 

This chapter is designed to release you from the feeling that you are personally to
blame for what is happening to Nature and the World, and to explain what is actually to
blame.

Unless you are a wildlife poacher who formerly worked for Greenpeace. A corporate
executive who has personally enslaved child laborers, or a black-marketeer in the CFC
business with a Ph.D. in atmospheric chemistry, what’s happening to the planet is not
your fault. Even those whose intentions are genuinely evil cannot be blamed for the
overall trajectory of history. Immense and impersonal forces are at work that are bigger
than any individual actor could possibly command, whatever their motivation. The
problem is not you, or “them,” or any one of us. The problem is that the World is
literally out of control.

In the 19605 in America, a common way to complain about what was “goin’ down”
with Vietnam, Mother Earth, or the urban ghetto was to say, “It’s the system, man.”

Sixties slang-slingers didn’t know exactly what they meant by the phrase, “It’s the
system” - for them “system” meant something like “the establishment,” the power
structure - but they were more right than they knew, even when they were stoned. “It’s
the system” is an accurate identification of the source of our contemporary global
problems. A more accurate way to say it would be, “It’s the systems, plural.”

First, let me provide a very brief introduction to the structure of systems - worth
reading, because understanding systems will alleviate that nagging feeling of global guilt.

A system is a collection of separate elements that are connected together to form a
coherent whole. Your body is a system, and it’s comprised many smaller systems, all
working together: the circulatory system, the digestive system, and so on. The
connections between the elements of a system come in two forms: stuff and information.
For example you eat food (stuff), and when your belly gets full it sends a signal
(information) to your brain telling you to stop eating.

The science of system dynamics uses a lingo, and it is easy to learn. In the example
above, the food moving through your gullet would be called a flow. Your belly, filling up
from the flow of food, would be called a stock. And the signal sent to your brain,
indicating whether the stock of food in your belly has reached that comforting level
known as “full” is called feedback.

The feedback from your belly has an impact on your eating behavior, which in turn

 

 

 

 

235

 

causes more feedback from the belly. All that circling around of stuff and information,
which controls (or should control) how much you eat is called a feedback loop. This
feedback loop, like most others, operates in two directions: it tells you to stop eating
when you are full, and it starts your search for food again when your belly is not full.
Feedback loops essentially give one or two messages to the system” “do more” or “do
less.”

A critical point to remember: Delays in feedback slow down response. You can’t react
to changes you don’t know about. And when you do know about changes, you may not
have enough time to respond. We will return to this point, because it is the crux of the
problem.

Here are two more important systems concepts: sources and sinks. Sources are where
stuff comes from; sinks are where stuff ends up. Farmlands and oceans are the source of
food you eat. In certain more enlightened societies, farmland is also the sink where the
compostable residue ends up; for most of us, though, the sink is some local body of water
connected with a sewage treatment plant. Sometimes even the human body acts as a
sink, as when lead builds up in the tissues. The impact of that lead is not felt directly for
years, and this is another delay in feedback. By the time you notice the symptoms of lead
poisoning, it’s too late: you’re poisoned, and there is no way to get the poison out fast
enough to prevent further damage.

The critical thing to know about sources is that they can run out. As for sinks, they can
fill up and spill over, just like the sink in your bathroom. A disappearing source creates a
shortage; an overfilled sink creates a mess.

Obviously, the issue of how quickly we get feedback about what’s happening in the
sources and sinks is extremely important to understanding and managing systems. In the
1972 version of the World3 computer model“, the attention of the press and the critics
was on sources, for instance metals and fossil fuels. Given that era’s knowledge about
current stocks and the growth rates of various flows, certain materials seemed likely to
run out, with challenging consequences. But it turns out that the real danger was in the
sinks. Fueled by runaway growth, they’ve been filling up and overflowing. “Overloaded
sinks” is one way to describe the cause of global warming, chemical pollution, and the
rising rates of cancer and genetic abnormalities. Had we been watching the atmospheric
sink carefully, had we understood the dynamics of what was happening, and had we
gotten more compelling feedback sooner and responded to that feedback in time, we
might have turned off the faucet of CO2 and prevented the climate system from going out
of balance.

But we didn’t. So it went.

 

 

Figure 7.1 AtKisson’s description of system dynamics. (AtKisson, 1999) pp. 69 ~72.

 

The above description that primarily targets ecological systems maps on to the

system of science teacher preparation well. It begins with the important release of blame.

236

 

The problems of science teacher education are no one’s fault. The problems are

grounded in a system that has evolved over centuries. No one designed this. Mostly we

fill niches in an existing system and we fill those niches in the way the system evolved to

have them filled.

 

Table 7.1a: Complex Adaptive Systems and Science Teacher Preparation

 

In Complex Adaptive Systems...

Example from Science Teacher Prepa_ration. ..

 

(1) All CAS consist of large numbers of components,
a ems, that incessantly interact with each other.

This includes students, faculty, family, community
and the media amongother agents.

 

(2) It is the concerted behavior of these agents, the
aggregate behavior, that we must understand, be it an
economy's aggregate productivity, or the immune
system's aggregate ability to distinguish antigen from
self. (3) The interactions that generate this aggregate
behavior are nonlinear, so that the aggregate behavior
cannot be derived by simply summing up the
behaviors of isolated agents.

Studying teacher education classes or college
science classes (or the two together) is not
sufficient to predict the formation of science

teachers' actions and beliefs (Salish, 1997).

 

(4) The agents in CAS are not only numerous, but
also diverse. An ecosystem can contain millions of
species melded into a complex web of interactions;
the mammalian brain consists of a panoply of neuron
morphologies organized into a hierarchy of modules
and interconnections; and so on.

At the heart of the system of science teacher
preparation is the student. The system of science
teacher preparation for biology teachers at
Midwestern University also includes scientists who
specialize in cell biology, biochemistry, genetics,
physics and more. It also includes educators who
specialize in multiculturalism, content area
literacy, science education, computer technology,
and again, more. Also part of the system are
families. teachers in schools, both before coming
to university and as part of the formal teacher
education program. The list goes on.

 

(5) The diversity of CAS agents is not just a

kaleidoscope of accidental patterns; remove one of

the agent types and the system reorganizes itself with

a cascade of changes, usually "filling the hole" in the
rocess.

Different actors within the system fulfill different
niches. The technology specialist who worked
with movie and filmstrip projectors is a thing of
the past.

 

(6) The diversity evolves, with new niches
for interaction emerging, and new kinds of
agents filling them. As a result the, the
aggregate behavior, instead of settling
down, exhibits a perpetual novelty, an
aspect that bodes ill for standard
mathematical approaches.

The current technology specialists work with
computers, graphing calculators and all sorts of
emerging technologies like Geographic
Information Systems, the global positioning
systems and more.

 

(7) CAS agents employ internal models to direct their
behavior, an almost diagnostic character. An internal
model can be thought of, roughly, as a set of rules that
enables an agent to anticipate the consequences of its
actions.

 

Jason's internal model included the use of study
groups and direct interaction with science faculty.
Other seniors' internal models typically did not.
McNair's and Peter's internal models included the
use of standardized tests.

 

 

(Adapted from Holland, 1995)

 

 

6' This refers to the World3 computer model described in The Limits to Growth (Meadows, Meadows,
Randers, & HI, 1974) which AtKisson describes elsewhere in the text.

237

 

John H. Holland summarizes the common characteristics of all CASs in his essay,

"Can There Be a Unified Theory of Complex Adaptive Systems?" Table 7.1a uses

Holland's descriptors of CAS characteristics and compares complex adaptive systems to

science teacher preparation. The numbered text (1 - 7) in the left column is Holland's (pp.

46 - 47). Table 7.1b includes other descriptors of CASs and examples.

 

Table 7.1b: Complex Adaptive Systems and Science Teacher Preparation

 

Delayed feedback complicates
understanding and managing system
dynamics.

The overwhelming nature of the first years of teaching
may conceal impacts of teacher education programs —
i.e. Salish showed more differences in teacher actions
and stated philosophies within than between programs
for beginning teachers. Even without this delay, the
measure of what teachers do and believe typically does
not flow in any direct way back to the teacher

education programs they graduated from (Salish,
1997).

 

Outcomes are sensitive to initial conditions

The most effective teacher education programs are
those that take into account teacher candidates’ initial
conceptions of the teaching and learning process

(Wideen et al., 1998)

 

 

The system evolves with occasional periods of
rapid change.

 

There was a time when education courses at
Midwestern were taught in large lecture halls and the
program was completed in four years. Substantial
reform of the teacher education program eliminated the
lecture hall classes and moved the program from four to
five years in duration.

 

 

Emergent Properties

“Water is H20, hydrogen two parts, oxygen one. But there is also a third
thing that makes it water and nobody knows what that is.”

D. H. Lawrence

A product with “characteristics beyond those of its combined elements” is said to

have emergent properties (Campbell, 1996)“. Repeatedly throughout the dissertation I

have used the useful simplification that treats college science and teacher education as

 

(’2 This definition and Figure 7.2 are taken from the B81 11 text.

238

F“—

two monolithic bodies alternately working with future science teachers. Future science
teachers at Midwestern and across the country are left to their own devices to integrate
the two program components into a coherent whole (Wideen et al., 1998)“. How these
disparate pieces are typically summed together has contributed to a K-l2 educational
system that is nearly universally recognized as deeply troubled.

In any complex system, properties emerge which cannot be predicted solely from
the study of less complex levels within the system. While it is useful to study college
science teaching and teacher education in and of themselves, this kind of study can never
reveal the actual workings of the total system. See the quote from Peters that opens this
chapter. The emergent properties of the combination of the parallel systems of science
education and teacher education do not fulfill the goals of either program component, of

either science or education.

 

 

FIGURE 2.2

The emergent properties
of a compound. The
metal sodium combines
with the poisonous gas
chlorine to form the edible
compound sodium . .
chloride or table salt. Wium Chlorine Wmmchluride

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7.2: The illustration for emergent properties used in the B5111 text
_(Campbell, 1996) p. 26.

 

Seymour and Hewitt found no reliable predictor for determining whether or not
college science students changed their major away from the sciences (Seymour & Hewitt,

1997). The Salish Project found that the teacher education program completed by a new

 

6“ Again, there are hints of making these connections with the teacher candidates in TE401. but the teacher
Candidates themselves do not report this connection.

239

 

K; “at“... m:.—.

science teacher was not a good predictor of either how the new teacher taught or what the
beliefs the new teacher espoused (Salish, 1997). Viewing these findings together
indicates that studying either students (as Seymour and Hewitt did) or studying teacher
education programs (as Salish did) is insufficient to understand the attitudes, beliefs, and

practices of new teachers. I conclude that the system must be viewed as a whole.

The Ecology of Science Teacher Education

A future teacher, of course, is not simply the product of college science and
teacher education. If they were, each university’s graduates would be identical. The
Salish study showed that there is more variation within each of the nine programs
involved in the study than there was between those institutions. One example of what
that means is that a better predictor than the certifying institution for new teacher beliefs
about the nature of teaching and the nature of science was whether or not the new teacher
had been engaged in meaningful scientific research (Salish, 1997).

This variation implies that there are more important factors involved in the
shaping of new science teachers’ beliefs and practices than teacher education programs as
currently configured. Those factors are myriad and interact in complex ways, like the
factors that determine the nature of ecosystems.

The dysfunctional relationship model is, like the Two Cultures model,
incomplete. Both models fail to account for the larger context. Important issues in

science teacher preparation, like family and community, are neglected“. The place of the

 

(’4 I neglect them as well. One of the greatest problems with viewing teacher education as a complex system
is that it precludes comprehensive study.

240

schools and required fieldwork in those schools does not fit easily in either
representation. Teacher educators and educational researchers must be attentive to the
fact that future teachers are learning to teach all of the time, not simply when they are
working on the requirements of course work and field work. All the time. Likewise,
scientists should recognize that their students are learning things that impact their
scientific understandings all the time, not just during class time or when doing
homework. An important piece of this is the recognition that future teachers are learning
to teach from the scientists who teach them and they are also (often) learning science :1 .
from the science educators teaching them to teach.

Both of the models described in the previous chapters are vast
oversimplifications. This does not mean they are without utility. Karl Popper said,
"Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification" (Andrews, 1993).
Over-simplification of complex systems is essential to making progress toward
understanding those systems, but it also essential to remember that these are
simplifications. The third model I employ, that of the Ecosystem of Science Teacher
Education, is the most complex and most accurate depiction of the system of science
teacher education. This more accurate model is, naturally, orders of magnitude more
complex. It is, therefore, the most difficult to understand and least developed of the
models. Cronbach (1988) reviewed James Gleick’s Chaos (1987) in Educational
Researcher, with an audience of educational researchers and other social scientists in
mind. In that review, Cronbach notes that the ideas expressed in Chaos have important

implications for educational research, but he predicts that these models will necessarily

241

 

 

use metaphorical descriptions and not use the complex mathematical modeling involved
in chaotic mathematics. I will not prove Cronbach wrong with this chapter.

The genesis for this model is also more complex -- at least four books helped form
this thinking. As noted in the introduction, they are: Murray Gell-Mann’s The Quark and
the Jaguar (1994), Robert Jervis’s System Effects (1997), Claudia Pahl-Wostl’s The
Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems (1995), and James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State: How
Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (Scott, 1998). These
books helped me better define a long-held personal belief that my role as a science
educator must be that of a generalist, in many ways more akin to a naturalist or ecologist
than to a bench scientist. The goals of the science educator map onto the relational goals

of the ecologist as described by Pahl-Wostl. See Table 7.2.

 

Table 7 .2. Comparison between a mechanistic and a relational approach

 

 

 

Mechanistic Relational

Question: What are the causes for an even What are the characteristics rendering
[sic] to happen? possible a pattern of interactions?

Goal: Derive causal mechanistic Find relationships between structural
explanations for system dynamics and functional properties

Method: Identify and isolate entities and Identify patterns of interaction and their
processes requirements

Theory: Models that predict events Models that make patterns intelligible
Rules how processes act on Rules on how to proceed in detecting
entities to produce events and characterizing relational patterns

 

(Pahl-Wostl, 1995) p. 47
The National Science Teachers’ Association Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation (CASE Network, 1998) describe ten standards or ten areas of proficiency that
science teacher education programs should target. These standards, when viewed

collectively, reflect the (eco-) systemic nature of science teacher preparation. Figure 7.3

242

 

maps some of this complexity. The text in the shaded boxes represents the ten standards

 

for Science Teacher Preparation identified and described by the CASE Network for the
NSTA. While the figure is complex, it pales in comparison to the immense complexity
of the overall system of science teacher preparation. It should be noted that the
connections shown are intended to illustrate some, but by no means all, of the important

connections within the system. This work by Enfield, Ashmann, and myself is part of a

- .-—-i

growing body of work in education that explicitly includes ecological models as central

t

to understanding learning. A recent RFP from the National Science Foundation includes
the study of Complex Educational Systems as one of its four key components (NSF,
2000).

In mapping complexity of science teacher education in Figure 7.3 we chose to
identify pedagogy and content as the two most important standards and make their
overlap evident in the representation. This overlap, pedagogical content knowledge or
PCK, is the heart of TE401. Following the bold, dashed arrows around part of the
perimeter of Figure 7.3 draws attention to some of the required steps in that process.
Beginning with pedagogy, it reads, “Pedagogy translates content into science curriculum
designed for teaching all students through inquiry for understanding and application.”
Adaptive Systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions.

Sensitivity to initial conditions exists in both biological ecosystems and in human
institutions. When teacher education pays attention to the initial understandings of the
students enrolled in their programs, they are more likely to be successful (Wideen et al.,
1998). It is worth noting that while Wideen, Mayer-Smith and Moon both identify that

starting with existing student understanding is a key component of successful programs

243

 

Figure 7.3: Mapping some of the complexity of science teacher preparation:
The NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation

 

 

The aim
lorluming

 

 

 

 

 

 

reflects

is'lllin nflocts

Social count of
science W Am

 

(Duggan-Haas, Enfield, & Ashmann, 2000)

 

and conclude by suggesting that ecological models should be explored thoughtfully for
better understanding the learning-to-teach process, they do not draw the comparison to

the importance of initial conditions to the outcomes of ecological processes. Their work

244

also focuses on understanding future teachers’ understanding of the teaching and learning
processes.

Midwestern University’s Teacher Education coursework seems to consider initial
conditions, students’ conceptions of teaching and learning, fairly well. The science
courses observed, conversely, treat the students as a vast monoculture. See Figure 7.4.
Students are planted in rows, all receiving identical treatment like seeds on an industrial
farm. Like the farmer providing roughly equal (and intending to provide exactly equal)
amounts of water, fertilizer and pesticides to each seed in the plot, the professor comes
and disseminates information equally to each student in the room. Each student receives
(or is intended to receive) identical treatment. Those who do not blossom as a result of
(or in spite of) the treatment are, of course, weeded out“.

Like the farmer, outcomes for the scientists who teach are measured primarily
quantitatively. Grade distributions, grade means and the number of students enrolled are
the measures in science course work. Crop yield is key to the farmer. Grade yield is the
key to the teaching scientist, although the scientist who teaches may or may not be
seeking high yield. Industrial farming arguably causes losses of more qualitative
measures like taste and health benefits. It also concentrates environmental impact in
generally negative ways — think industrial hog farming. Scott uses scientific forestry as a
parable for failed government intervention (Scott, 1998). This work together with David
Orr’s description of “architecture as crystallized pedagogy” (Orr, 1999) was the

inspiration for Figures 7.4 and 7.5.

 

65 Although, again, Seymour and Hewitt found that success in science classes was not a predictor of
Whether or not students switched majors.

245

 

._ic. J at...

 

 

Figure 7.4: Two examples of tightly controlled ecosystems that assume a
monoculture.

   

Fi

 

'\ t, 5,-er -

 

Figure 7.4b Rows of seats in B 108 Gilmour Hall, the classroom for BS1 11.

 

246

One might reasonably argue that through the use of monoculture, we feed the
world. Here, the metaphor breaks down in an interesting way. If a farmer were to lose as
much of the crop as college science does year after year, the farmer would do something
to improve the yield. Cuban notes that most of the methods used in college classes today
were innovations a hundred or more years ago ((Cuban, 1999) p. 52). The lecture hall
itself predates the commonality of books. The high cost of the books at the dawn of the
university made the lecture hall a more practical way to disseminate information. How
much of the technology used in the typical scientist’s research is essentially identical to
what was used by predecessors’ a hundred years prior?

The use of monocultures in agriculture has served us fairly well for a long time,
but it has vulnerability resulting from the monoculture itself — vulnerability to pest and
disease. A recent article in the journal Nature reports stunning success in battling the
major disease of rice, rice blast. In a study involving five townships in 1998 and ten
townships in 1999 in China, heterogeneous plantings of disease susceptible varieties
along with “resistant varieties had 89% greater yield and blast was 94% less severe than
when grown in monoculture” (Zhu et al., 2000). A parallel in the complexity of the
World Wide Web is the susceptibility of the various Microsoft monocultures to “viral
infections” like the Melissa Virus (Taylor, 1999). I believe the monoculture of the
lecture hall is showing its own vulnerability.

Figure 7.5 shows two apparently more loosely controlled systems -- the education
classroom and a wild area that appears to be loosely managed. In both of these less
rigidly managed systems, the management is not less but rather different in its nature.

The control is less centralized and more complex. In both the science classroom and

247

 

Figure 7.5: Two examples of apparently loosely controlled ecosystems that assume

diversrt

 

Figure 7.53 A marshy area outside Parma, Michigan. This photo was taken a few
hundred ards from Fi_ure 4a.

Figure 7.5b 121 Aquino Hall, the classroom for TE401. This photo was taken a few
hundred flrds from Figure 4b.

 

248

 

managed agriculture, control rests primarily with one individual or one organization. In
these more complex systems, the control is quite different — the trees will never grow

beyond a certain height and will not grow within the marshy area until the area is no

 

longer marshy. These are very real controls.
What appears controlled in the classroom is perhaps less controlled than what
appears uncontrolled. In my classroom observations, I never saw students sleeping in the

education classes“. I saw sleeping students in nearly every science lecture I observed“.

’0 afl-‘Luh'.
l ‘ ._

The percentage of students in attendance also was far greater in the education classes than
in B8111“. The nature of the classroom control in the education classes — some kind of
active engagement — controlled for sleep and attendance fairly effectively.

Many have compared the educational system to assembly lines and schools as
modeled after factories. Chika Hughes’s syllabus states, “The evolution of the one-room
schools into larger and complex institutions was modeled after industrial models.” See
Figure 7.7. We can see that in the future teachers moving back and forth between science
classrooms where content knowledge is loaded in and education classrooms where
pedagogical skills are added. While we have tried to simplify and mechanize the
processes of teaching and learning, other factors override these simplifications.

Figure 7.6"9 diagrams how one Chika Hughes physically transformed one type of
system into the other. The layout of the room, of course, only tells a small piece of the
story, but it is quite revealing. More important than how the seats are arranged is what

students do and are expected to do.

 

6" Unfortunately, I can not say the same of every education class I have ever taught!

67 Every time I remembered to look for people sleeping, I saw them.

“a The percentage “in attendance” in BCH401 was not measurable as it was broadcast on campus cable, and
videotapes were made in the library, but those other ways of “attending” precluded interaction.

249

 

F igrre 7.6: Reconfiguring a classroom to the suit the needs of one culture

/-

 

  

 

 

Tablet /
arm desk

Figure 7.6a 103 Crop & Soil Science Building, before class. TE250. This schematic
shows the configuration of the classroom before teacher education students entered and
rearranged the room for class. The desks were returned to rows at the end of class.

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Tablet /
arm desk

Figure 7.6b 109 Crop & Soil Science Building, during class. TB 250. This schematic
shows one common configuration of the classroom during class. Desks were also
sometimes gathered into groups of two, three, four or occasionally more. The desks were
Etumed to rows at the end of class.

 

“9 This same figure is included in chapter 3.

250

 

 

In the science classes, students, with very rare exceptions,7o sat passively
throughout the class period with no interaction with the instructor. In the education
classes, very nearly every student spoke in almost every class observed. In both
education classes, every single student spoke to the entire class on the first day. In
subsequent classes, many students would participate in whole class discussion and

virtually all of them would talk in small groups and small groups was a feature of nearly

every education class period observed. In these settings, student individuality was treated

as an asset. In both education classes, students made name placards with large index
cards on the first day. They learned each other’s names and were engaged in regular
discussions about the subject of the class.

In the science classes, student individuality was treated as if it either did not exist
or did not matter. Students rarely spoke, either to each other or to the instructor during
class time. They were anonymous, and attendance was sporadic for many. Students
were typically, almost exclusively, unknowns to the instructor. The students interviewed,
with one exception, did not know many of their science faculty on a one to one basis. In
fact, in more than one instance, seniors could not name faculty they had had in at least
one science course, including courses taken at the time of the interview, weeks into the
semester.

Scientists often groused in the BBLs that educational research often does not
apply universal treatments to students. A simple reality is that one of the reasons blanket
treatments are not applied is that a good educational researcher recognizes that universal

treatments are insensitive to initial conditions and educational outcomes are highly

 

7" One student per week asking a question that goes beyond “What’s that word?” would be a very generous
estimate in classes numbering in the hundreds of students.

251

 

).;§‘A‘l'0-;- 'r'

 

sensitive to initial conditions (Wideen et al., 1998). Blanket solutions are often not
solutions at all. Of course, sometimes blanket solutions are both effective and necessary.
Scientific forestry — replacing natural forests with monocultures initially increased
yield but over the long term, yield decreased and other services provided by forests
diminished or disappeared (Scott, 1998). The nature of these problems took more than a
generation to present themselves. Monocultures tendto produce well in the short term.
On the scale of a few years or a few semesters, productivity can be seen to increase, but
over the long haul, both in agriculture (Scott, 1998) and, I suggest, in teaching,
monocultures lose their effectiveness and returns diminish. A teacher may be in a
classroom for thirty years. In this timeframe problems rooted in the monocultural

treatment of students appear.

Niches and System Evolution

In the last chapter, I noted that scientists and educators fulfill different roles
within the system of science teacher preparation, that each of the two divorced
supervisory entities serve their own purpose in the development of future science
teachers, but they are not cooperative in the endeavor. In the managed system of science
teacher preparation they appear to be fulfilling mechanistic roles, rather than filling
niches.

The reality is, however, that each player is filling a niche and the niche is shaped
to the player as the player shapes the niche. Organisms within natural ecosystems do not
decide to fill a niche. Systems and species evolve together so that each niche is filled.

Scientists, likely without intending to do so, are teaching not only about science but also

252

no. \- d

 

r - “-

 

about teaching. Students, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally are
learning to teach, learning science, and learning about learning all of the time. Educators,
likewise, intentionally and unintentionally fill a variety of roles that add up to make a
niche.

This increasing specialization raises questions about system stability. Typically,
the greater diversity, the greater the stability of an ecosystem. Is the kind of
specialization taking place among scientists and educators increasing stability or does it
merely increase the polarity of the system and decrease the overall stability? The
dissonance between what happens in science and education classrooms is stress on the
system. The rate of evolution increases in systems under stress. Which is more
important in determining the rate and nature of system evolution, increased diversity
through increased specialization or increased stress through increasing dissonance?

The evolutionary process of organisms shaping their niche as their niche shapes
the organism in the system of education moves both intentionally and organically.

Within the system, there are generalists and specialists. Currently movement in both
science and education is generally towards increasing specialization, though there is also
a growing specialty area in complexity and chaos that cuts across disciplinary boundaries.
The Luce Foundation just awarded Kalamazoo College an endowed professorship for just
such work.

The evolutionary process is also uneven. The evolution of the university has
generally been slow. One might raise the same kinds of criticisms of the system today as
was made decades ago. In 1921, W. J. Osburn reviewed foreign criticism of American

higher education from the decades prior to his publication. I echo many of the concerns

253

raised in that those criticisms that date back a century, for example in 1901, Ashley

wrote:

One disadvantage of the American Ph.D. requirements is that they make

the doctor's degree almost essential to students who desire an academic

post. The best way for a man to become known outside of his university is

through the publication of a doctor's thesis. The result is rather to make

published work the test of fitness for an academic position, whereas it is

not necessarily anything of the kind. The qualities that make a good

investigator are not always those which make a good teacher and the two

are not always combined. There are many admirable teachers whose

published work is quite unimportant.

(Osbum, 1921)

There was a time when universities (and high schools) did not exist and a time
when access to them was much more restricted than it is today. Also, of course, there
was a time without computers. In spite of these changes, the lecture hall today operates
in much the same way it did a century ago.

Chika Hughes’s course targeted many of the ideas in the K-12 realm fairly
directly. Figure 7.7 is how the most relevant section of the course is described in the
syllabus. The evolutionary process is shaped not only by events within the system but
also by events that originate outside of the system. Certain changes for certain organisms
might be akin to an asteroid strike. Understanding the system should allow for more
intention in how the system evolves. We might be able to change the system from one
that leans toward Darwinian evolution, random change coupled with survival of changes
that best fit, to a system that leans toward Lamarckian evolution where random change is
replaced with change to fulfill need. This requires both understanding the constituent

parts and the interactions between them. It requires understandings of niches, the actors

that fill those niches and how those actors interact.

254

 

Figure 7.7 Theme 4 from Chika Huges’s TE250 syllabus.

 

 

Theme 4: How are schools organized to deal with individual diversity and how does
this organization limit possibilities for change?

Schools are social institutions that by definition were created to impart common values
and knowledge to a [sic] increasingly diverse population. As waves of educational
reform have swept our schools, recurring concerns with the function and organization of
schools and the way they structure inequality have prevailed. A dilemma that schools
confront is their need for efficiency (educating large numbers of diverse students within a
limited time-frame) while attempting to address the needs of diverse students. The
evolution of the one-room schools into larger and complex institutions was modeled after
industrial models. The organization of the modern school divided students artificially by
grades and other characteristics and exposed them to a pre-designed curriculum expected
to address their learning needs. Educational researchers argue that classifying students in
this manner is detrimental to student learning and have found that poor students end up
receiving watered-down curriculum whereas economically better off students receive
better education. At the same time, the complexity of the school organization added to its
highly bureaucratic structure has made it difficult for families (one of the equalizing
forces in schooling) to intervene and serve as advocates for their children’s better access
to a quality education.

In this theme we will study the impact of the organization and structure of schooling —
such as tracking and ability grouping — on students’ learning. Using a case study, we
will take an inside look at a school analyzing the limitations encountered by teachers and
parents when attempting to gain access to more academic school knowledge for a group
of minority students in the school.

 

 

Universal Treatments Pessimize the System

The changes that have been made are not, in fact random. The changes may
appear random when viewed from outside of the situation where the change originated.
Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins (1999), identifies
many tales where services provided by nature are lost due to economically driven

decisions that were short term (or medium term) and neglected services provided by

255

 

.100 r-.

m_ ‘.‘I

natural ecosystems". Their work has important, though not explicit implications for
education. A key idea that pervades the book is “Sometimes single-solution approaches
do not work, but often... optimizing one element in isolation pessimizes the entire
system. Hidden connections that have not been recognized and turned to advantage will
eventually tend to create disadvantage” ((Hawken et al., 1999) p. 285).

The idea of a solution that ends up pessimizing the system is well expressed in the
“Guiding Parable” for the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)72, the story of Operation Cat
Drop. The story is told in Natural Capitalism (pp. 285 — 286) but I have reproduced a

shorter version below from RMI’s website (http://wwwrmi.org/sitepages/art41.asp).

Operation Cat Drop
In the early 19505, the Dayak people of Borneo suffered from

malaria. The World Health Organization had a solution: it sprayed large
amounts of DDT to kill the mosquitoes that carried the malaria. The
mosquitoes died; the malaria declined; so far, so good. But there were side
effects. Among the first was that the roofs of people's houses began to fall
down on their heads. It seemed that the DDT was also killing a parasitic
wasp that had previously controlled thatch-eating caterpillars. Worse, the
DDT-poisoned insects were eaten by geckos, which were eaten by cats.
The cats started to die, the rats flourished, and the people were threatened
by potential outbreaks of typhus and plague. To cope with these problems,
which it had itself created, the World Health Organization was obliged to
parachute 14,000 live cats into Borneo.

(RMI, 2000)

How does this manifest itself in education? When we debate whether or not
future secondary science teachers should major in education or major in a science, we are

making an argument for optimizing one area which results in pessimizing the other.

 

7‘ This book has accomplished the extraordinary feat of being excerpted in the journal Nature, The Harvard
Business Review and Mother Jones.
72 of which Hunter Lovins is President and Amory Lovins is Director of Research

256

 

¥ - 031$“: ‘m-.-.--- l

Textbooks are another example of optimizing one aspect of a system — in this case
content concentration is optimized by being placed into a single (often massive) volume.
The nature of putting it into textbook format sterilizes the content and forces science into
a linear structure. The text loses authenticity when it is placed within the confines of a
textbook. The foreign language community has known this for years and has moved

toward the use of culturally authentic materials.

 

Communicative language teaching also advocates the use of culturally
authentic texts written by native speakers for native speakers instead of
simplified or edited texts developed expressly for foreign language
learners. Effective use of authentic texts includes having the learners
perform interesting and level-appropriate tasks after or while seeing,
hearing, or viewing culturally authentic materials. For example, it would
be inappropriate to give beginning Ieamers a newspaper editorial and ask
them to translate or summarize its content. However, even beginning
learners can find dates and names of persons or places and can often get
the general sense of what is being said.

(flue. 0 =.. if

(Schulz, 1998) p.7
Research on the learning of second languages has shown that language is acquired
more effectively through use of materials written for native speakers than in contrived
writings for language Ieamers. Logically, the same assumption holds true for the

learning of other subject matter. It can be safely assumed that most people who know a

 

subject well did not learn it primarily from either textbooks or lectures. McNair did use
some more authentic texts in the first week of class, but that use stopped after the first
week.

Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline popularized the search for a trim tab for
education (and other institutions). A trim tab is a “rudder on a rudder.” To turn large
ships, the force to turn a rudder directly is too great, so the rudder on the rudder begins

the turning process. This mechanistic description is quite appealing — what’s the one

257

thing we can do to begin turning the ship of education in the right direction? It is a
search for single optimizing agent or action.

The system of schooling is far more organic than mechanistic and we should learn
from natural systems that when one thing triggers change throughout the system the
results are generally not only unpredictable but also often catastrophic. We should also

learn from past experience. One catalyst for rapid change in education was

 

desegregation. This was intended to address inequities in schooling but instead triggered

.A u-mmn-t. .u

white flight from city centers and a resurgence of tracking (and its associated problems) 3';
in schools. The nature of schools did change, and change remarkably, but not in ways
that brought about the intended benefits. Optimizing across the system is more

challenging, but we will find no trim tab for the ship of education.

Linearity and Cyclicity

The researcher presents the work in highly stylized research publications.
In those scientific short stories, which use the linear scientific method as
plot, ambiguity and error disappear. The publication becomes the
discovery. Because the linear model is the primary way in which scientists
communicate, the public has come to believe that science works in a linear
fashion, a misunderstanding of the nature of science and a source of
disappointment when the results of research do not meet expectations.
When high-school science teachers spend a summer working in my
laboratory, they are amazed at how frequently experiments fail to work out
as planned.

 

(Grinell, 2000)
Science education at all levels between kindergarten and graduate school has a tendency
to portray science linearly. The scientific method is portrayed as lock-step linear method
without room for the ambiguity that comes with the actual pursuit of science. Scientific

knowledge appears to build in a linear fashion.

258

Teaching and learning is also a non-linear process that is often force-fitted to a
linear model. One aspect of the teaching and learning process is the flow of information.
In the science classes I observed and most of those described by the seniors, the professor
and the textbook present the subject matter information in science classes. This
information is reflected back to the professor on examinations, as shown in Figure 7.8.
Each student’s reflection is of the same form, most commonly an objective test, but areas
of clarity vary from to student. In the case of BS111, the information from the lecture is
quite similar to the information from the text. In BCH401, this is somewhat less true.

Bill described it well:

Don: How do you learn best?

Bill: It’s not just memorizing facts and being able to spit it back out, it’s

being able to apply something. I know I’ve learned something when I can

use it or I can apply it or I can construct something from the knowledge

I’ve gained. When I can regurgitate the facts and a knowledge of

something. I can understand the basic parts of it, I may not be able to

construct it or apply it, but I can understand the basics. I kinda take it as
knowing and understanding, if you’ve learned something you’ll be able to
understand it and you can use it whereas knowing is maybe just having an
awareness to something or having an exposure to something but it’s not as

deep.

Some new teachers in the Salish Project and Bill (quoted above) one of the
seniors in this study used the term “regurgitate” to describe the return of information to
professors. This sense, in fact, is used as an example in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary: “memorize facts to regurgitate on the exam” (1997). In some ways,

however, it is misleading because regurgitation implies that the information has been

chewed on for a while, which would cause it to be returned in somewhat different form.

259

 

 

Again, the science faculty recommended the formation of study groups where this

information processing might take place. As noted in the chapter 3, Peters suggested

groups of “three or four or five,” and to get together once a week and go over the

information in the lectures, to ask each other questions, and he noted, “. . .an easy way to

learn something is if you actually have to teach it to somebody else.” And again, six of

the seven senior teacher candidates interviewed had not heeded this advice. The one who

had regularly worked in study groups, Joseph, was not going on teach.

 

 

   

’,
.-,~
@IIIIIlIIIIII

"v.2" '

 

The professor and textbook present science
content for the students to absorb and
reflect.

 

The student reflects a fainter version of the
content back to the professor through
examinations. Each student’s reflection is
in an identical framework, although the
areas of clarity in the reflection vary from
student to student.

 

 

Figre 7 .8 A model of the movement of information in college science courses.

 

 

The kind of framework that the Peters suggested students build (with some help

from him) outside of class was the kind of framework that the education instructors

employed during class time. Figure 7.9 is a simplified model of how information is

260

r?"
4..

 

processed in group work within the teacher education classroom. Here information is not
simply bounced hacked and forth between instructor and student, but it is worked with by
the students during the class time. This work takes primarily the form of discussion with

classmates and with the instructor. Embedded within the model are several cycles and

feedback loops.

 

       
 
  
 
     
    
    
     

 
 

references/

provide and resources

actas

to jointly construct

built on a
foundation of

 

. Activities -- ~~

 

    

Instructor(s)

 

completes
establishes
frameworks for
~ provide(s)
provide(s) feedback
feedback for

for

 

 

Figure 7 .8 A simplified model oLgroup work in teacher education classes.

 

One loop within the framework begins with the instructor establishing a
framework for a group activity where students use resources provided by the instructor

and their own existing conceptions to build new understanding. The process is informed

261

 

by frequent assessments that guide the instructor in reshaping the activities. Such cycles
are present throughout the organic process of learning.

The output differs from the input in substantial ways. Rather than a restatement of
information presented in the resources (often a variety of genres), the output includes a
refrarning of the information in a context that is usable in a K—12 classroom.

The entire process of learning is described as cyclic. The Learning Cycle is
defined in many ways in educational research". As mentioned in the dissertation
overview, the Learning Cycle as defined by Anderson is one of theoretical frameworks
informing this dissertation. The Learning Cycle includes the following steps: 0)
Establishing the problem; 0) Modeling; how one works through the problem; 0) Coaching
the learner; CD Fading as the teacher removes him or herself from coaching; and C5)
Reinforcement (Anderson, 1999). These steps could be folded into Figure 7.9, but it
would make it more complex to the point of being unintelligibility.

This process cycles back on itself in part because “In a good curriculum, learning
cycles are carefully connected to one another. The fading for one learning cycle helps to
establish the problem for others. Maintenance means that ideas and skills from one
learning cycle are built into others” (p. 8). These overlapping and interlocking cycles

relate back to the notion that future teachers (and everyone else) are learning all the time.

 

7" See (Bybee, 1997) for a description of the “Five E” (engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration
and evaluation) model. . This model, and variations of it, has been commonly used for decades to guide
science teaching at the pre-college level.

262

Conclusion

The World consists of systems within systems within systems. It also
includes such wild-card elements as political scandals, breakthrough
inventions, and renegade dictators. The World includes the beauty of
Mozart and fine architecture and the Bolshoi Ballet, as well as the
tawdriness of Atlantic City on a slow Monday night. The World is more
than just people, culture, machinery, and the movements of capital, though
it includes all of those, together with human qualities like courage and
vanity and greed. The World, to dig deeply into it origins in Old English,
is “the age of man.” Or, since “man” is thought to be an old word for
“consciousness,” the World is “the age of consciousness.” No one could {.315
presume to build a model of that. i
(AtKisson, 1999) pp. 6 - 7 1
In early chapters I alluded to the ecosystem of science teacher preparation in
using a common expression for describing introductory science courses. Students refer to
them as “weed out” courses, though Peters emphatically stated it was not. The reference
implies some students are weeds and that others will flower and bear the kinds of fruit we
desire. This metaphor has great potential — the flowers have been pollinated by
generalists and specialists throughout their college experience and, very importantly
before and aside from that.
Niels Bohr said, “The task of science is both to extend our experience and reduce
it to order.” The business of universities is to manage that ecosystem as best they can, to
manage for knowledge production in a variety of ways. The logical route in the
undergraduate science classroom seems to be to simplify the system and bring it to order.
Simplification and order is brought about by planting the students in rows, apply
universal treatments and regularly measure student growth using simple instruments.
These seemingly simple solutions designed to optimize efficiency pessimize the

system in many ways - high attrition rates in science and a cycle that regenerates bad

teaching in generation after generation. An important point raised earlier about the cycle

263

of blame shown in Figure 6.2 is that the placing of blame is justified. Through a systemic
lens, the usefulness of this placing of blame disintegrates. Blame cannot be fairly leveled
on an individual or class of individuals as I had attempted to do in much of the earlier
part of this dissertation. As AtKisson notes, “It’s the system, man.” Individuals working
within the system are filling the niches that have evolved for them within the system.

At Midwestern University, the nature of the teacher education niche yields a very

.q
A

different approach to managing the ecosystem. For example, teacher educators, in this

.—-— —u‘. I

study and in the programs well-regarded in Wideen et. al’s. meta-analysis recognize that

- -.....-
1i. ..
A I

the output of a complex system is highly sensitive to initial conditions, and they take
great pains to understand those initial conditions. This is just one of the ways in which
the teacher educators seem to be in harmony with natural learning environments.
Science teacher candidates move back and forth between these differently
managed systems on a daily basis. They experience dissonance that is perhaps growing
as teaching in teacher education programs evolves at a faster rate than science programs.
As noted earlier, this stresses the overall system that encompasses both the science and
education classrooms. Will this stress act as a catalyst for evolution in the larger system

or will increased specialization increase stability of the system?

264

Chapter 8

SO WHAT?
IMPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATORS, POLICY MAKERS, SCIENCE AND
EDUCATION FACULTY

It is possible, in other words, to practice chemistry as if evolution,
ecology, and ethics do not matter, but it is not possible for them not to
matter.

(Orr, 1999) (p. 229)
The first day or two, we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth

day, we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day, we were aware
of only one Earth.

Prince Sultan Bin Salmon Al—Saud,

Saudi Arabian astronanut
As quoted in (Sagan, 1997) (p. 136)

This dissertation begins and ends by drawing attention to the fact that college
science and teacher education courses are taught differently. Hardly, it seems, a news
flash. I can easily imagine John Dewey’s students navigating a similar cultural divide a
century or so ago. I knew before I began this work that college science classes are taught
not only differently than teacher education classes but different in ways that are in direct
opposition to the goals of teacher education. I knew before I began that scientists and
educators do not often see eye to eye, that the relationships oftentimes are dysfunctional.
I also knew that factors beyond teacher education programs shape the way new teachers
teach in important ways. Doubtless most of the people that read this dissertation know all
these things too. What then, is the point?

We know that there are problems in science education from kindergarten through

college. In the introduction, I ascribe the problem simply to the failure of integration of

265

 

 

science content and pedagogy. Does the integration fail because teachers don’t
understand the science they are expected to teach (in the way the current standards
movement says they should)? Or is it because teachers don’t understand the pedagogy to
teach in that way? Or is it because science content and pedagogical ability are taught
separately and the teacher is left to put these complex pieces together on their own? In a
word, yes. Problems with any and all of the pieces cause problems of the complete
complex picture.

In the dissertation I develop three models to describe the formal system of science
teacher education: Two Cultures, The Dysfunctional Relationship, and The Ecosystem of
Science Teacher Preparation. Each model builds on the one before it but the utility of the
first goes beyond building to the second and the utility the second goes beyond building

the third. What are the implications for each model? What difference does this make?

Ok. Science education programs are really two distinct programs that have
separate agendas. So what?

The most important lesson learned here is not that the scientists are different from
educators and that the two groups teach in fundamentally different ways, but that we
leave the teacher candidate to navigate the gulf between these two cultures almost
completely on their own. It is a problem that these produce disparate experiences for the

teacher candidate. It is a bigger problem that the gulf is largely unaddressed, or

266

addressed in a way that fails to register with the students or when it is addressed it is done
in a derogatory way.74

The two cultures can learn from each other, but not until they want to. Seymour
& Hewitt conclude that the area in greatest need of reform (to reduce attrition from
S.M.E. programs) is college science teaching, not curriculum, which is the most common
target of reform. I agree. The following are suggested pre-requisites to improving
college teaching.
What the Two Cultures model says we need to d0:

1. Pay attention to the difference in cultures! This step is listed first not
because it is most important, but rather because it is simplest and it is a
prerequisite to other changes. This important step could be completely
contained within colleges of education. Ideally, faculty in S.M.E.
would pay attention in ways that lead to the second step.

2. Recognize that all science teachers are educated by university faculty
and that scientists are, therefore, teacher educators. If they believe that
new science teachers are ill prepared, they must share some of the
blame and they must be responsible for helping to improve the
situation.

3. Stop discouraging interested S.M.E. majors from pre-college teaching
and start encouraging them into the world of teaching. Again, this is a
logical pro-requisite to what follows and is technologically simple. It
also would bring along with it a recognition that teaching is
worthwhile.

The second and third conceptual models support these implications as well.

 

7‘ Remember, the students typically reported the only connection came through the NSC401 course and that
comments like that in Table 1.1 "I would say a little bit of everything beside lecture." to describe teaching
in education classes was typical. It could hardly be construed as complimentary when contrasted with the
comments about science teaching.

267

 

 

Ok, the relationship between the two cultures that make up science teacher
education programs is dysfunctional. So what?

Scientists and educators work on the same problem, science teacher preparation,
yet they do not truly work together on the problem. They are critical of each other, and
the criticism is often not terribly constructive. Their practices differ, like parents with
fundamental differences in their beliefs about the nature of parenting. Part of the
difference stems from goals that not only differ, but also oppose one another.

Scientists and educators must answer the question, what kinds of science teachers
should we prepare? This requires genuine collaboration, not simply doling out one set of
tasks to scientists who teach and another set of tasks to teacher educators. Solid progress
has been made here. Documents like NSF‘s Shaping the Future and NRC's National
Science Education Standards were authored and endorsed by preeminent scientists. They
have failed to be widely implemented in any meaningful way, however, and many
scientists are openly hostile to their recommendations. Reaching consensus here will be
difficult, like the work of keeping a marriage functional. Also like the hard work of a
successful marriage, it might benefit from counseling, or at least thoughtful reflection on
the nature and dynamics of the relationship.

The science education community has an image of what good teaching looks like,
as expressed in The National Science Education Standards, the various publications from
Project 2061 and countless other documents. Some scientists, like the group of Nobel
laureates who blocked the California science standards that were derived from national

standards, also hold clear conceptions of what science teaching should look like.

268

Whether or not scientists and educators can reach consensus on such a contentious
issue seems unlikely. Biologist Stan Metzenberg’s testimony before Congress was a
topic of discussion in one of the BBLs. His anti-reform rhetoric should not be dismissed
casually. It is a glaring example of the just how dysfunctional the relationship is and just
how far apart some scientists and educators are. This testimony has been widely
distributed by the group Mathematically Correct and is posted on their website in the

context of much more like-minded opinion (Metzenberg, 1998b).

What the Dysfunctional Relationship model says we need to do:

1. Build genuine collaborations between scientists and educators. When
scientists and educators actually listen to one another, they can use each
others’ strengths to improve science teaching at all levels. This may
require counseling the relationships or a process of analysis that has the
same net result, but less of, in Jon Peters words, “touchy-feely” stuff.

2. Improve the sharing of understanding within teacher education and
between teacher education and science faculty. Teacher education
could learn from science about the sharing and development of ideas
about teaching. Both science and teaching are processes that have
developed substantial and interconnected bodies of knowledge. The
culture of science does a far better job of sharing this knowledge with
people within the culture than does the culture of teaching.

Meeting these objectives may prove ultimately to not be the course to take. The
relationship may prove so dysfunctional as to be irreparable and a true divorce, due to
irreconcilable differences, may be appropriate. What then? In some ways, a return to
normal schools seems logical. Future teachers would be taught science courses
specifically for future teachers that not only help the future teacher to understand the
content s/he will eventually teach, but also to model best educational practices. This
solution, however, would almost certainly never fly as many would claim that science

courses designed specifically for teachers would be “watered down” in the eyes of too

269

many (regardless of the courses’ actual merit). Therefore, future science teachers belong

in the ranks of science majors.

Ok, the system of science teacher education operates like a poorly managed
ecosystem. So what?

It’s fun to learn about human physiology, how the heart works, how the
muscles work, how the brain works and all that, but if you don’t 3'
understand how one cell works, by itself, all the intricate things that it
does, you don’t really appreciate the whole picture.

Dr. Peters B81 11 lecture, 8/31/98 g

:.- .G-‘mfii :1:-

The problem of the functional solution of preparing science teachers separately
from science majors being untenable is a result of science teacher preparation being part
of a larger, more complex system — a complex adaptive system — like an ecosystem or the
human body.

The formal, programmatic part of science teacher education is roughly two (or
three) parts science and one part education, but it, like water, is something more than its
constituent parts and nobody knows what exactly that something else is (though we are
getting closer). The frameworks developed here explore both formal pieces and the
properties that emerge when these disparate entities are joined to form new science
teachers.

Currently, scientists and educators both work to prepare future science teachers,
but the work tends to be in an assembly line fashion that does not work terribly well with
real human beings. The idea that one set of individuals loads in the scientific knowledge

and another set of individuals loads in the skills of how to teach that knowledge has never

270

worked very well (Shulman, 1986, 1987). I argue that a key reason that this assembly
line approach has not worked is that while it appears logical to simplify complex systems,
like education, in mechanistic ways, that simplification is ineffective and does not yield
the intended result.

The simplifications are attempts to optimize parts of the system, and in many
cases they do optimize things typically related to certain definitions of efficiency. If

efficiency is defined as putting large numbers of students through courses with a

F.-. .a'--“_.-_~t ..
3 1
K

minimum of faculty resources, then the system is efficient. If we include in the definition
of efficiency more of the unintended consequences (Offputs) then the system is horribly
inefficient. The most obvious outcome of this is that majors in science change their
major more than in most other disciplines (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).

A less obvious but equally important offput is the teaching skills learned from
these science classes by future teachers. Again and again in my work with future and
practicing teachers, I hear that students need to be taught certain material, and taught it in
certain ways, to prepare the kids for college. This argument includes the need to lecture —
both to convey the amount of information deemed necessary and to prepare the students
to be lectured to in college. I crudely simplify the argument to “We must teach them
badly to prepare them for bad teaching.”

Intentionally and unintentionally the system of science teacher education prepares
future teachers to do just this. Most institutions require future secondary teachers to
either major in a science discipline or major in science education with requirements

similar to that of science majors. If the science courses are taught in the traditional

271

lecture format, then the future teacher sees more models of the kind of teaching that
colleges and education departments (rightly) criticize than of the kind they support.
The system is rife with cycles — some feedback loops that are helpful in the
preparation of future teachers and others that serve to reproduce the system and its
problems from generation to generation. Feedback in those loops is often slow to result
in change because the feedback is often slow to register. The feedback is slow because
indicators are not clearly identified or, perhaps, do not exist.
In chapter 7, a pair of important questions was raised:
0 Is the kind of specialization taking place among scientists and educators
increasing stability or does it merely increase the polarity of the system
and decrease the overall stability?
0 Which is more important in determining the rate and nature of system
evolution: increased diversity through increased specialization or
increased stress through increasing dissonance?
The increased specialization seems to lean toward the research these individuals
are doing rather than impacting very directly the nature of their teaching. Therefore, I
suspect that the increasing specialization of college and university faculty does not
strengthen the system of science teacher preparation. In fact, the work of the educator
destabilizes the system by pushing the education classes to increasingly differ from the
science classes. Many scientists, of course, do show an interest in the careful study of
teaching and learning and use educational research to shape their teaching practice. Oh
the complexity!
While I am optimistic that the cultural dissonance will act as a catalyst for

positive change, that is purely speculation. It requires that the dissonance (feedback) is

detected - that is, it requires that the indicators be recognized and listened to. I fear that

272

All

mm

the tide of religious conservatism that removed Darwinian evolution from the Kansas
science standards will continue to cause a variety of problems for science education.75
This is a different sort of stress on the system that has the potential to draw scientists and
educators together. Indeed, it is already doing that. This stress may have potential in
fostering some kind of change, but the nature of the change is unpredictable.
Unfortunately, the system dynamics make accurate prediction difficult. As noted by
Pahl-Wostl, models derived from ecosystems make patterns intelligible, they do not make

future occurrences predictable (Pahl-Wostl, 1995).

What the Ecosystem model says we need to do:

1. Improve college science teaching. This is clearly the most difficult as
well as the most pressing of the tasks. It is unlikely that teaching will
improve until it is more widely recognized as a problem. We must
begin by making the goal of college science teaching "education," not
"selection." Improving assessment in college science courses is a big
part of improving teaching and learning by allowing scientists to gain
first hand knowledge of students' poorly formed and weakly integrated
understanding of science knowledge.

2. Engage scientists in the study of teaching and learning. Encourage the
exploration of multiple hypotheses for results of objective tests and the
development and use of new instrumentation for gauging student
understanding. This could be seen as a part of number 1 above, but it
deserves to stand alone.

3. Recognize and use to advantage the fact that future teachers are
learning to teach all the time. Learning science and learning to teach
science are not separate activities.

4. Planfully engage in the evolution of the system. This includes seeking
out and identifying indicators and where they can not be found
developing new indicators.

What would be the consequences of improved college science teaching?

 

7’ Happily, shortly before the submission of the final draft of this dissertation, the Kansas School Board
composition was changed by an election.

273

Not only will improving college science teaching reduce attrition in science
programs, but it has great potential for improving the quality of pre-college science
teaching. If college science teaching is improved substantially, students would not
change their majors due to disappointment with teaching. They would be less likely to
lose interest in science. Remember, the three most important factors in the decision to
change majors are loss of interest in science, better educational opportunities exist in
other disciplines and poor teaching in science classes (see Chapter 1.) Precollege
teachers would also understand science. Currently, they know a lot (that is, they have
factual knowledge) but understand little (that is, they have poorly integrated conceptual
knowledge and are even weaker in process knowledge) (Gallagher, 1993).

Currently, the keepers of the culture of college science classrooms not only
disparage teacher education and actively and effectively discourage their best students
from pre-college teaching, they also disparage the pre—college preparation of their
students. In other words, professors of science criticize pre-college science teaching and
actively oppose its improvement by preventing the best students from pursuing a career
in teaching! If science professors became more interested in improving their own
teaching, it follows that they would be interested in promoting good teaching and in
respecting the profession more broadly. Again, college science professors must
recognize and address their role in the problem.

Improving college science teaching would bring need for other changes within
programs. The nature of these changes is far beyond the scope of this first model,
however I can briefly comment on the implications. Admission to programs would need

to be more selective or the resources for upper level courses would be overwhelmed and

274

the surplus of scientists and mathematicians would increase. Some of this surplus,
however, would be redirected to the classroom. The problems oft cited by Darling-
Hammond and many others (National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future,
1996) of under-qualified and unqualified science and mathematics teacher would

gradually diminish.

 

Back to where we began ....

m'- a

The introduction includes the primary goal stated NSF ’s Shaping the Future

Document. In closing, it is appropriate to echo two of the recommendations for
institutions of higher education from that report:

0 SME&T faculty: Believe and affirm that every student can learn, and
model good practices that increase learning; start with the student’s
experience, but have high expectations within a supportive climate; and
build inquiry, a sense of wonder and the excitement of discovery, plus
communication and teamwork, critical thinking, and life-long learning
skills into learning experiences.

0 SME &T departments: Set departmental goals and accept responsibility for
undergraduate learning, with measurable expectations for all students;
offer a curriculum engaging the broadest spectrum of students; use
technology effectively to enhance learning; work collaboratively with
departments of education, the K-12 sector and the business world to
improve preparation of K-12 teachers (and principals); and provide, for
graduate students intending to become faculty members, opportunities for
developing pedagogical skills.

 

(NSF, 1996) p. iv.

Positive Offputs

An additional pair of implications for this dissertation is that by using the
ecosystem as metaphor, perhaps some scientists’ understandings of the system of science
teacher preparation will be enriched more so than if they were to read educational
research that relies more heavily on the common language of educational research. Of

course, they may also identify holes in my reasoning... The companion positive offput is

275

that educators may gain a deeper understanding of complex systems including the

environment in which we live.

What can scientists and educators do?

Organizations like Midwestem's Science & Mathematics Education Collaborative
bring scientists and educators together. Such collaborations are not unique to
Midwestern University and those interested in improving the relationship between
scientists and educators on their own campus might benefit from the investigation of such
collaborations. As a member of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science
(AETS) Committee on Scientist/Science Educator Collaboratives, I have gathered
descriptions of and links to such collaboratives and posted it on my website. The text of
the web page is included as Appendix C and it is found on the web at:
http://cc.kzoo.edu/~dhaas/ScienceEdCollab.htm. Several of the organizations listed
describe their beginnings on their web pages. These may serve as useful models. Also
included is a link to NASA’s NOVA grant program which offers grants of up to $30,000
to institutions for collaborative course development that involve scientists and educators

working together.

Some Resources for Doing What Needs to be Done

In addition to the resources in Appendix C, countless other institutions are
engaged in appropriate reform of their undergraduate science coursework, not simply
through reforming curriculum but also through supporting pedagogy. The University of
Delaware’s Institute for Transforming Undergraduate Education offers good examples of

course structures that appear to facilitate meaningful learning. Their web site,

276

 

http://wwwudeledu/instl, has links to course syllabi that not only offer an out line of the
content to be taught, but also information about what learning looks like in classrooms of

the Institute’s Fellows.

For example, Linda K. Dion’s Introductory Biology I syllabus describes the
course structure as follows:

Half of BISC207 "lecture" will be devoted to problem-based group

learning and half will be devoted to more traditional lecturing and ..- an
evaluation of your progress. Class activities are roughly apportioned in the
following way: on Tuesdays there will be a lecture on the material and
sometimes a quiz; on Thursdays you will work with your group on a
problem which applies to the topic of the week.

Ii “ ”"."‘ ."'._T_' 5"."

(Dion, 2000)

Susan E. Groh’s Honors General Chemistry starts the description of the class format as
follows:

"At times I felt the professor's notes became my notes without passing
through either of our minds." - P.A. Metz

The traditional lecture approach to teaching is an excellent way to transfer
information from one notebook to another; unfortunately, it's not
necessarily an excellent way to develop a real understanding of chemistry.
You don't learn how to ride a bike or speak French by listening to
someone explain how to do it - you've got to try it yourself. To learn any
subject well, including chemistry, you have to become actively involved in
the learning process. The format of this course is designed to encourage
that involvement; in addition to lectures, you can expect to encounter both
individual and group activities (problem-solving, brain-storming,
discussion, feedback, etc.) during class.

(Groh, 1999)
There are links to dozens of such syllabi.
The site also includes links to and descriptions of research coming out of the
Institute’s work: http:/[www.udel.edu/pbl/anigleshtml. This includes both research

articles and books and text that might be described more as “how to.” The central focus

277

of this work is employing Problem Based Learning across the college curriculum.

(University of Delaware, 1999)

Conclusion

This study makes the argument that deficits exist in teacher preparation because
the interconnections of pedagogy and content necessary to develop strong and applicable
pedagogical content knowledge were severed as the gulf between the cultures of college —...
science and teacher education increased in size. The dysfunctional relationship between
those two cultures and dynamics of the larger system of science teacher preparation may
further confound success in teacher preparation. Understanding the nature of the
dynamics involved can help us to better fill our niches within the ecosystem of science
teacher preparation. That understanding may also guide us in planful system evolution,
but the likelihood of those plans going off without a deviating from the plan is nearly nil.

As Dr. Peters noted on the first day of Biological Sciences 111, we need to
understand the components of a system to understand the system. The reverse is also
true. To understand the components of a system, we need to also understand the entirety
of the system. The current system of higher education tends to work very hard at the
former and virtually ignore the latter!

The first model, Two Programs, Two Cultures, helps develop the understanding
of the nature of components within science teacher preparation. In large part this comes
from seeing the sharp contrast between the way individuals operate within each
seemingly separate piece. This framework is the foundation for the second, The

Dysfunctional Relationship. We can better understand the relationship if we understand

278

those who are involved. This framework indicates that there exists need for relationship

 

counselors within the dynamic system.

Both of the first two models are vast simplifications of the complex realities of the
complex educational system of science teacher education. These simplifications are
bridges to understanding the more complex system with its diversity and the strengths
derived from that diversity that are damaged by treating classes as monocultures.

Ecological models of learning to teach have great promise for deepening understanding,

A n1. .-

not only for educational researchers but also, and more importantly, for the “hard”

d ‘l~\
It

scientists who teach.
A key idea is, as noted in Chapter 7 and again earlier in this chapter, is that future
teachers are learning to teach all the time, not simply when someone thinks they are

teaching them how to teach. In my current work as the Director of Teaching Internships

at a small private elite liberal arts college, I occasionally place student teachers at small
private elite secondary schools. In an attempt to place an art teaching intern at such an
institution I spoke with the art department head. The department head told me that most
of the teachers are MFAs and are not certified to teach. They are “artists who happen to
teach.” It occurred to me that artists are taught their craft almost exclusively by doing it.
How much different could the practice of science be from the lecture hall?
Teacher education is a system in operation over an individual’s entire life. Often
times, the different actors within the system are poorly coordinated, or not coordinated at
all. The fundamental core of science teacher preparation should be model teaching of

science, that is when these teacher candidates are taught science (from kindergarten

through graduate school) it should be taught in such a way that it can be used as a model i

279

of good teaching by the teacher candidate. This rarely happens, not because teachers and
professors are not thoughtful and hard working, but because they are working in a system
that encourages them to do the wrong thing. Two examples reinforce my point:
preparing high school students for college by lecturing to them because that is the way
they will likely be taught in college, or working to improve one’s lectures when it may

make more sense to figure out what to replace those lectures with.

 

Taking a great leap beyond the data, I have come to understand that the structure

r57, ,
I.
p

of college science as currently configured will prove to be an “evolutionary dead-end.”
This is not to say that lecture does not have a place in education. It does, but it does not

deserve a central place in any part of the educational system. It is not, as Stephen Arch
claims in the Journal Nature, "It just may be that counterrevolutionary, old-time lecture

hall education is still with us after all these centuries because -- although everyone agrees

it is a terrible way for students to learn -- it's still the best thing anyone has yet invented

 

(Arch, 1998)." Better methods are known and understood, but not by the broad

community.

280

APPENDICES

281

._,_,

1!—
s

APPENDIX A

TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

Table 2.1 Requirements for the Bachelor of Science Degree in
Biological Science -- Interdepartmental

 

5. The University requirements for bachelor’s degrees as described in the
Undergraduate Education section of this catalog: 120 credits, including
general elective credits, are required for the Bachelor of Science degree in
Biological Science — Interdisciplinary.

The University’s Tier II writing requirement for the Biological Science —
Interdepartmental major is met by completing NSC401. That course is referenced in
item 3.a. below.

Students who are enrolled in the College of Natural Science may complete the
alternative track to Integrative Studies in Biological and Physical Sciences that is
described in item 1 under the heading Graduation Requirements in the College
statement. Certain courses referenced in requirement 3 below may be used to satisfy
the alternative track.

 

6. The requirements of the College of Natural Science for the Bachelor of
Science degree.
The credits earned in certain courses referenced in the requirement 3. below may
be counted toward Collge requirements as appropriate.

 

7. The following requirements for the major: CREDITS

a. All of the following courses: 38
. BS 110 Organisms and Populations g .

BS 111 Cells and Molecules 7 ' ‘

BS 1 1 1L Cells and Molecular Biology Laboratory

CEM 251 Organic Chemistry I

CEM 252 Organic Chemistry H

CEM 255 Organic Chemistry Laboratory

CEM 262 Quantitative Analysis

NSC401 Science Laboratory for Secondary Schools

PSL 250 Introductory Physiology

ZOL 341 Fundamental Genetics

ZOL 355 Ecology

ZOL 355L Ecology Laboratory

ZOL 445 Evolution

wwmhoommmumm,b

 

b. One of the following groups of courses 9 to 12

 

(1)

CEM 141 General Chemistry

CEM 142 General and Inorganic Chemistry
CEM 161 Chemistry Laboratory I

CEM 162 Chemistry Laboratory II

 

 

(2)

CEM 151 General and Descriptive Chemistry
CEM 152 Principles of Chemistry

UGA—v-‘UJ-b

282

 

"a.

CEM 16] Chemistry Laboratory I
CEM 162 Chemistry Laboratory II

 

(3)

CEM 181H Honors Chemistry I

CEM 182H Honors Chemistry II

CEM 185H Honors Chemistry Laboratory I
CEM 186H Honors Chemistry Laboratory II

NNA-fi-t—V—

 

c. One of the following pairs of courses

6or7

 

(1)

MTH 132 Calculus I
MTH 133 Calculus II

 

(2)

MTH 132 Calculus I
STI’ 201 Statistical Methods

 

(3)

MTH 124 Survey of Calculus with Applications I
MTH 124 Survey of Calculus with Applications 11

 

(4)

MTH 124 Survey of Calculus with Applications I
S'I'I‘ 201 Statistical Methods

 

(5)

MTH 152H Honors Calculus I
MTH 153H Honors Calculus II

mwbwuwhwh‘w

 

(1. One of the following pairs of courses

6or8

 

(1)

PHY 183 Physics for Scientists and Engineers I
PHY 184 Physics for Scientists and Engineers 11

 

(2)

PHY193H Honors Physics I — Mechanics
PHY193H Honors Physics II - Electromagnetism

 

(3)

PHY 231 Introductory Physics I
PHY 232 Introductory Physics II

wwqu-b

 

e. One of the following pairs of courses

 

(1)

PHY 191 Physics Laboratory for Scientists, I
PHY 184 Physics Laboratory for Scientists, II

 

(2)

PHY 251 Introductory Physics Laboratory I
PHY 252 Introductory Physics Laboratory 11

nut—IA—

 

f. Two of the following courses

 

. BCH 401 Basic Biochemistry
ZOL 350 Histology
ZOL 482 Cytochemistry

#A.

.p.

 

g. One of the following courses

3or4

 

 

BOT 301 Introductory Plant Physiology
BOT 405 Introductory Plant Pathology
BOT 418 Plant Systemics

BOT 434 Plant Structure and Function

Awhw

 

 

Midwestern University’s Writing Requirements:

The University catalog describes the Writing Requirements as follows:

283

31

Each student must complete the University’s writing program requirements76 as
follows:
1. The Tier I writing requirement that consists of either:
(a) One 4-credit Tier I writing course77 during the first year or
(b) The developmental writing courses (American Thought and Language
0102 and 1004)78 and one 4-credit Tier I writing course during the first
year.
A student who completes the Tier I writing course with a grade of 0.0 must repeat
the course. A student who completes the Tier I writing course with a grade of 1.0
or 1.5 must enroll in the 2-credit writing tutorial course (AL201) concurrently
with IAH201.
2. The Tier 11 writing requirement for the student’s academic major and degree
program. This requirement involves writing in the student’s discipline and is met
by completing either:
(a) One or more 300-400 level Tier 11 writing courses as specified for the
student’s academic major and degree program, or
(b) a cluster of 300-400 level courses that involve writing experiences and
that are approved as the Tier 11 writing requirements for the student’s
academic major and degree program.

 

.—
l
l

13.—... ‘ \ .
IL

 

These footnotes are quoted from the original document.

7" New freshmen who have taken the College Board Advanced Placement Examination in English should
consult the statement on Academic Placement Tests. Transfer students should consult the statement on
Transfer Student Admission.

77 For students who are enrolled in the College of Business, the completion of Business College 111 and
l 12 satisfies the University Tier I writing requirement. For students enrolled in the DaVinci School,
completion of DaVinci School 133 satisfies the University Tier I writing requirement. The other Tier I
writing courses are listed below: American Thought and Language: 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 140, 145,
150, 1951-1.

Arts and Latter l92 and l92H.

7” Based on the English placement mechanism, a student may be required to complete the developmental
writing course prior to enrolling in a Tier I writing course. The developmental writing courses are
administered by the Department of American Thought and Language. For additional information, refere to
the statement on Academic Placement Tests.

 

284

APPENDIX B
NEW TEACHER PRESERVICE PROGRAM INTERVIEW

Q1: how would you describe your typical science course? Include types of objectives,
instructional strategies, resources used including lab, text, computer use...

Q2: how were you typically evaluated in the science courses? Describe nature of tests,
graded labs, papers and homework assignments, computer graded work and any other
graded work.

T7171

7‘?

Q3: how often were cooperative learning techniques used in your science courses?
Distinguish, if possible, between group work and cooperative learning.

Q4: did you take science courses different from those taken by students not preparing to
teach?

Q5: how often did you work on actual research projects or in actual research facilities as
part of your science program? Briefly describe the research (if applicable). If you
completed research that was not part of your program, please describe that.

Q6: which science course experiences stand out in your mind as particularly important to
you and why?

Q7: how would you describe the student—faculty relationship in your science program?
Did you have direct interactions with faculty? If so, describe.

Q8: were you a member of a student cohort (or team) when studying science? That is,
did you take most of your classes with the same set of students as you went through?
Q9: what was the purpose of your science study? Did it include teaching as a career?
Did you start out as a freshman wanting to be a biology teacher?

Teacher education courses .....

Q10: how would you describe your typical teacher education course? Include types of
objectives, instructional strategies, resources used including lab, text, computer use...
Q11: how were you typically evaluated in teacher education courses? Describe nature of
tests, graded labs, papers and homework assignments, computer graded work and any
other graded work.

Q12: how often were cooperative learning techniques used in your teacher education
courses? Distinguish, if possible, between group work and cooperative learning.

k. I. (:1‘

285

~

Q13: okay. How would you describe your field experiences (work in schools)?

Q14: which courses or experiences in teacher education stand out in your mind as
particularly important to you and why?

Q15: what was the relationship between what you learned in science courses and what
you learned in teacher education courses including you methods courses?

Q16: how would you describe the student-faculty relationship in your teacher education
program? Did you have direct interactions with faculty? If so, describe.

Q17: were you a member of a student cohort (or team) in your teacher education
program?

Q18: what was the philosophy of your teacher education program related to science
education and related to science teaching?

Career experience prior to entering program -- only answer these questions if you are
returning to msu for teacher certification after completing your bachelors’ degree. (These
questions did not apply to any of the seniors interviewed in 1999).

Q19: please describe briefly your professional career between when you obtained your
undergraduate degree and when you returned to obtain your teaching certificate.

Q20:

How has your prior professional experience contributed to your ability to secondary
science?

286

... a. amm.q
a

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Scientist/Science Educator Collaboratives Webpage

Contents of this page...

Introduction
Requesting information on your collaborative...

The Collaborative Vision for Science & Mathematics Education at Michigan State
University

The Center for Learning Technologies

Center for Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Southern
Mississippi

The NOVA Project at Fort Hays State University

Greater Wichita Area Mathematics and Science Education Collaborative
The IUP Teacher Education Center for Science, Math, and Technology
Oswego State University

Toledo Area Partnership in Education: Support Teachers as Resources to Improve
Elementary Science (TAPESTRIES)

Wisconsin Teacher Enhancement Program in Biology (WisTEB)
Resources for collaboratives:

NASA's Project NOVA

Introduction
This page includes links to organizations within institutions of higher education where

scientists and science educators are working together to improve specific aspects of
science education.

287

n . 'ILNIIJXG‘L‘I ='

Requesting information on your collaborative...

We would like to know if you are involved in a collaboration involving scientists and/or
mathematicians and educators. If the collaborative has a web page that you would like
included here, please send the information to Don Duggan-Haas at dhaas@kzoo.edu .
Send a brief description (fewer than 100 words, please) along with the URL. The

description should be sent as an attached document, either in Microsoft Word format or
as an RTF file.

Look for symposiums on these collaboratives at the AETS meeting in January 2000.

The Center for Learning Technologies

Mun-IAIN; .. IQ:

The Center for Learning Technologies is a collaboration between Northwestern
University, The University of Michigan, and the Chicago and Detroit Public it ~
Schools. The Center's goal is to support urban school systems in taking a leadership role

in educational reform. In the center, teachers, administrators, and university researchers

are working together to develop strategies for embedding and sustaining the use of

computing and communications technologies in inquiry-based science curricula.

Leveraging these technologies in support of inquiry-based curriculum can provide the

critical support needed by students to engage in the serious, intellectual learning called

for by new national, state and local standards.

The URL is http://www.letus.nwu.edu/

Center for Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Southern
Mississippi

The Center for Science and Mathematics Education is dedicated to preparing science and
mathematics teachers capable of providing the high-quality instruction that will better
enable students to understand themselves and the world around them.

The Center works with the departments to coordinate programs in teacher education
offered by the College of Science and Technology (CoST), and provides, in cooperation
with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, a curriculum in the sciences for
prospective elementary schoolteachers. In addition to providing programs in secondary
education and for advanced degrees, the Center works with the public schools to improve
science and mathematics curriculum and works to utilize educational technology in
personal development.

The Center also conducts a variety of workshops to enhance the skills of in-service
teachers and contributes to the science and mathematics preparation of candidates for

288

initial certification. Learn more about these and other educational activities in the
discussion on Outreach.

The URL is http://www.csme.usm.edu/

The Collaborative Vision for Science & Mathematics Education at Michigan State
University

The Collaborative Vision for Science & Mathematics Education at Michigan State
University is the original host of this website. CVSME is a collaborative effort involving
science and mathematics educators, and scientists and mathematicians who are interested
in improving math and science teaching and learning from before kindergarten through
school completion and beyond.

 

The URL for the CVSME homepage is http://ed-web3.educ.msu.edu/cvsme/

The NOVA Project at Fort Hays State University

Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas has been engaged in a collaborative reform
effort to improve the science and mathematics preparation of preservice K—9 teachers.
Faculty in physics, mathematics, and education have met, planned, and implemented
changes in the teaching and assessment strategies used in Physical Science and Elements
of Statistics. The purpose of the project is to provide students with a common set of
learning experiences based on an inquiry-based learning model as a foundation for the
development of their praxis.

Further information is available at http://www.physics.fhsu.edu/~nova/.

Greater Wichita Area Mathematics and Science Education Collaborative

The Greater Wichita Area Mathematics and Science Education Collaborative (GWAMSE
Collaborative) was formed for the purpose of improving the mathematics, science and
technology skills of our present and future citizens by enriching the preparation and
professional development of science and mathematics teachers in grades K-16.

Further information is available at http://web.physics.twsu.edu/gwamse/gwamse.htm.

The IUP Teacher Education Center for Science, Math, and Technology

289

This website is constantly being updated to reflect collaborations, services, and resources
available to teachers.

The URL is http://www.iup.edu/smetc
You can also go directly to the website for IUP's Eisenhower summer institute program.

That URL is http://www.iup.edu/smetc/SPIRAL

Oswego State University

This web site describes an inservice project supported by Eisenhower funds since 1988
which involves A&S and school of education faculty in efforts to improve K-8 science,
math and tech instruction in Central New York.

The URL is httpz/lwww.oswego.edu/~sueweber

Toledo Area Partnership in Education: Support Teachers as Resources to Improve
Elementary Science (TAPESTRIES)

The web site is for an NSF funded LSC project. In the project, scientists and science
educators collaborate to provide professional development. The purpose of this five-year
project is to develop comprehensive school science programs through the sustained
professional development of all K-6 teachers in the Toledo Public Schools and
Springfield Local Schools. Teacher-based leadership and other support structures will be
implemented as teachers use inquiry-based science curriculum and instructional
strategies. Teachers will be involved in long-term professional development activities
during Summer Institutes and academic year sessions.

TAPESTRIES is funded by the National Science Foundation in cooperation with the
University of Toledo, Bowling Green State University, Toledo Public

Schools, and Springfield Local Schools.

The URL is http://www.tapestries.ut-bgsu.utoledo.edu/

Wisconsin Teacher Enhancement Program in Biology (W isTEB)

The Wisconsin Teacher Enhancement Program in Biology (WisTEB) is a 15 yr old
program that has provided a spectrum of professional development opportunities for
some 3000 K-14 science teachers from around the US. and abroad (but with the majority
being in Wisconsin and the Upper Midwest). The two components are an annual Summer
Institute, consisting of 30-40 1-3 week intensive courses over a wide spectrum of content

290

'. maxim:_ .4»:

 

areas in the biological and physical sciences, and an academic year outreach and support
program.

The WisTEB staff is composed entirely of scientists with a great deal of bench
experience who have elected to devote the rest of their career to science education.
There is a close working relation with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in
the UW-Madison School of Education. Since the inception of the program, over 200
faculty and staff researchers on campus have donated over 2500 hours in both the
summer and academic year program. A few years ago, WisTEB began a program that
allows young scientists (advanced level grad students and post does) to participate in the
program. All participating scientists are asked to share their excitement and expertise as a
mentor and partner rather than as a purveyor of facts and/or pontificator. In return, they
often gain fresh insight in approaches to teaching as well as a profound understanding of
what goes into precollege science education. During the academic year, WisTEB has
hosted brown bag seminars that bring scientists and science educators and teachers
together to chew over different issues in science education.

Further details can be found on the WisTEB web site: http://www.wisc.edu/wisteb/

Resources for collaboratives:

NASA's Project NOVA

Project NOVA is a NASA funded project involving several colleges and universities
throughout the US. For more information on the work being done around the country, see
the NOVA website at http://www.eng.ua.edu/~nova.

291

BIBLIOGRAPHY

292

Bibliography

AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for
the Advancement of Science.

AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.

 

Anderson, C. (1999). Notes on the Learning Cycle. Michigan State University. 31
Anderson, C. W. (1996). Reform in Teacher Education as Building Systemic Capacity to f
Support the Scholarship of Teaching. Paper presented at the International .. -

Workshop on Reform Issues in Teacher Education, Taipei, Taiwan.

Andrews, R. E. (1993). The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Arch, S. (1998). How to Teach Science. Science, 279, 1869.

Atkins, C. (1997). The Day Finger Pickers Took Over the World [CD]. New York:
Columbia Records.

AtKisson, A. (1999). Believing Cassandra: An Optimist Looks at a Pessimist's World (
First ed.). White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green.

Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist Science Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Berkheimer, G. A., C. W.; Smith, E. L. (1992). Module 7: Unit Planning for Conceptual
Change. Lansing: SEMSplus Project.

Brody, J. (1990, 1990). A search to bar retardation in a new generation. New York Times,
pp. B9.

Burnett, D. G. (1999). A View from the Bridge: The Two Cultures Debate, Its Legacy,
and the History of Science. Daedalus, 128(2), 193-218.

293

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Campbell, N. A. (1996). Biology ( 4th ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

CASE Network. (1998). NSTA Draft Standards for Science Teacher Preparation, [Web
site]. Available: http://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nstastand.htm [1999, January
10].

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching
the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cuban, L. (1999). How Scholars Trumped Teachers: Change Without Reform in
University Curriculum, Teaching and Research, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. W., A.; and Klein, S. (1995). A License to Teach: Building a
Profession for 21 st-Century Schools. San Francisco: Westview Press.

Delpit, L. (1988). The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other
People's Children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 281-298.

Dion, L. K. (2000). Introductory Biology I Syllabus, [web site]. University of Delaware,.
Available: http://www.udel.edu/Biology/dion/20704lsyllabus.html [2000, July
25].

Duggan-Haas, D. (1998). Two Programs, Two Cultures: The Dichotomy of Science
Teacher Preparation. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, San Diego.

Duggan-Haas, D., Enfield, M., & Ashmann, S. (2000). Rethinking the Presentation of the
N STA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation. Electronic Journal of Science
Education, 4(3).

Duggan-Haas, D., Smith, E. L., & Miller, J. (1999). A Brief History of The Collaborative
Vision for Science & Mathematics Education at Michigan State University. Paper

294

 

 

presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Austin,
Texas.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans. New rev. 20th-
Anniversary ed. ed.). New York: Continuum.

Gallagher, J. J. (1992). Secondary science teachers and constructivist practice. In K.
Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Washington
DC: AAAS Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (In press). Teaching for Understanding and Application of Science
Knowledge. School Science and Mathematics.

Goodlad, J. (1974). A Study of Schooling in the United States: September 1, 1973 -
August 31, 1979. Paper presented at the Address delivered at American
Educational Research Association Symposium entitled "Large Scale
Evaluation Efforts", Shoreham.

Gray, J. (1992). Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide for
Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships.
New York: HarperCollins.

Grinell, F. (2000, March 24, 2000). The Practice of Science at the Edge of Knowledge.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, B11.

Groh, S. E. (1999). CHEM-103H Honors General Chemistry Syllabus, [web site].
University of Delaware,. Available: http://udel.edu/~sgroh/chem103syll.html
[2000, July 25].

Haq, T. A., Mason, H. S., Clements, J. D., & Arntzen, C. J. (1995). Oral Immunization
with a Recombinant Bacterial Antigen Produced in Transgenic Plants. Science,
268(May 1995), 714-716.

Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next
Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Holland. 1. H. (1995). Can There Be a Unified Theory of Complex Adaptive Systems. In
H. J. Morowitz & J. L. Singer (Eds.), The Mind, The Brain, and Complex
Adaptive Systems (pp. 45-50). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

295

Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.

Kwok, L. (1999). Sound Edit (Version 1.1.5). Philadelphia PA: Felt Tip Software.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Private goods, public goods: The American struggles over
educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1994). Nature, Sources and Development of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.
Lederman (Eds), Science Teacher's Knowldege Bases, The 1994 Association for
the Education of Teachers in Science Yearbook.

McDermott, L. C. (1990). A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other
sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers. American Journal of
Physics, 58(3), 734-742.

Meadows, D., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J ., & III, W. H. B. (1974). The Limits to Growth
( Second ed.). New York: Potomac Associates/Universe Books.

Metzenberg. S. (1998a). F ollow- Up Questions for Dr. Stan Metzenberg. Mathematically
Correct. Available: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/moremetz.htm [1999,
March 23].

Metzenberg, S. (1998b). Testimony of Stan Metzenberg, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of
Biology, California State University Northridge Before the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Basic Research.
Mathematically Correct. Available:
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/stanmetz.htm [1999, March 23].

Nespor, J. (1994). Knowledge in Motion: Space, Time and Curriculum in Undergraduate
Physics and Management ( First ed.). London: The Falmer Press.

NRC. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC.: National
Academy Press.

296

 

NSF. (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, DC: National
Science Foundation.

NSF. (2000). Research on Learning and Education (ROLE) Program Announcement (pp.
18). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

OERI. (1994). Issues of Curriculum Reform in Science, Mathematics, and Higher Order
Thinking Across the Disciplines. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.

:1

Orr, D. (1999). The architecture of science. Conservation Biology, 13(2), 228-231.

Ink.

is

Osbum, W. J. (1921). Foreign Criticism of American Education. Bulletin of the Bureau of
Education, Department of the Interior(8), 124-156.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (1995). The Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems: Chaos and Order Entwined.
Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Peck, M. S. (1998). The different drum : community—making and peace. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Pines, A. L., & West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning:
An interpretation of research within a source of knowledge framework. Scrence
Education, 70(5), 583-604.

Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Toronto: Bantam
Books.

RMI. (2000). The pursuit of interconnections. Rocky Mountain Institute. Available:
httpz/lwww.rmi.org/sitepages/art4l.asp [2000, May, 28].

Sagan, C. (1997). Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the
Millenium. New York: Random House.

Salish. (1997). Secondary Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Programs:
Influences on New Teachers and Their Students. Iowa City, IA: Univers1ty of
Iowa.

297

Schmidt, W. H. M., Curtis C.;Raizen, Senta A. (1997). A Splintered Vision:An
Investigation of US. Science and Mathematics Education: Kluwer.

Schulz, R. A. (1998). Foreign Language Education in the United States: Trends and
Challenges. The ERIC Review, 6(1), 6-13.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates
Leave the Sciences ( 1 ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Shamos, M. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ .: Rutgers
University Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teaching: A
Contemporary Perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Teaching (pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Sipper, M. What are Complex Adaptive Systems ?, [web site]. Available:
http://lslwww.epfl.ch/~moshes/cas.html [2000, July 26].

Snow, C. P. (1959). The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution ( 1 ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Stryer, L. (1995). Biochemistry ( 4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Taylor, C. (1999, November 29). Inside The Geekosystem. Time Digital, 4.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (1995). Private Universe Teacher
Workshops [VHS]. Cambridge, MA: Annenberg/CPB.

Tobias, S. (1990). They 're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier.
Tuscon: Research Corporation.

298

 

Trumbull, D. J. (1999). The New Science Teacher: Cultivating Good Practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.

University of Delaware. (1999, May 19, 2000). Institute for Transforming Undergraduate
Education, [Website]. University of Delaware. Available:
http://www.udel.edu/inst/ [2000, July 25].

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J ., & Moon, B. (1998). A Critical Analysis of Research on
Learning to Teach: Making the Case for an Ecological Perspective on Inquiry.
Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Zhu, Y., Chen, H., Fan, J., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Chen, J., Fan, J., Yang, S., Hu, L., Leung,
H., Mew, T. W., Teng, P. S., Wang, Z., & Mundt, C. C. (2000). Genetic diversity
and disease control in rice. Nature, 406, 718 - 722.

299